Metals Tech

Based in Carson City, Triangle Labs, Inc., specializes in providing complex circuit boards, wiring boards, antenna substrate systems and other high-tech materials to customers in the defense, avionics, medical, automotive, energy, electronics, space, satellite and wireless industries.

A new equipment purchase generated by a low-interest SBA loan facilitated by Nevada State Development Corporation solidified Triangle Labs’ position as a global leader in its field, serving customers such as Raytheon, Boeing, Varian Medical System and other giants.

“We’re extremely proud of everything we have achieved in our nearly two decades in the business, and adding this crucial new equipment is another big step for the future of the company,” said John-Michael Gray, president of Triangle Labs. “Our customers include some of the largest, most technologically advanced and most forward-thinking companies on the planet, and we’re confident we’ll be able to continue to provide them with the excellent service to which they have become accustomed from Triangle Labs.”

Triangle Labs fabricates its specialized products in-house to meet specific customer needs. In addition to wiring boards and antenna systems, capabilities include IPC 6018 Class II & Type III circuits, precision multi-layer circuit boards (up to 60+ layers), multilayer microwave circuits, mixed material construction including Teflon & FR4 assemblies, and electroplating of materials such as carbon fiber composites and dielectric foam.

“Triangle Labs, with its ability to serve some of the most demanding clients in their respective industries, is one of the most remarkable stories in the Northern Nevada business field,” said Heather Ashbridge, Assistant Vice President/Loan Officer with Nevada State Development Corporation,  a nonprofit company that is the largest SBA 504 loan provider in Nevada. “We are pleased that their SBA loan will position the firm as an innovator in specialized high-tech equipment for many years to come.”

Before the nomenclature of 3D printing and additive manufacturing (AM) was standardized, the terms rapid prototyping and rapid manufacturing (RP&M) were commonly used as general technology descriptors. The term rapid manufacturing (RM) still has useful application to anyone looking to maximize the utility of their 3D printing process.

Rapid manufacturing encompasses direct and indirect routes. The use of 3D printing to directly produce an end use part is easily understood. In an indirect rapid manufacturing process, the formis provided by 3D printing and is given function by a secondary process and combination with other materials. 3D printing / additive manufacturing’s use is typically justified in either moderate to high volume production of mass customized parts or applications with low volume production requirements. In the first case, tooling is not practical for shapes that vary by the unit, regardless of volume. In the second case, low volume does not justify tooling cost.

A practical example of direct low volume RM is urethane or room temperature vulcanization (RTV) molding. Typically, these molding options use the stereolithography (SL) process to produce highly accurate, full density, smooth surfaced patterns that are then used in a silicone mold making process to produce multiple urethane parts. There are many well-defined urethane-casting materials available that can produce end use parts with a broad range of mechanical and physical properties.

Another example is investment casting, one of the oldest known metal forming processes. For high volume production, this process typically uses tooling to produce wax patterns that are coated with a ceramic shell. When the shell is hardened, the wax is removed and metal is cast to the near net shape. In the mid-90s, a process was developed to use hollow SL produced patterns in the investment casting process. A honeycomb shaped inner reinforcement provides the rigidity for the thin walls of the pattern to survive the ceramic forming process, but allows burnout to leave a hollow pattern for metal casting with low residual ash. Today, DSM Additive Manufacturing’s Somos Element SL materials provides excellent dimensional consistency coupled with virtually no defect producing ash, further enabling this widely used investment casting process to produce both prototype and production metal parts.

Pictured above are enlarged examples of the TetraShell unit cell and a typical pattern. Hollow patterns with a tetra-lattice reinforcement drain effectively and allow control of all dimensions of the pattern.

Further enabling this metal parts producing process is a software, TetraShell, which uses a tetra-lattice geometry patented by Milwaukee School of Engineering and incorporated by Materialise into a hollow build software that produces investment casting parts.

Is indirect high volume mass production feasible with 3D printing?

