/diy/ - Do It Yourself

[Anonymous No.634117]

Would 3d printed stainless steel be strong enough and heat resistant enough to build a small (3cc) 4 stroke engine? I would use CAD files already available.

Something like this but smaller.

Some specs
Alloy Family: 420 SS+ Bronze (40% bronze)
UTS: 99 KSI (682 MPa)
Yield: 66 KSI (455 MPa)
Modulus: 21.4 MPSI (147 GPa)
Elongation: 2.30%
Hardness: 20-25 HRc

[Anonymous No.634118]

>>634117
There are others on this board more qualified, but I would be skeptical at best.

[Anonymous No.634126]

>>634117
Most of those engines are made from aluminium, so it would probobly be just fine

[Anonymous No.634128]

>>634126
Don't aluminum engine blocks usually have some lining of steel though? Not sure about small RC engines but still.

[Anonymous No.634129]

>>634117
I'd worry more about the printing tolerances and surface finish.

[Anonymous No.634132]

..you do know they are 3d printing rocket engines, right? So yeah, provided you use a high quality metal printer.

[Anonymous No.634133]

>>634132
That sounds very misleading. Which parts are they 3d printing? The whole engine? Are they structural and meant to withstand the heat and pressure that a cylinder is supposed to take?

[Anonymous No.634137]

>>634129
This.

What about printing a mold, finishing it and casting the block in aluminum?

[Anonymous No.634139]

>>634129
With metal 3D printing they're actually able to create layers by adding just a few microns at a time. Not sure about the surface finish though. That's probably still a concern.

[Anonymous No.634140]

>>634128
Yep, steel sleeve down the length of the piston stroke. Doesn't matter what size the engine is, a smooth consistent bore is fundamental.

>>634133
Not so misleading, Rocket nerds are printing everything (including titanium combustion chambers) and F1 teams are printing entire engines. Of course, they are using Selective Laser Sintering, which is still additive manufacture, but significantly more costly and complex process than standard "heat filament, lay out part" kind of stuff.

The type of printing you'd want to be doing would be SLS, which AFAIK, is still beyond the reach of the hobbyist. Now go develop a cheap SLS system to build your engine and make squillions from hackerspaces everywhere.

[Anonymous No.634143]

>>634137
You'd still need to mill it down to a micrometer level of precision for parts like crank bearings and the inner bore of the cylinder (that your steel sleeve will slide into). To print a cast, mold it and mill it again is adding too much complexity. Your best option is simply to coarse print the part and mill down the high tolerance sections once completed.

>>634139
If you can print to micron level, you can print your surfaces and edges to micron level. Just because you're at an edge does not mean the printer suddenly looses precision anymore than a paper printer loses precision at the margin.

[Anonymous No.634144]

>>634139
>they
Sounds like OP is going to use Shapeways.

[Anonymous No.634145]

>>634143
>paper printers did lose precision at the margins and its taken literally centuries to get to the point they are now.

[Anonymous No.634147]

>>634143
>>634145
>anymore than a paper printer loses precision at the margin
>mills only accurate within a third of center of the table

[Anonymous No.634149]

>>634145
> citation needed.

How can a printhead, who's operation is in no way tied to its lateral position, lose precision when it gets to the edges of the runner bar?

[Anonymous No.634154]

>>634149
He's probably talking about the laser printers, which use (used?) a mirror to deflect the beam. Round beam in an angle -> elliptical spot.

[Anonymous No.634159]

>>634154
Ahh yeah, that makes sense. I was picturing inkjets (well, a dot matrix actually, but that's my vintage)

[Anonymous No.634162]

>>634133
The whole engine, yes. For multiple examples, see google.

[Anonymous No.634163]

>>634129
>a desired accuracy of 0.2mm has been achieved for the direct laser sintering system.

http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/3898

[Anonymous No.634167]

>>634163
>http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/3898
Fuck the D-Lab, they always go downstairs to our shop and never put away tools or clean their chips off our mills/lathe

[Anonymous No.634180]

>hey cool there's a whole new technology out there!
>I'm going to use it to build everything!
>if I need a spoon, I'm going to 3D print it!
>if I need toilet paper, I'm going to 3D print it!
>if I need food, I'm going to 3D print it!
>I'm going to 3D print my house!
>I'm going to 3D print an aardvark!
>A real live aardvark!
>I'm going to 3D print my whole life!

No concept of the suitability of materials, the cost of doing the manufacture, nothing. Yeah, 3D printing disposable plastic sporks is a great use of resources.

