[HN Gopher] 3D printed titanium structure shows supernatural str...
___________________________________________________________________
3D printed titanium structure shows supernatural strength
Author : gmays
Score : 60 points
Date : 2024-03-03 16:54 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.rmit.edu.au)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.rmit.edu.au)
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| Rockets of the future
| LegitShady wrote:
| cool now perform a repair on something inside of it.
| eastbound wrote:
| Can you repair your hairdryer? It's literally a Chinese motor
| with a Chinese resistor, the two most frequent objects in the
| world.
|
| Objects in the industrial world can't be repaired. But Titanium
| can be melted.
| justinclift wrote:
| > Objects in the industrial world can't be repaired.
|
| That makes no sense to me, as industrial things commonly
| _are_ repaired. Sometimes many times across decades as one
| part or other wears.
| almostnormal wrote:
| From a certain point of view repairing is fixing things
| that are literally broken, which involves glueing, welding,
| screwing, ...
|
| Replacing parts is not repairing from that point of view,
| even if at a macroscopic level it returns something back to
| working condition.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| > Can you repair your hairdryer? It's literally a Chinese
| motor with a Chinese resistor, the two most frequent objects
| in the world.
|
| Most hair dryers don't come with parts manuals so we wouldn't
| know exactly which replacement part to get. And there's more
| to it like a switch, a cord, etc. These things could be
| designed for repair but they would have to provide reliable
| part numbers for the internals, which they currently do not
| do.
|
| > Objects in the industrial world can't be repaired.
|
| Objects in the industrial world most certainly can be
| repaired and it happens all the time. For example here is how
| a giant excavator tire is repaired:
|
| https://youtu.be/p0R-YWQCfdQ?si=iGagfyttgO5vTvDr
| PeterisP wrote:
| How do you perform repair on something inside a solid steel,
| titanium or aluminum block, which is what this structure
| replaces?
|
| These are structural components that don't have anything
| "inside" but are used as material for carrying/distributing
| loads, and their strength and weight is the thing that matters.
| If their integrity is compromised, you generally don't repair
| structural components if the repaired seam wouldn't have the
| same strength as the original material, but replace them.
| spectaclepiece wrote:
| Do you think there will be a market for typical household
| electronics items such as the hairdryer specifically made
| with repairability in the near future? Perhaps driven
| (unlikely) by consumer demand or more likely by resource
| prices or legislative pressure.
| 13of40 wrote:
| I think a real-life example that might illustrate the
| difference is a car that's been in an accident. A good body
| shop can do a lot as far as straightening components, doing
| new spot-welding, etc. in a car that's made with contemporary
| techniques, but imagine if it had a chassis or unibody
| components made out of this material. They would need to be
| replaced, because straightening won't repair the micro-
| structure, and they probably can't be welded. Replacement is
| going to be far costlier as well, because you'd have to
| disassemble the whole car and put it back together. plus the
| replacement part has to be meticulously 3D printed instead of
| stamped/forged/welded.
|
| That said, I can imagine it being good for applications like
| fighter jet components where it's probably considered scrap
| after the first accident.
| iancmceachern wrote:
| That's like saying, cool, now make a repair of a small Crack in
| the middle of the center later of a sheet metal panel.
|
| There is no need to do so. You would replace the part.
| ethagknight wrote:
| It would make sense that a complex structure that mimics the
| molecular structure would be stronger per unit of mass than a
| lump of the same material, in the same way that a simple i-beam
| or a truss is stronger that a solid rod of steel in specific
| design applications. In both cases, its strength where you need
| it; nothing where you don't
|
| Really neat stuff.
| goodSteveramos wrote:
| Do you think this team invented that idea? Im struggling to
| understand how large their contribution is.
| goodSteveramos wrote:
| The author seems to confuse what an alloy is with the shape of a
| metal part. The alloy is the chemical composition, the shape is
| just the shape. The basis of comparison is likewise flawed. It
| seems like they compare their shape printed in titanium to a
| solid block of magnesium, but they should really compare it to
| the best known titanium lattice as that would show how much of an
| improvement their design is. For all we know their design is
| worse than the existing state of the art
| zokier wrote:
| The article has whole section called "2.3 Comparison with
| Existing Metal Lattices"
| gimmeThaBeet wrote:
| At first with the kerning on my screen I was wondering why MIT
| had an Australian TLD.