Look no further than the “invisible” smile correcting dental aligner application. SL patterns are produced based on CAD iterations spanning the initial situation through the desired outcome. A well established thermoforming process with readily available clear plastic sheet approved for in-mouth use uses these patterns to produce hundreds of thousands of aligners each year.

Metal clad composites created by electroplating 3D printed parts with layers of conductive copper and structural nickel offer a rapid manufacturing route to both high performance low volume and mass produced end use parts. The composite that is created after plating fits well into the performance gap between 3D printed polymer and metal parts. While most 3D printed parts can be plated, stereolithography offers substantial benefits in terms of full density parts with smooth surfaces and a wide range of materials including highly filled composite. Electroplated parts can be used to improve a large variety of performance parameters including:

• Strength and stiffness (light weight)
• Electrical and thermal conductivity
• EMI shielding/reflective surfaces
• Environmental barrier (UV and chemical)
• Abrasion resistance
• Durability (impact strength)

While plating is often thought of as a cosmetic process, structural electroplated coatings can create metal clad composites 3-5 X stronger and 10-15 X stiffer than common 3D printed materials. Dr. Sean Wise, president of REPLIFORM, Inc., a leading supplier and innovator of electroplated 3D printed parts since its formation in 2000, is convinced that further improvements in the plating of 3D printed parts will continue to enhance the economic viability of this approach.

Union Tech strongly feels that there remains many unexplored potential applications that can be accessed via an indirect rapid manufacturing approach. Sterolithography technology has one of the largest installed bases of equipment, especially among service providers of any 3D printing process. The ability to utilize equipment with an open design for materials and software facilitates open collaboration and innovation.  The cost effectiveness of UnionTech’s commercial and production SL product lines also invites fresh consideration of indirect rapid manufacturing possibilities.

It looks like Tesla has finally started on what could become ‘the world’s largest solar rooftop array’ at Gigafactory 1 in Nevada. Once finished, the 70-megawatt system will overshadow an 11.5-megawatt array in India that can power 8,000 homes.

On July 16, 2016, Elon Musk took to Twitter, writing: “Should mention that Gigafactory will be fully powered by clean energy when complete & include battery recycling.”

Sparks, Nevada-based Gigafactory 1 is where Tesla produces batteries using Panasonic energy storage products for Tesla Energy, as well as its own Model 3 battery packs and drive units.

In January 2017, according to RenewEconomy, Tesla aired its plans to power its Gigafactory 1 through a combination rooftop and ground-mounted solar. “GF1 is an all-electric factory with no fossil fuels (natural gas or petroleum) directly consumed,” Tesla said at the time.

However, with no action from Tesla on the project and no word from the company, the project took on mythical proportions – almost like a fairy tale, with rumors circulating that the project had been shelved. The whole tale is a bit confusing though.

Tesla claims it already has a “solar Gigafactory”, known as Gigafactory 2 in Buffalo, New York where they manufacture solar products. However, Gigafactory 2 is powered by hydroelectricity — which, in all fairness is a renewable source of electricity.

Tesla’s gigafactory in Sparks, Nevada is just a three hour drive from Clayton Valley. Elon Musk signed a contract to buy lithium fromPure Energy Minerals Ltd. in 2015.

Tesla

Satellite imagery shows progress on the project

Surprisingly, satellite imagery, dated February 21, from a website called Building Tesla shows that solar panels are finally coming up on the north side of Gigafactory 1. Several websites, including RenewEconomy and Electrek, have contacted Tesla, asking for confirmation of the construction.

Electtrek writes they would like to know if “Tesla is using its own new Panasonic solar modules manufactured at Gigafactory 2 in Buffalo, creating some new synergy between Tesla’s two gigafactories?” However, until Elon Musk takes to Twitter with a response, we are left with just a satellite image.

Gigafactory 1 is still under construction. The factory is being built in phases Tesla and its partners can manufacture products while the building continues to expand, reports EcoWatch. The factory currently is about 4.9 million square feet of operational space. This represents only about 30 percent of the planned completed Gigafactory, according to Tesla.