Stainless steel has galling problems when parts rub on it. That's why they use cylinder liners. That's why the high-end model airplane engine manufacturers advertise their products as "ABC" -- being made of Aluminum, Brass, and Chrome.

But let's just fucking ignore EVERYTHING THAT ANYONE HAS EVER LEARNED ABOUT METALLURGY, MATERIAL PROPERTIES, GALLING, FRICTION, WHATEVER. Throw it all out because
>we be 3D printing now!

[Anonymous No.634192]

>>634180
> But lets just ignore EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE LEARNED ABOUT ELECTRONS, GRID CONTROL CURRENTS, VIBRATORS, TETRODES, WHATEVER.
throw it all out because
> we be silicon now!

Technology evolves and adapts. Evolve with it or become a fucking dinosaur. Also, we have already established that OP would need a sleeve in the cylinder and machined bearings and friction points, read the fucking thread numbnuts.

Now link to a major manufacturer 3d printing spoons on bulk, or fuck off to /b/. They are much more welcoming to unfounded shitposting than we are.

[Anonymous No.634208]

>>634117
>Would 3d printed stainless steel be strong enough and heat resistant enough to build a small (3cc) 4 stroke engine?
Some parts: Yes
Most of the parts: No

The surface finish on 3D-Printed Stainless Steel is pretty terrible, so you would have to do post machining on all of the surfaces that have a flatness requirement and counter-bores need to have bearings pressed into them. And if you can do post machining on such a small part you could just machine one from billet.

You can't use stainless steel as a cylinder wall. A cast iron sleeve is usually used inside an aluminum cylinder head that's cast and then machined.

3D printing is less than ideal for assemblies that are going to have many moving parts, and oil-tight seals.

[Anonymous No.634258]

>>634117
No, it won't. It'll fly apart. Engines need to be made from machined parts.

[Anonymous No.634262]

>>634258
Go tell that to the redbull F1 racing team, who almost exclusively now 3D print engine and chassis components.

[Anonymous No.634330]

>>634117
Op here.

Thanks guys, here is my plan for my .020 size 2 stroke diesel:

Print cylinder, piston, crankshaft, crankcase. Sleeve the cylinder, buy the bearings, machine the crank and piston to tolerances/ smoothness requirements.

What do you think?

[Anonymous No.634332]

>>634330
Sounds pretty reasonable actually. Let us know how it goes.

[Anonymous No.634341]

>>634262
Without machining to size and spec?

My ass they do.

[Anonymous No.634351]

>>634180
Bro 3d printing brings technology to the hobbyist. Nothing wrong with that. With time the techniques could be improved and could be made to match the quality of the standard way of producing things.

[Anonymous No.634406]

>>634163


0.2mm is nearly 8 thousandths of an inch. Many parts of an engine are manufactured to a tolerance of 1 thousandth or less. In a hobby setting like OP's, tolerances usually can't be any more than +/- .002 inches without things getting wonky.

Basically, the direct laser sintering system's accuracy of 0.2mm means that less material is wasted when they machine the parts to size.

[Anonymous No.634445]

>>634180
Bears schlepping it all up there by rocket.

[Anonymous No.634448]

>>634406
As a mechanical engineering student who's only been playing around on lathes and mills for a couple years, is there something really magical about 1 thou? Is there some sort of physical/atomic relationship or something? Or is it just the best accuracy our tools can cheaply spit out while still providing good performance?

[Anonymous No.634464]

>>634180

[Anonymous No.634505]

>>634448
latter

[Anonymous No.634508]

>>634140

Be aware that aerospace/F1 place an emphasis on weight and single-unit-run costs. If you're building something that you expect to last for more than a few shots, you'll want to try something else.

[Anonymous No.634509]

>>634351
Except no hobbyists have laser metal sintering 3d printers. These people are being fucking stupid, its nothing that couldnt be done by the hobbyist from traditional manufacturing techniques.

[Anonymous No.634510]

>>634149

Printing presses don't apply equal pressure at all parts of the paper, later fully automatic printers had to deal with page feed and alignment issues, etc.

[Anonymous No.634512]

>>634192

Except that vacuum tubes/valves still have applications where they're better than silicon. Nothing handles high power into crappy loads or harsh transients like tubes, and they're still in active production all over.

[Anonymous No.634513]

>>634448

This >>634505

Basically, anything more precise can't be obtained by anything other than a specialty shop. Anything less precise and you have a devil of a time compensating for the tolerances.

[Anonymous No.634523]

3d pouring isn't yet obsolete.

[Anonymous No.634546]

>>634523
Now that I think about it, 3d printing seems like a good way to make models for casting.

