Yes less thinking about "how" a design can be made

Yes and no. These machines are awesome, but control over the finished cured size just isn't there. You can't count on a part like that staying within any amount of tolerance less than a few thou at absolute best. I've seen shops have to run a part like that 5-10 times just to get one that was in tolerance. It's super sensitive to laser temperature, layer temperature, powder temperature, etc. Much less the final sintering stages have to be dead on repeatable.

@@BrettFleming I think your point is very important to consider. 3D printing plastic is the same way. Consequently, in my lab, a "tolerance" parameter is used in CAD to attempt to "dial it in". Any luck in your metal shop attempting a similar procedure? Imagine having also to build a climate-controlled room to house your already expensive machine!

Process time and scrap rate will change your mind about metal 3d printing. Good for prototyping and rapid iteration. Ask for a lead time on 10000 of what he just made and you will see what I mean. Also no economies of scale so cost doesn't come down much if any at high production volumes.

@@BrettFleming Spot on. Some traditional machining will always be needed but its pretty wild seeing it advance this fast and this much. DMG MORI has a Combo 5-axis Mill with swappable Metal 3D Printing head pretty cool seeing the promo video of it at least. Print, Machine, add more material, then machine that.

Imagine another 20 years...

@@BeastMode-ts6eg Technology brings not progress, but an illusion of progress. On our deathbed, 3D printers cannot help us to get a better next life nor tell us what is our next life going to be like. And yes life does not end with the death of the body, as most Westerners are taught to think.

@@BeastMode-ts6eg Right!? I cannot wait for the new Virus 3D Printer so that a psychopath can print out the Spanish Flu's genome and kill millions! Not to mention 3D printed guns!

Must of been a old powder bed system, the NASA SLA printers back then had pretty high resolution. The guys who created them went on to found stratasys and objet (as well as created the modern STL format)

@@BeastMode-ts6eg Imagine being that poor mf with a 3D printed heart valve from '94

I'm skeptical if there are applications beyond prototyping and maybe replacing the odd spare part that can't be found elsewhere. Think of the energy it takes to basically laser weld all of the powder into one part. Traditional methods are still faster and cheaper for mass production.

don't worry, you will live to 107

@@ramdas363 Metallic sintering is used quite a bit in Formula 1 for both Race and Wind tunnel parts, and has been for the past 15 years - In Inconel, Titanium, Aluminium and Maraging steel. But yes, the volumes are far of being considered mass production.

​@@ramdas363 look up 3d printed rockets and rocket engines. Theyre cutting that cost way down.

@@ramdas363 this is still early days, im sure these machines can be better calibrated for mass production if need be.

lot of old vehicles are being restored like this!

They are now printing organic material. Within 50 years humans will have access to printed skin. Noses and ears will be the easiest. Bone and organs might take some extra work.

I fixed up a part on my 20 year old motorhome this way. I destroyed one of the fiberglass wheel arch trims in an altercation with a fence. I used photogrammetry to scan the good side of the van into a 3d model, loaded it into the PC and mirrored it, CAD'd up a model that roughly followed the same shape, printed off a test of the full piece in plastic (had to do it in like 11 parts and glue together since my printer only handles 22cm cubed build volume) to ensure it fit to the vehicle, then printed a mould using the same CAD file to lay up fiberglass into.

@@wyvvernstone “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

It is pretty neat. The parent company to the one I work for uses mostly CNC's and screw machines, but back in April they bought a 3d metal printing place. Recently we been getting insert holders with more efficient cooling channels for things like a muratecs, and okumas. Along with a ton of new insert designs. Right now they are just working with tool and die making but planning on more complicated designs for general market to our suppliers our CNC's and screws can't make.

Been around since the 70's too

@@jonhaze7537 insane when you think about it. Just like the SR-71 reading about the tech in that aircraft to be designed and built back then.

We purchased the vise😂😂😂 Waiting for it to arrive

@@TITANSofCNC awesome!

Lol that was a great idea, i cant wait

Did you try high frequency vibration and an air-blast to fluidize and clear the bulk of the powder?

Ultrasonic cleaning?? 🤔

@@hoping67 sadly didn't work. We ended up having to reprint the part.

@@mattcook544 oh bummer was it a total redesign or can you write in different steps and galleries??,just out of interest how far do you test the part that's been "printed" what's the typical life expectancy compared to cast parts for instance an exhaust manifold? Also Is the part weldable? Sorry for the questions it's absolutely fascinating

My experience is that this heavily dependent on passage size, and if there are and 'hard' bends. Sub 2.5mm passages seem to have a pretty bad form if they aren't going in roughly perpendicular to the layers. I'm not sure where the cutoff is that a 90 or 180 degree bend can be done without issues as I've never designed anything with big enough passages.

