The First 3D-Printed Steel Bridge
gizmodo.com
gizmodo.com
Unlike traditional 3d metal printing, which works by laying down a powder which is then baked in an oven to fully sinter it, this bridge seems to be constructed by directly welding additional metal to the existing structure.
Here's a fun DIY attempt at the same kind of idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFXniBbgbw0 (and, if you're into home machining, almost all of the other videos on his channel are very enjoyable too).
We're not quite at the fully consumer-ready stage yet, there is a lot of tinkering and know-how that would be too much for the average consumer. I'd say the current state of 3D printing is at the same level 2D printing was ~40 years ago (comparatively), but I'm confident we'll reach a similar stage within the next few years.
For those interested, the RepRap community is extremely active and there are lots of open-source projects (including hardware) to get involved with.
3D printing is an incredible intersection of software, electronics, machinery, chemistry, and an open, community-driven R&D environment. It is the most fun I’ve had since being a child building RC cars.
1. Basic electricity
2. PWM
3. Battery chemistry and care
4. Transmissions/gear ratios
5. How DC motors work. Winds and turns and brushes, etc.
6. Suspension basics
7. Basic RF (crystals and channels and avoiding interference)
8. Soldering
I didn't realize it at the time (and I don't think my parents did, either), but I learned so much more from that hobby than I did in school, for those areas.
3D printing feels the same way. I only recently got the Monoprice 120mm^2 unit, and it's working great for what I've thrown at it so far.
What are you using for all the non-plastic parts? Do you print slides and bracing as well?
I have started experimenting with printed linear rails, and likely V2 of the printer will have printed rails on the z axis. The bushings are printed nylon that thread directly into the bed, x carriage, etc. I would also like to start experimenting with printed wiring, but most conductive filament is more like resistor wire, so that would take some figuring out.
As far as the frame and all that; yes it’s all printed. You’d be surprised how much the part count starts to fall when you no longer have to attach different parts together and you instead start integrating them into a single, printed part.
Source: own and operate 50 3D printers
It sounds interesting. Are you printing arbitrary parts that other people send you, printing parts of your own design for your own products, or something else?
Incremental deposition may not yield a working 3D printer, but couldn't a small ensemble of machines construct all their parts? (Minus the chips, for now)
It's important to remember that the majority of the core technology in 3D printing today actually dates back to the late 1980s. We're starting to see some interesting developments in materials and capabilities, but there are still plenty of limitations that need to be overcome.
Spindles, motors, circuit boards with components on them and bearings, slides and so on are all multi material or very complex processes usually only doable if you produce a lot of something in one go.
Just try to think about what it would take to print something as trivial as lacquered copper wire for stepper motor windings or a circuit board with a reasonable level of integration.
And the biggest issue with that prediction is that there is no gain from it: printing the non-commodity parts is the whole trick to efficient 3D printing, mass produced parts will have incredible accuracy and very low pricing so use them when you can and 3D print the remainder.
To me the biggest hurdle is the electronics, which currently do require special tooling to even produce basic components. You're probably right that we're more than 20 years from self-replication ability (again, not practicality), but I'd be surprised if it's more than 50 years out.
[1] https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/1.A33409 [2] https://3dprintingindustry.com/research/
Someone questioning your use for operating 50 printers reminded me about a recent raid on a Dutch drugs crime organization. They used 3D printers to custom print fake Nintendo game cases, ink cartridges and fake make-up compacts and then used those to hide the drugs.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/riverbed/2018/03/14/connecting-...
To be clear, not suggesting in any way that you do this.
My current favorite application is to make holding fixtures for things like breakout boards so that I can fabricate systems out of a bunch of separate boards easily.
You don't need to print up a full-scale prototype anymore than you would do that with a traditional design and construction technique.
I suppose you could do that with FDM as well, but the precision required for smaller prints is much greater.
How would you recommend a 3D printer operator could learn more about Grasshopper? Are the tutorials good?
EDIT:Yes, it's that grasshopper https://www.rhino3d.com/6/new/grasshopper for a demo reel
Compared to Solidworks, Inventor, Studio Tools, Catia or any other package, a grand is a steal.
And compared to the horrific productivity of "free" cad packages, you will quickly recoup that cost. (aka Fusion360/TinkerCAD , SCAD)
I haven't used the expensive programs, but do a lot of work in 360. Would love to know what I'm missing.
If you do a google image search for 'grasshopper geometry' or 'grasshopper architecture', you'll see a lot of buildings designed with grasshopper, including many which have been constructed.
There are other interesting things going on, like automated construction with robots or laser cutters. For example, theverymany builds massive organic structures out of laser-cut metal pieces, and the living (new york) did some interesting things with robotic placement of bricks.
New design tools specialized for automated manufacturing methods.
Before anyone scoffs that this must result in nerdy and ugly shapes, airplanes are beautiful shapes and none of that is for aesthetics or artistic purposes. It's simply the best shape for flying. As manufacturing techniques improve, the airplane shapes get more subtly flowing forms, and get even more beautiful.
There's a great deal of point to it - saving money in material and fabrication costs.
This is a technology demonstration, not an example of super high efficiency. It also took much longer to make than it would have taken to make it in a more traditional way.
That said it still came in rather competitive compared to the alternatives, which says quite a bit about how manufacturers of such structures normally charge.
In my reading about the history of aircraft, aesthetics have nothing to do with it. Performance and cost are everything.
For example, the elliptical wing of the Spitfire is often mentioned as a big part of the beauty of the design. But the elliptical planform is the most efficient wing design (the Mitsubishi Zero had one, too, for the same reason). Giving your pilots every edge possible is everything in those designs. And yet look at the beauty that resulted.
The downside of the Spitfire shape was it took twice as many hours to produce as the Me-109, which was designed to be easy to manufacture.
I can't think of a single successful airplane design that was designed to be beautiful - from the Wright Flyer to the Sopwith Camel to the Spitfire to the DC-3 to the Concorde to the Blackbird. Not one. Yet they're all beauties.
Art makes us think about what could be - and imagine a future of solutions that are utilitarian in new ways, or address needs we didn't know we had.
There is beauty in engineering. There is also beauty in pure imagination.
https://www.tudelft.nl/en/2015/io/the-first-3d-printed-bridg...
Ah, it is the same project only a bit delayed and they've redesigned the bridge itself and moved the project indoors during the printing phase (which makes good sense).
Great work!
It's 1000 km of welding wire welded together. It counts as a new "type" of steel depending on how flexible you are with what counts as different "types".
The surface of the mild steel would rust and the stainless wouldn't!