[Anonymous No.634549]

>>634546
This is already done by a lot of places

[Anonymous No.634550]

>>634549
Obviously.

But I haven't seen much of it on the hobby level.

Are there any hobby printers that can do parafin printing? That could speed up lost-wax casting considerably.

[Anonymous No.634551]

>>634550
I've not much experience with casting, only done it with jeweler's wax and had someone very experienced do the casting, but what's to prevent the plastic extrusions from say a makerbot from being burned out in an oven like wax?

[Anonymous No.634599]

>>634508
Yeah, fair point actually, especially in aerospace where parts are use once and destroyed.

Awareness accepted.

[Anonymous No.634829]

>>634546
I have literally done this.

[Anonymous No.634832]

>>634464
What can I say, I used to read Wired.com back when everything about 3D printing was how everyone was going to switch everything over to using it and we could all ditch the mass production corporate state and be self-sufficient. Well, except for buying rolls of filament.

That was last year, BTW. This year they were all about Bitcoin until the price dropped again, and I have no idea what they're foaming about now.

[Anonymous No.634834]

>>634464
What can I say, I used to read Wired.com back when everything they wrote was how everyone was going to switch over to using 3D printing to print everything they'd ever need in the comfort of their own homes and we could all ditch the mass production corporate state and be self-sufficient. Well, except for buying rolls of filament.

That was last year, BTW. This year they were all about Bitcoin until the price dropped again, and I have no idea what they're foaming about now.

[Anonymous No.634856]

>>634834
>Wired.com
Oh my. That's one of the few things as bad as IFLS, "futurologist" shows on discovery channel such as popular science and the likes and future weapons... Glad you got better fella.

[Anonymous No.634860]

>>634509

I hate the 3-d printing hype just as much as you.

It does bring a limited number of new things to the hobbyist, but
anything real costs real money.

The biggest problem is that mass manufacturing is fast and efficient. 3-d printing is slow as hell.

Just for fun, I made this youtubedoubler of a 3-d printer making a guitar and a mill carving guitar bodies. Guess which one finishes first? :)

http://youtubedoubler.com/cl3p

[Anonymous No.634863]

>>634860
>but muh drones
>but muh 3d printed shipping container buried houses with egg boxes sound proofed walls that live in 3d printed trucks
>but muh singularity
>but muh hype
>but muh grey mass and information society
>but muh not needing to know how to model or how things work to print them

[Anonymous No.635061]

Also, to those shitting on OP for 3d printing, is 3d printing slightly oversize and then machining to final dimensions really different than just casting oversize and machining to final size really?

[Anonymous No.635094]

>>635061

When using a very, very expensive additive manufacturing machine, no it's not "really different". But when using a POS fagbox that only spits out plastics that are shitty to machine, yes, it is very different.

[Anonymous No.635095]

>>635094
Yes, but OP's printing stainless steel, so it sounds like he's got access to something a bit more complicated than a MakerBot. Besides, for doing one off like this, wouldn't 3d printing be cheaper than casting? I know we get a lot of shitheads with 3d printing but OP is taking suggestions and sounds at least reasonably intelligent

[Anonymous No.635125]

>>635095
OP is going to send his CAD design to Shapeways, a commercial 3D printing company focused on consumers. Also see: http://www.shapeways.com/rrstatic/material_docs/mds-stainless.pdf

Their material hub is quite large to choose from already, but to my understanding they outsource metal printings to other companies.

[Anonymous No.635126]

>>635125
I guess all we can do at this point is to wait for OP to post pictures, even though pics rarely get posted

[3dprintingfag !!XDLOZzmenCL No.635132]

>>634117
Why? It will cost more than if you just bought it, it will perform worse than if you just bought it, it will probably break sooner than if you just bought it.

If you really want to print an engine, you should redesign it so it actually offers some advantage to 3d printing it.

>>40% bronze
I wouldn't trust it. That sort of stuff is primarily for jewelry. Keep in mind that most of these manufacturers over report their material properties. I'd also be worried about fatigue, but you might just assume the worst case and calculate how long it will last and see if that's acceptable.

>>634140
>>they are using Selective Laser Sintering
Nope, they are using Selective Laser Melting(SLM), which is even more complicated than laser sintering.

SLM printers are way out of reach of hobbyists. Not to mention the HIP* machine needed for post processing to make strong components.

You also have to remove supports, MADE OF METAL!

>>634262
They also almost definitely HIP* all their prints.

*hot isostatic pressing, all you need to know is that it's really expensive

>>634330
Don't expect it to work the first time, you will probably have to redesign after getting your first print back.