That could take a while, I an thinking $5k or less for "hobbyists" and even that isn't cheap.

The key benefit to 3D printing is a near-complete freedom of design. Additive manufacturing enables you to produce shapes that are simply impossible with conventional CNC methods. Cost isn't the main issue. If that better shape creates a superior product, then the increased production cost can be worth it. Example: Companies are now 3D printing injection moulding dies with conformal cooling channels, so cooling channels that closely follow the injection cavity. The example I saw had a cooling time of 5 seconds before part ejection. The conventional injection mould for the same part required 30 seconds of active cooling before ejection. Chopping 25 seconds of the cycle time is *HUGE* so the one-time extra production cost over conventional CNC parts is accepted without any issue. I've seen a 3D printed elbow joint for a concrete pumping setup. It was 10x the price of a conventional cast and machined part. But the prototype had been in service for 11 months straight, where the conventional part had to be replaced every 6 weaks because of wear. The AM part was much more shape-optimized so it would 1) last much longer and 2) cause a lot less down-time. Again, production cost isn't the primary concern. GE did a clean-sheet design of a new turbofan for the Cesna Denali, their new Catalyst engine. That new engine is lighter, more fuel efficient _and_ more powerful, thanks to 3D printing. They consolidated what traditionally would require some 800 separate components into *12* printed parts. Assembly is much easer, and much less fault-prone, the number of parts that require stocking is massively reduced, etc. Again: if additive manufacturing is more expensive than CNC (and it most definitely is!) then there are several ways to offset this with other benefits. But you really need clean-sheet designs for this to really pay off.

You're absolutely correct, but in 20-30 years this technology will have probably advanced enough to give it the edge over CNC even cost wise. I love the possibilities it opens.

Right now, I think the technology is best used as a prototyping device - you can work through a large number of iterations much more quickly and once you're settled on a finalized part, then you can move to traditional manufacturing methods to bring the per piece costs down.

@@bobdole4916 The biggest benefit of additive manufacturing is the near-complete freedom of design. Sure, it's great for prototyping of parts that can be produced conventionally, but its real advantage is that you can create shapes that are otherwise simply impossible to produce. That allows for new levels of weight saving, for new levels of parts integration, for new levels of shape optimisation, and so on. The new GE Catalyst turbofan engine? Complete clean-sheet design, made by additive manufacturing: lighter, more fuel efficient _and_ more powerful, and some 800 components consolidated into just 12. Will be available in the single prop new Cesna Denali. Prototyping you say? Condolences by the way, for your namesake.

@@Hydrazine1000 I hadn't considered products that would have a low production quantity - very good point.

The 3d printed wont be as strong

SLM printed parts typically have a martensite grain structure, not sure with this machine in particular since it's "multi-laser"

The difference heavily depends on the materials. For steel the best 3D printed material is a lot weaker than what can be produces by other means (single crystal steel for aviation), on other materials their characteristics are near identical.

Never happen. You need to MELT/FUSE metal. That is never going to be cheap.

@@shooter7a that what they said in 1890 for car. Horse will always be faster and cheaper..

@@yanicktanguay2746 uh...sorry but that is a terrible analogy. Do you have any science or engineering knowledge at all? There is this thing called Enthalpy of Fusion that you would know about if you could pass a college level science class. It takes a LOT of energy to change the phase of a metal from solid to liquid so it will fuse. Energy costs. And the components to handle and transform lots of energy cost lots of money. Advancements in technology can not change the laws of physics and thermodynamics.

@@shooter7a no I'm not a master or any scientific. But I'm only a student of 25 y/o I bet in 75 years. We will discovert many way to produce energy, maybe solar, hydrogen, nuclear...

@@yanicktanguay2746 Cars are getting more and more expensive. If you need to go to the early 1900s to make that point, is it really a solid point?

i made chatgpt write that for me.

17 years

Metal printed parts have nearly the same properties as their cast counterparts. Usually around 95% if I recall. Should be as strong as a cast or milled part for most intents and purposes

It will dent or bend at the impacted area instead of shatter

@@PrintsandProps I’m not sure they are quite at that level, especially in fatigue properties It’s very impressive though

Given that it's 316L and that it's a selective laser melting (SLM) printer, you're looking at 99,5% density or better. It will sit between cast 316L in terms of strenght, and billet 316L. The grain size will be better than as-cast, but it will not (yet) meet properties of forged 316L. Given that 316L is highly ductile, it will dent or bend, depending from the drop height and angle of impact. But it all depends on the printing method: the laser power, the spot size, the scanning pattern, single melting or remelting, layer height, the powder quality, and so on.

@@PrintsandProps See my other reply: properties depend on a lot of factors. Selective laser sintering (SLS) can get up to 95% density, Selective Laser Melting (SLM) which this TRUMP printer does, can surpass 99,5% density. 3D printed parts can exceed as-cast properties, getting close to forged billet.