Keeping bike batteries in good order is a fairly involved process. As any proper geek will tell you, there’s a load of things to consider, from sulphated plates to deep discharge cycles, constant current charging and reverse-charged cells. Luckily for non-geeks though, Optimate has been helping folk keep on top of this nonsense since 1994, with its range of smart chargers that take much of the effort out of maintaining your bike’s battery. Microprocessor-controlled charging routines, with pulsating charge cycles and close control of voltage and current, can prevent, and even repair, damage to lead-acid batteries which have been commonly used on bikes.

Enter this lithium-specific Optimate charger. As with all the other Optimates, it’s easy as pie to use – plug into the mains, and connect to the battery, either with the supplied croc clips, or via a permanently installed connector bolted onto the terminals (also supplied). A series of lights tells you if the connections are reversed, the state of charge of the battery, and how much current the charger is supplying.

I’ve been using it for the past four or five years, whenever I’ve been riding a bike with a lithium battery. I had a ZX-6R with a Shorai unit, and then put an Ultrabatt item on a long-term Suzuki Hayabusa test bike. The Optimate kept these in good order – indeed, the Ultrabatt battery is now powering my old Burgman 650 scooter, and has performed really well, even after four years of occasional neglect.

A low-profile Chinese-funded electric car start-up that counts one of Tesla’s co-founders among its executives has begun testing self-driving car technology on California roads, the company said Monday.

SF Motors has so far kept a lower profile than some other electric car start-ups, including those funded by Chinese backers, such as Faraday Future. But it has made a series of moves that suggests it is a potentially serious player in the electric vehicle market and other new transportation technologies.

Most recently, the company secured a permit from the California Department of Motor Vehicles to test autonomous driving tech on roads in the state. In October, the company bought battery start-up InEvit, headed by Tesla co-founder Martin Eberhard, who is now SF Motors’ vice chairman and chief scientist. It also began a multiyear, $2.5 million partnership in 2016 with the University of Michigan to conduct proprietary joint research on automated driving systems.

The company already has two offices and one factory in the United States, and others in Germany, China. It plans a facility in Japan.

Now, the firm is ready to raise its public profile, Chief Technology Officer Yifan Tang said in an interview with CNBC. For example, the company plans to unveil a concept car later in March.

The company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Chinese automaker and parts supplier Chongqing Sokon Industry Group, which gives it support and backing that other similar electric start-ups do nor have, including some from China, Tang said.

“It allows us to do all this technological development without having to search for other funding or means of support,” he said.

Tech titans are eager to reimagine how we will travel in the coming decades, but whose vision will win out?

Last week Elon Musk and Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi got in a back-and-forth on Twitter over whether flying cars will be the next big thing in transportation. Musk was responding to Khosrowshahi’s reported claim that the technology would make it unnecessary to dig tunnels for a Hyperloop—Musk’s vision of passenger pods flying through vacuum tubes at hundreds of miles per hour.

Both of their visions for the future of transport are still very much in the concept phase, but the spat raises the interesting question: Which is the more compelling?

Flying cars have been just around the corner for decades, and despite concept vehicles dating back to the middle of the last century, none has ever made it into production. There are reasons to believe things are starting to change though.

Drone technology is providing a compelling model for how to reimagine flying cars. While the concepts of the past were generally cars with wings, recent years have seen the emergence of a new breed of electrically-powered, often autonomous, multi-rotor passenger vehicles.

Chinese startup Ehang released footage last month of people riding in its autonomous passenger drone. According to CNN, the company has been flying passengers since 2015, but this is the first time they’ve released the footage.

Airbus’ self-piloting Vahana multi-rotor concept also completed its first test flight in January, and at the time, the company said it plans to have a production version ready by 2020. As I detailed last July, there are a number of other startups with working prototypes as well.