>>634551
nothing at all. This is done sometimes with profession FDM printers. The general process is coat in plaster, and stick in an autoclave.

>>635061
The material properties for the 3d printed part will differ quite a bit. It differs from casting in that you don't have to make a mold and can easily make things that are difficult to mold.

[Anonymous No.635133]

>>635132
Listen to this man, for he speaks the truth.

[Anonymous No.635153]

Go for it. Just apply a Babbitt coating. Though IRL engines use Babbitt as bearing surface, the methanol / nitro air cooled engine does not get hot enough to ruin such a coating (evident they require a glow plug coil to retain combustion temperatures in the head).

[Anonymous No.635164]

>>634863
>but muh exploding after two shots 3D printed gun
I'm wondering what's happened to Cody Whateverhisnameis. I know he jumped on the bitcoin wallet thing recently, but he supposedly was a law school graduate, and being investigated by the FBI for violating ITAR is not conducive to a legal career.

[Anonymous No.636014]

>>634192
Aren't printed circuit boards a miniturization of that tech? 3D printing is a completely new paradigm.

I agree that 3D printing is going to have extremely limited and narrow uses.

[Anonymous No.636022]

>3d printing engine parts
>not just 3d printing electric motor
stay stupid and inefficient combustionfags.

[Anonymous No.636039]

>>636022
let me know when your battery pack can bring as much to the game as a combustion motor.

You know. Because of all those efficient hybrid airplanes. That run on batteries. (People run electric models for convenience)

[Anonymous No.636042]

>>634117
No.

[Anonymous No.636046]

>>636039
>>636022
Challenge me, but lipos probably started more fires than all the years of nitro-engines.

OP makes Cox.

[3dprintingfag !!XDLOZzmenCL No.636059]

>>636022
You can do it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pghZG1Neyc0

Though there are more fun possibilities offered by printing a jet turbine motor.

In fact, right now, we're getting pretty close to making molds for jet turbine blades via 3d printing

[Anonymous No.636929]

>>636046
>probably
Yeah. no. Lithium batteries are not more flammable than gasoline.

Whenever lipos fail in EVs its a controller related failure, ECUs and other controllers fail in vehicles on both sides of the aisle.

>>636039
2015-2016 it will exceed and surpass the fuel efficiency of gasoline.

However in a race, an electric motor will destroy a combustion engine every single time. Max torque gets the EV a 2 car lead right off the line.

Its also more efficient because burnt gasoline is lost whenever the vehicle brakes and loses energy as heat. An EV can recover energy used to accelerate from regenerative breaking.

As for aircraft, many of today's drones are electric. Even spacecraft will be using electric in time.

Electricity is superior to combustion, because electricity can be produced by combustion among many other methods of generating energy.

>>636059
that is fucking sick thanks for sharing. 3d printed car is that much closer if graphene printers ever go commercial.

[Anonymous No.636947]

>>636929
>2015-2016 it will exceed and surpass the fuel efficiency of gasoline.
Technology and scientific predictions. Feels like Popular Science in here
>DRONES THE FUTURE OF TOMORROW TODAY NOW GREY MASS BEWARE

[Anonymous No.636953]

>>636929
there are no drones that use electric unless you're talking something that's still rc airplane sized, which is done for convenience and noise

just lol@spacecraft using electric, I don't think you understand how rockets work.

diesel: 45MJ/kg
lipo: .95MJ/kg
and I can recharge my car or airplane in a minute stop anywhere in the world.
the diesel/gas engine would need to be less than 2% efficient assuming the electric engine was somehow perfectly efficient.

you know why electricity sucks? Because you produce it, almost definitely with inefficient mechanical means, ship it over an inefficient power infrastructure, store it in an inefficient battery, and then turn it inefficiently back into mechanical energy. If you're fed by a coal power plant and charging a hybrid or ev, you're actually putting more co2 in the air than if you just drove an efficient petrol/diesel car.

not to mention batteries are some of the most toxic industrial products and use some of the rarest elements on the planet.

fuck peak oil, worry about peak lithium, we can make more oil with bacteria, we need to import an asteroid if we want more lithium

[Anonymous No.636970]

>>636929
>electric space ships
Why these people are allowed to type

[Anonymous No.636982]

>>636039
>(People run electric models for convenience)

Last I heard, you don't see gas/nitro cars in serious RC races anymore because they get trashed by the electrics...

[Anonymous No.636988]

>>636982
>People talking about one thing
>That's not like that for this completely different case
Okay den.