If stuff flows thru it, can you not sandblast the interior? With like, probing lines similar to those plumbing cameras or laproscopy tools?

The material removal won't be uniform and will concentrate on points and areas like the outer side of a bend. Even an abrasive line that can be used both in tensing and compression has limits. And when dealing with high stress/pressure , any rough, sharp feature can became a focus for stress concentration and shearing/fracturing. Very smooth surfaces are necessary if you're working near the limits of a material.

@@FiltyIncognito might be true for pressure applications but then Porsche already used this tech for pistons years ago. In series production. Sure it's not perfect yet but especially for the automotive industry it can replace casting completely. Have you ever seen water channels in an engine block to be sanded or polished after casting

Honestly, I'm not sure how to succinctly reply. It'd be easier to just hand you a textbook on manufacturing processes. The limitations of 3D printing are well documented. It's a great publicity stunt, though.

@@FiltyIncognito im sure everyone who made breakthroughs and innovations only followed textbooks. If you understand engineering then you can understand improvements in tech, for now it's amazing. But it's not meant to replace other forms of manufacturing, just offer another option. If it can make impossible parts, even if not at peak efficiency, that sounds like a big win. Fine tuning and tech will get it to where it's most likely one day a major manufacturing process. I'd imagine it does have limitations, but doesn't everything?

In these types of machines the powder is re used. Nearly 100% of the powder is recoverable

I think the powder going bad issue is a thermoplastic thing

Because this is a heat transfer component I think the turbulence and increased surface area would be net positive. Based on how narrow the tubes are I would guess that pressure loss isn't something they are concerned about.

The surface finish is half the diameter of the particles, so pretty rough. Maybe 800 grit sandpaper. After looking it up the particles are around 30 micron.

@@d3m0n54in7 thanks

The surface finish almost certainly does increase resistance, but 3D printing lets you reduce the size of the component so much that you often end up with lower overall drag.

@@JamesSeedorf I mean... valid point but I wasn't really wondering the efficency for that particular application. Rather in general for fluid transportation. I guess I should have phrased my question a bit differently^^

It’s like the material that you print with so if this was 316 it would be soft. We run 17/4 so you can heat treat it after and it gets “hard”

It won't be cheap, but if there is no viable manufacturing alternative then you have to pay the price. I'm sure costs will come down as this becomes more mainstream.

Just as a best eyeballed guesstimate from someone that does this, you're probably looking at 2-3 days to print then another few hours to cut that off the build plate if that's all you want to do (there is often some post-processing depending on your needs). With just that, I'd say maybe around $10k.

Likely a show piece yes

Came to ask the same thing, it must be a show piece to display the internal structure.

well I guess if you want to see if the internals turn out OK, you need to have a window in one first before you go making the real part.

Not to mention the opening on the side...?

I guess being curved, they have extra length,hence extra surface for heat exchange

it's not even a heat exchanger large flanges on the side for coolant to be passed through would make sense . but it's really just a useless part that looks cool until you ask yourself WTF is that for.

It has ports for the heat exchange fluid, so you could get the powder out of those.

@@Vel0cir you could get most powder out but there's still plenty of powder left in there to contaminate your cooling system and depending on which pump is used, completely destroy it.

Very American

i havent even watched the video and i already agree with you

Some of us LIKE it. It's appropriate to the feeling we have when watching it.

Trumpf - German company. I think the 3d metal print technology is by a Italian company they bought

the powerpack (turbopump assembly) on most modern rocket engines are made almost entirely with additive manufacturing. Laser powder bed machines such as the one in this video are responsible for nearly every rocket engine fuel injector made over the last 15 years. Space hardware is a unique industry with low volume requirements but extreme high precision, its basically the ideal industry for additive to get a foothold.

There is little that "better parts" is going to do to make space travel more efficient. The issue is thermodynamics. The potential energy of rocket fuels vs mass.

@@shooter7a so realistically, we need to look into alternative "fuel", whatever that may be. Then when we discover something different than what we have available now, the additive manufactured parts could play a bigger role with reimagined fuel source/engine designs.

"whatever that may be". LOL. Do you know anything about the history of rocket propulsion and rocket fuels? You act like chemists have not been trying for 50+ years to come up with something better. About 170 different propellants made of liquid fuel have been tested, excluding minor changes to a specific propellant such as propellant additives, corrosion inhibitors, or stabilizers. In the U.S. alone at least 25 different propellant combinations have been flown. As of 2020, no completely new propellant has been used since the mid-1970s. Sorry...there is nothing new out there to "find". Go learn about chemistry and thermodynamics.

@@shooter7a wow. Amazing.