Building these things is only part of the problem. At present it’s not clear what rules these vehicles would be governed by—standard aviation rules or new drone regulations being formulated to deal with the desire of companies like Amazon to carry out airborne deliveries.

This will probably depend on the level of autonomy vehicles have. The fully autonomous eHang is essentially not that different from a delivery drone, just with human cargo. But the vision Uber outlines in its Elevate whitepaper is of human pilots supported by partial autonomy, which the company says could already operate in urban areas under the same rules as helicopters.

Uber concedes that for the idea to scale, new aircraft traffic control systems able to cope with thousands of drones and flying cars at low altitude will be needed. NASA is currently researching just such a system due to be implemented by 2025 at the latest, and Uber recently announced it was participating in the project, so the problem may have been solved by the time these vehicles are ready to take to the sky.

It remains to be seen what the business model would be though. Uber envisages the same kind of ride-hailing service it provides today, but with passengers embarking at dedicated roof-top “Vertiports.”

Given the infrastructure investment required to build a comprehensive network of such hubs, the large upfront costs of a fleet of flying cars, the limited range provided by near-term battery technology, and the cost of training pilots (or developing fool-proof autonomy), it’s hard to see it being an affordable and accessible service in the near term, despite Uber’s case to the contrary.

It may prove a greener, more seamless way for wealthy executives to flit from one rooftop helipad to another. But it seems unlikely to be the immediate solution to the recent finding that ride-hailing companies like Uber and Lyft are actually clogging our roads by pulling people off public transport.

Musk’s Hyperloop vision on the other hand is firmly centered on mass transit. He first outlined the idea of firing passenger pods down a vacuum tube between Los Angeles and San Francisco at 760 miles per hour back in 2013.

Just five years later and there are proposed projects from Chicago to Mumbai and several companies dedicated to bringing his open source design to life—most notably Virgin Hyperloop One, which is backed by billionaire business magnate Richard Branson.

While the Hyperloop is designed to provide a cheaper, greener, and faster alternative to short-haul flights or high-speed rail between cities, Musk has also revealed his visions for a more modest Loop system designed to work within urban areas. This would see a network of tunnels dug beneath a city with autonomous “electric sleds” running at 125 miles per hour that could transport cars or passenger pods between elevators that open directly onto the street.

While Virgin Hyperloop One’s passenger pod has hit a top speed of 192 miles per hour in an experimental 500-meter-long tube, the technology is further from realization than flying cars. And if funding the infrastructure to support the latter seems challenging, the cost of digging hundreds of miles of tunnels and filling them with depressurized, electrified tubes will make you wince.

In an effort to tackle this problem Musk has started The Boring Company, which aims to cut the cost of tunnelling from as much as $1 billion per mile in the US by more than a factor of 10. But tens of millions of dollars per mile is still a colossal amount of money.

Even if the money can be found, building these tunnels is likely to take a long time, particularly a sub-city network big enough to have a significant impact on congestion. And as UCLA urban planning expert Michael Manville notes in Popular Science, getting permission for even moderate extensions to existing subway networks has come up against decades-long legal challenges.

However, the project’s mass transit focus may make it more likely to garner support from policy-makers than efforts to bring flying cars to our cities. Bent Flyvbjerg, an Oxford University economist specializing in mega-projects, told The Guardian major infrastructure has always relied on large subsidies, so considering the environmental and efficiency gains, he sees no reason why Hyperloops shouldn’t get them too.

He also notes that Musk has been adept at corralling government funding in the form of grants, tax breaks, and environmental credits with his other ventures, even though the Boring Company has said it will not seek public funds for its projects.

Ultimately, flying cars and high-speed, sub-surface travel are probably not in competition. They fill different niches, so the success of one is unlikely to prevent the development of the other.

At the moment, flying cars look closer to realization, but it’s unclear whether they can become more than an upgrade on the private helicopters most of us never use. The combination of Hyperloops and Loops on the other hand could live up to Musk’s promise of a “fifth mode of transport” that revolutionizes mass transit….if we can find the money to build it.