The conversation was about rc airplanes you dingus. The instant torque and response from an electric doesn't get you much in air, but it is a lot nicer than carrying gas around and fucking with glow plugs and shit.

[Anonymous No.637045]

>>636953
>worry about peak lithium,
Jesus fuck what are you smoking. Lithium isn't rare. Boron is 1/2 as abundant and we mine 100X as much. We just don't need lithium for much.

[Anonymous No.637129]

>>637045
Oh wait, you're right. I must have meant Lanthanum.

[Anonymous No.637159]

If anything, I thought our biggest issue materials-wise in replacing oil with electricity was neodymium for magnets

[Anonymous No.637316]

>>637129
I use Lanthanum Chloride at work.
Should I steal it?

[Anonymous No.637319]

>>637316
Are you a desperate idiot?
The answer to that is the same as the answer to your original question.

[Anonymous No.637417]

>>637159
Our biggest problem as in everything is simply the lack of will. I live in brazil mate. There are tons of problems here that need pharaonic, expensive, creative and long lasting solutions but everything is meh, "I can't build this railroad that'll save some lives and give us billions of monies because of this rare kind of liverwort living here so lets just meh leave everything as it is". Meanwhile Chinks make a huge ass damn in half a week. The same applies for energy.

[3dprintingfag !!XDLOZzmenCL No.637633]

>>636929
>> 3d printed car is that much closer if graphene printers ever go commercial.
Graphene is already 3d printed commercially. And by graphene, they really just mean little bits of graphite embedded in plastic. It makes the plastic slightly stronger and slightly conductive.

It's mostly done for the slightly conductive part so that one can make electrostatic charge dissipation elements for airplanes(and to get a nice black color)

What one really needs is for graphite 3d printing to go commercial, as in 3d printing of carbon fiber composites

>>636929
>>636947

batteries(80%)+electric motors(90%) are already more efficient than gasoline engines(25%), HOWEVER, they are less energy dense than gasoline.

And if you take powerplants into account(yes even coal with powerplants), in some cases, electric vehicles can be greener than gasoline powered vehicles.

Again, this is in some cases, not all cases.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/automobiles/how-green-are-electric-cars-depends-on-where-you-plug-in.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

>>636970
hopefully he's referring to ion propulsion, otherwise....

[Anonymous No.637714]

>>637633
He said " Even spacecraft WILL be using electric..." We've been using ion for ages. He is just retarded.

[Anonymous No.637885]

>>636953
You're wrong on almost all of your points.

[Anonymous No.637904]

>>634117
>Would 3d printed stainless steel be strong enough and heat resistant enough to build a small (3cc) 4 stroke engine?
Yes, it would be strong enough. No, you won't be able to afford it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7ZYKMBDm4M

Now, there ARE 3d sand printers made specifically for sand casting large parts, including engines. Basically, it lays down fine sand, and prints a binder into it, lays down more sand, etc. When it's done the loose sand is removed, and molten metal is poured in.

[Anonymous No.637906]

>>637904
OP's material specs are apparently from Shapeways.
They charge $8 per cubic centimeter + smallish handling fee.

[Anonymous No.638943]

>>637633
>>batteries(80%)+electric motors(90%) are already more efficient than gasoline engines(25%), HOWEVER, they are less energy dense than gasoline.
>
>And if you take powerplants into account(yes even coal with powerplants), in some cases, electric vehicles can be greener than gasoline powered vehicles.
>
>Again, this is in some cases, not all cases.

Except you're still excluding manufacturing costs and environmental remediation from all the ridiculously toxic manufacturing processes. The fundamental problem with this "combustion-free energy" pipe dream is that it's all based on cheap Chinese manufacturing. When China runs out of easily-exploitable domestic resources (probable within the next two decades) or when their environmental and labor-policy legacy catches up with them the costs of all these "green" technologies will skyrocket.

[3dprintingfag !!XDLOZzmenCL No.638996]

>>638943
well when you do a full lifecycle assessment you find something interesting:
http://www.treehugger.com/cars/life-cycle-analysis-of-electric-car-shows-battery-has-only-minor-impact.html

But I am 3dprintingfag, not electriccardouche, so what do I know?

>>637904
There are also new research fabbers being made capable of making precision investment casting molds for jet turbine blades.

If one's smart enough, it shouldn't be too hard to diy one.

[Anonymous No.639288]

>>636953
rockets are not efficient. a powerful electric lift attached to a space elevator is. Ion propulsion is the future.

[Anonymous No.639310]

>>639288
There is one problem with that though, getting power to your climber.

Pretty much the best way to do this is with a big honkin' laser aimed at solar cells on the climber.

