Exactly! 😂

its not really stable, thats why lbm is better in terms of surface generation

@@TheCrzyPlayer Guys, i'm designing a single stage LPT (hardly 250mm at diameter) and it'll be made from TiAl. Which manufacturing method is most beneficial for this material?

If you need a good surface quality use Laser Beam Melting. EBM is fine too if the surface quality is not that important.

@@TheCrzyPlayer Thanks man, appreciate that

EBM is a fascinating process. Thanks for watching! 😊

@@colibriumadditive YOOOO! this is crazy man!!! WTF🤯🧪🥼💥

You sinter it with a 6.5kw electron beam similar to that of an electron microscope.

We'd be happy to help with your specific question here. --> invent.ge/3LAkeMK

That's doesn't matter. Crystal structure optimization and pore reduction is way more important.

I think the scan speed of EBM is generally ~1000 m/s. I don't know how "big" the beam diameter is, but generally you would multiply the cross-sectional area of this beam by the scan speed to figure out the rate at which it can create a single layer. Then, depending on how many layers you need to fill the part, you multiply the amount of time it takes to set the metal powder and move between layers, by the number of layers. To summarize: There are two components of the time it takes. The time to create a layer (based on the beam scan speed and diameter; and the area of the layer), and the time it takes to move between layers. You'd have to actually know how big the part is (the layer-by-layer area and the number of layers; or for a more rough estimate, just the volume, height, and the thickness of a layer will do it) to determine the actual time, but generally, ~1000 m/s is incredibly fast. To my understanding, you can compare it to laser based sintering, which I think is slower because it can't be controlled through a lens like EBM, giving it a slower scan speed.

@@cosmosity1693 Depends, I think? On what your purpose is, and how much you care about the final material properties. You probably know more about the applications of EBM more than I do, by your words, but I think it is still pretty important to get out parts fast, especially if you are not in super-high-fidelity areas and have a choice between EBM and some other process (i.e. you still need a high-quality part, but you don't need the /exact/ crystal structure type or specified porosity that EBM or some other process might ensure). In that case, the higher speed 3D printing is useful, because it makes things cheaper and gives you higher throughput (if you want to create a lot of your higher-fidelity parts). If you're doing research-level, bleeding-edge stuff and you only care about the material properties to make a few super-high-fidelity parts (not a technical term), I get that. But can't EBM be used for more general manufacturing too? In that case, throughput /does/ matter. In any case, it's probably good to know the general specs of any manufacturing process you're using, regardless of whether some aspects (like crystal structure optimization and pore reduction) are typically more important or emphasized in industry/real-life usage than others (such as speed, debatably, in this case). I'm not a manufacturing engineer, so any discussion or disagreement is appreciated.

Depending on accelerating voltage

Just keep a Snickers bar next to it's if it's good you probably are too

@@murderWhornets Help my snickers bar grew extra eyes, I was ok with the three eyes it normally has but now it's 5 which is just gross.