|
| They seem most interested in the thin band running through the
| lattice, my curiosity is how well can the 3D printer make that
| consistently? I would assume it's contribution to strength might
| be pretty significant, and might be quite non-linear with any
| variance.
|
| A common frustration I've had with 3d printing is even keeping
| within specs on thin planes and walls can turn out suboptimally,
| but maybe thats some bike shedding, I'm ceratinly not doing
| anything in metal.
| rawfan wrote:
| Those industrial titanium powder printers are not comparable at
| all what you know, I assume. They're used at scale to produce
| airplane parts. Usually also utilising bionic structures, e.g.
| to make brackets that are much lighter and sturdier, than their
| conventional counterparts.
| larsrc wrote:
| Are these properties unique to printing in titanium? Doesn't
| sound like it. So hopefully we will see this as an infill option
| soon.
| Animats wrote:
| Right. This should be helpful for all 3D printing. Finite
| element analysis on infill patterns looks like it helps.
|
| This pattern looks like it's designed for an isotropic
| material. Sintered metal printers ought to produce solid metal.
| Extrusion printers, though, tend to have weaker inter-layer
| bonds than bonds within the layer. So this may not work as well
| in PLA. Might need a pattern that compensates for the weaker
| inter-layer bonds.
| jayyhu wrote:
| Also helpful for Stereolithographic printers (SLA/DLP/LCD),
| since they also don't have inter-layer adhesion issues like
| extrusion printers.
| interstice wrote:
| Recently saw an interesting infill/layer pattern that offset
| the layers and spaced them (think hexagonal pattern when
| viewed from the side) - might help with the single plane
| delaminating issue. Combined with this style of infill
| pattern we could be getting somewhere.
|
| Makes me wish I had time to mess around with GCODE
| krasin wrote:
| This sounds a lot like "brick layers" by CNC Kitchen:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hGm6cubFVs - I believe
| that something like that will be a must for future 3d
| printing slicers, as it increases mechanical strength with
| no extra hardware needed.
| thfuran wrote:
| No, I know I've read an article about 3d printed steels being
| stronger if arranged _just so_.
|
| Edit: it was probably about
| https://www.science.org/content/article/3d-printing-doubles-...
|
| It looks like there might be enough difference in relevant
| scale that both techniques could be applied.
| OvbiousError wrote:
| The hollow struts are interesting, I've worked with lattices but
| that's not something I saw before. I guess they are stronger than
| solid struts with a smaller diameter so they have the same amount
| of material.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| I'm very curious if they can actually empty the un-fused
| material out of those tiny struts. They said they printed it
| with a powder bed printer, so voids would be filled with powder
| unless they can be emptied. I'm curious how that affects
| weight. I wonder if they used the theoretical empty weight or
| the actual manufactured weight in their calculations, and how
| different that makes things.
| passwordoops wrote:
| This is awesome, but did they really need to use "supernatural"?
| There's an explanation for the strength using the laws of physics
| (or, dare I say, Nature) ergo it is not "supernatural"
| mym1990 wrote:
| If the outcome is stronger than what would be found in nature,
| I would find this to be "supernatural". Of course the term
| could get watered down as anything manipulated and altered by
| human or machine could be deemed supernatural I guess.
| thfuran wrote:
| But elemental titanium doesn't occur in nature in the first
| place, so the straining of terminology seems ill-founded
| unless we want to call my titanium spoon supernatural as
| well.
| blagie wrote:
| I do.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO0pcWxcROI
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| In your real life then, would you tell someone to their face
| that an aluminum can is "supernaturally" strong?
| anigbrowl wrote:
| We already have 'artificial' for this.
| blagie wrote:
| This is step 0.
|
| I suspect the real power will come in with composites. Even with
| metals, metal matrix can have very nice properties
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_matrix_composite) compared
| to a base metal.
|
| The key thing of interest here, to me, are the holes. The holes
| can be filled with something other than air.
| DanHulton wrote:
| Wouldn't that just raise the density of the structure and
| defeat the purpose?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-03 23:00 UTC)