This is not very efficient. With current technology it's 0.5% efficient at power transfer, with more futuristic technology it might get to 2%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator_economics#Cost_estimates_for_a_space_elevator

And before you say using two parallel conductive cables, keep in mind that you are transferring electricity thousands of kilometers. And if you somehow get an arc started, well you've just made world's largest Jacobs ladder.

Arcing would also destroy your thin carbon nanotube cables, so it wouldn't be world's largest jacob's ladder for long.


Sadly, we might not be able to build a space elevator:
http://io9.com/5984371/why-well-probably-never-build-a-space-elevator

[Anonymous No.639313]

>>639288
>>639310
Rockets are ~60% efficient at converting chemical energy to kinetic energy, so a rocket would actually be more efficient than a space elevator

[Anonymous No.639315]

>>634208
This Nigga knows what's up,

whats your profession? If you don't mind sharing

[Anonymous No.639479]

>>639288
Stop being retarded. Ion is already been used for ages. Electricity is being used for a century. The problem with Ion is that it can barely lift a sheet of paper. So why the fuck would you want to attach it to an elevator? Do you have downs?

[Anonymous No.639496]

>>639315
I work for a small Powder Metallurgy Research company. Most of my job involves researching manufacturing methods. Some of our most recent projects involve 3D printed parts embedded into metal powders consolidated using a Hot Isostatic Press. So I've had to research the limitations and tolerances of a few printing processes and services.

The dimensional tolerances on the steel parts printed by shapeways are plus-or-minus 5 thousandths, but their concentricity and roundness are usually off by a fair amount because the bronze infusion process introduces distortions that are dependent upon the part geometry. All of the parts we printed that had round features needed to be post-machined or otherwise touched up to get them to tolerance.

The surface finish is worse than you would get by rough sanding with 150 grit sandpaper. It's even more rough than a raw sand-cast part, which you also would have to post-machine.

Similarly, Direct Metal Laser Sintered parts (which we have also use) have a similarly terrible surface finish no matter what material you are referring to (Aluminum, Stainless Steel, or Titanium. They however don't have as many concentricity problems provided you provide a Solid Model file rather than a polygonal model file like an STL.

But DMLS parts cost anywhere from 5 times to 10 times the price of the SS/Bronze printed parts through Shapeways.

There's really no way around the need for machining of some kind if you want to make an assembly that has moving parts.

[Anonymous No.639499]

>>639496
>>plus-or-minus 5 thousandths of an inch
Is what I meant to type. And that was on parts I had printed then compared to the model.

[Anonymous No.639574]

>>638996
>treehugger
Yeah, I totally trust a conclusory, handwaving "analysis" citing an unnamed source from a site called "treehugger.com". No way could they ever be biased in any way, shape, or form.

[Anonymous No.639575]

>>639310
>one problem with that though, getting power to your climber
i would have thought the one problem was that we don't have materials strong enough to hang a 25,000 mile cable from orbit to the ground. But what do i know.

[Anonymous No.639585]

>>639575
It really is. The problem is that people always think of the elevator as a cable (The first one if there is one may be) but it'd probably be a very large tower with elevators and tunnels inside

[Anonymous No.639586]

>>639585
>(The first one if there is one may be)
I don't even. I meant to say (The first one, if there is one, may be).

[Anonymous No.639632]

>>639585
because buildings tower is even more ridiculous?

[Anonymous No.639636]

what is a space elevator supposed to be good for again?

[Anonymous No.639638]

>>639585
I think of it as a motorized lift attached to a conductive graphene cable.

a space elevator needs to support its own weight plus a couple tons. Not everything that goes into space needs to be gigantic, there were carriages before trains. Bringing a ton of stuff into space at a time will insure we think about what resources we pull off our rock and throw into space.

[Anonymous No.639657]

>>639636
>what is a space elevator supposed to be good for again?
Getting any meaningful quantity of anything in and out of our planet's gravity well.
The topic only came up due to a discussion of power storage/distribution. It isn't anything you'd normally have to worry about on d.i.y. projects, if you are doing a project by yourself with only the resources of your household or country, then you are better off with a rocket. Space elevators are something best reserved for actual serious projects, like intercontinental communications, funded science or space exploration/industry.
The analogous situation would be crossing wilderness, if you are doing it repeatedly or on a large scale, it is worth your time and effort to get some friends with similar goals together, build roads and breed horses or even build cars-if it is just something your family is doing once, you are probably better off getting malaria-shots, tents, machete, etc and getting in shape.

[Anonymous No.639675]

>>639585
>people always think of the elevator as a cable
That's because it is . . .
>but it'd probably be a very large tower with elevators and tunnels inside
. . . and the internet is a plurality of tubes.

[Anonymous No.639702]

>>639675
http://www.google.com/patents/US5566784

[Anonymous No.639704]

mechanical engineer here, it depends on the type of engine and design

I suggest doing the finite element analysis and heat transfer

some designs can handle it, but the main concern is the temperature

Make sure to do everything to a 1.8 safety factor AT MINIMUM, though I suggest an attempt at 8 if it is for an application that safety is a concern (eg the motor isn't enclosed or the motor is powering something you are in

[Anonymous No.639763]

>>634128
hi-op aluminum block engines are coated with nikasil or a similar product.

[Anonymous No.639853]

>>639675
I think he was refering to the space elevator. But well...

[Anonymous No.639858]

>>634546
This.
Do it, OP.

[Anonymous No.639862]

>>639853
Not that guy, but the space elevator is also usually envisioned as a(tapered) ribbon cable, not a tube or a pillar.

The people thinking of building towers usually have no inkling of how impossible that would be.

And most arguments against the space elevator, possibly barring the material strength, are just engineering problems with a multitude of solutions that have already been devised since they have been known for decades.

Unfortunately people who argue against the space elevator rarely keep up with technology and so keep on saying the same decades-old stuff about it.

[Anonymous No.639876]

>>639862
I think he was probably thinking about the space elevators of Space odyssey series. (yeah commercial writing but still)

[Anonymous No.639919]

>>639862
Hell, I'm all in favor of one. Show me a material that won't tear apart long before the cable reaches the ground from orbit.

[Anonymous No.640121]

>>639919
Are you any good at sewing carbon atoms together is consistent patterns?
(In custom patterns, not to make another you, or a derivative.)

[Anonymous No.640156]

>>639862
A space elevator would conduct millions of volts continuously. How would that be solved?

[Anonymous No.640232]

>>640156
>"problem" vaguely implied, not stated

How would what, specifically, be solved?
My car's four-stroke is sitting in a pool of pressurized gas providing over a thousand mbar.
How is that solved.

[Anonymous No.640576]

>>640156
>A space elevator would conduct millions of volts continuously. How would that be solved?
Wouldn't generation of massive current be an asset?
Isn't that how we got on this subject?
>>636929
>Its also more efficient...Even spacecraft will be using electric in time.
>>639288
>rockets are not efficient. a powerful electric lift attached to a space elevator is. Ion propulsion is the future
>>639310
>There is one problem with that though, getting power to your climber

[Anonymous No.640588]

>>640576
The point to point charge from one end of the carriage to another would not be useful to do anything with.

There is no sign that ion engines are going to be useful to launch a vehicle to orbit anytime soon. Fine for station keeping, fine for interplanetary, even fine to enter orbit or de orbit. But not for leaving a planet.

Super experimental prototype ion engines generate .06 kN of thrust

A modest chemical engine is producing mega newtons of thrust.

Just... no.

[Anonymous No.640604]

Most theories I see currently involve...a fucking elevator. As in, motors.

though if you want a ground based power source, lasers would do the trick.

[Anonymous No.640606]

I really want OP to update us on his fucking engine since this thread's been derailed into orbit via space elevators

[Drunk Physicist bro No.640641]

>>639288
Ion propulsion isn't purely electric

you need a fuel source of ions. Right now its radioactive materials (alpha particles and beta particles).

you create a small nuclear reactor that generates electricity and alpha particles or beta particles.The reactor creates a static electric field were one particle is accelerated oppositely from the spaceships direction and gives the momentum to the spaceship. This is exactly what happens when you sit on a rolly chair and throw a heavy ball in one direction and you roll the other way. Very simple concept and very slow acceleration.

You will always need a fuel source of ions though. It will NEVER be purely electric. You always need to push something away from the spacecraft.

However if you find someway to bend the spacetime infront and behind the spaceshitp... then you don't need fuel and you have the noble prize for the year 2200 cus that shit isn't gonna happen anytime soon.

[Anonymous No.640645]

>>640641
>Drunk Physicist bro
Right.
No, they use heavy ions, like xenon.

[Drunk Physicist bro No.640649]

>>639310
that's silly bro.
i've been workin with Carbon nano tubes for a while now and can tell you the only thing hold it back is how hard it is to mass produce. i think the only thing the CNTs should be used for is for strength. You can shield it with insulators/ceramics.

IF anything the counter wieght on the space elevator should be collecting solar ionized particles and become electrically CHARGED and then insulated from the ground but climber should be able to fell the field on the CNTs and then climb up like your hair to a balloon.

[Drunk Physicist bro No.640650]

>>640645
same princple

captcha: restricted ionolice

[Anonymous No.640651]

>>640650
Yes, but has nothing to do with nuke reactors and alpha or beta radiation.

[Drunk Physicist bro No.640655]

>>640651
they do use nuke reactors for power and use xenon for fuel. I would use nuke for both. They use xenon because its nonreactive not because its heavy. you use the same amount of energy pushing a xenon particle 17m/s vs an alpha particle 100m/s.

[Anonymous No.640657]

>>640649
David?

[Anonymous No.640659]

>>640655
Very few spacecrafts use nuclear reactors for anything, even if you count in radiothermal and betavoltaic generators.
Come back when you aren't drunk anymore.

[Anonymous No.640660]

>>640659
Not him but
>very few
Don't most of the non-solar ones (and even some of the solar ones) use radioactive decay (which is considered a nuclear reactor, though obviously nothing like we have for power plants) as a power source?

[Anonymous No.640664]

>>640660
Yeah, sure, but the huge majority of the spacecrafts are orbiting the Earth.

[Anonymous No.640678]

>>639499
Not him but that's very interesting. If you also don't mind sharing, what was your education? That's the kind of interesting-enough-for-my-ADHD-crippled-mind-to-focus job I woulf enjoy. 1st year engineering student here, I'm just curious. Not doing much engineerimg at the moment, just woodworking/hand crafts and old cars on my own time and fucking around with MATLAB at uni, getting somewhat disillusioned.

[Anonymous No.641254]

>>640678
>That's the kind of interesting-enough-for-my-ADHD-crippled-mind-to-focus
I'm trying to hold back the rage right now. The only way ADHD can cripple your mind, is if you let them medicate you to hell and back.

You find what your triggers to zone out are, you mitigate them. Distracting noise? Quality headphones with ambient music, or white noise on them (note, cheap white noise generators are periodic, and drive me NUTS). Distracting view? Put up blinds/move your workspace so you're facing a wall.

When you find yourself zoning out, stop, do jumping jacks, go for a walk, stretch, jack off, just anything that will get your muscles moving for a few minutes. Exercise throughout the day works better than any medication ever did for real ADHD.

[Anonymous No.641419]

>>641254
doesn't work. It's not ADHD anyway, I found out that ADD and ADHD are different. Diagnosed ADD last afternoon. Nothing helps and I've not tried medication yet. It doesn't help that I'm often depressed so I'm usually to paralyzed to even move. I can never ever get started on things; it used to be that I would wait til the last week, then the last day, then the last hour, now 2 weeks after the deadline has passed or never at all. It's because once I sit down everything in the world is more interesting, so I dread writing when not of my own incentive. I read hours every day but when I need to read something for a class a single page can take me 5 minutes because by the time I get to the 4th sentence I've forgot the other 3, because concentration is painful.

It doesn't matter anyway, I learned today they kicked me out of college.

I didn't ask for advice there anyway, but thanks for acting like you know everything.

[Anonymous No.641435]

>>641254
>>When you find yourself zoning out, stop,
if only it were that easy.

[Anonymous No.641612]

>>641419
Try SSRIs. Seriously. Lexapro or Zoloft.

Have a close friend monitor you when you start taking them, to let you know if you go batshit crazy. Tell the idiot not to hesitate, just tell you if he thinks you are going off the rails.

[Anonymous No.641877]

>>641612
I tries SSRIs once, and they helped with the anxiety/depression, but didn't seem to do much for my work ethic. Thanks anyway.

[Anonymous No.641880]

>>641877
Your dosage must have been too low. if it was correct you also would have gone on a mass murder rampage.

[Anonymous No.641897]

>>641880
I'm not sure whether to laugh here
I'm already going off the rails anyway

[Anonymous No.642856]

>>641897
Same here.
If you want to know what helps me :
1 : Meditation.
2 : Sports.
3 : Pomodoro, but I'm sure you tried already. It works if it's combined with 1 or 2 to give you the drive and calm your anxiety.
4 : Supplements/Noots, whatever floats your boat. For me it was L-tyrosine and theanine, I'm still experimenting, though.
5 : Alternative to 1 and 2. when I can't get me to start something, I just tidy my room. Better than doing something that will suck you away from reality (e. g. reading) and eventually, you stop procrastinating and have a session of productivity.

Also, don't stop trying. Don't feel bad for everything you failed, culpability is the worst thing.