From what I understand though the finer powders produce improved over wrought billet metallurgical properties, so is this a disadvantage for the EBM coarser powders?
I assume the vacuum combined with the higher temperatures leads to much more uniform and dense sintering. I was just looking at cross section electron micrographs of the structure produced, and it is very clearly higher density with a lower propensity for the formation of voids (a common problem produced with laser sintering). My guess is that higher temperature really helps avert the issue of void formation, thereby producing denser parts.
@@saml7610 Yes OK that makes sense re the voids. Again from what I understood was that the molecular structure of the resultant alloy was much better in the fine powder melt in terms of atom behaviour like better crystal structures which produced higher properties like tensile strength. The advances with some titanium alloys come to mind . BTW I'm just a grey haired machinist and dont really understand the science behind metal atomic structure.
There is no sense to use powder size like in the L-PBF technology for two reasons. Larger diameter of the electron beam spot compare to laser metods and problems with process stability due to the "smoke" effect. Currently, new scanning methods, the so-called pixelmelting or spotmelting, are slowly solving the second problem. New scanning methods do not require the use of support structures as in polymer technologies (SLS). It is worth noting that the scanning speed reaches 8 km/s and this is possible due to the lack of mechanical elements to control the beam. Everything is done by electromagnetic coils. There is another big advantage of EB-PBF technology, in-situ monitoring process. Machines in this technology are actually more powerful electron microscopes, so if we add a backscatter detector, we can generate photos of each layer with resolutiuon reserved for electron microscopy.
@@hawkuu Any sources on that the resolution in such a scenario comes anywhere close to electron microscopy? While the general setup is similar, the mode of operation is fundamentally different.
With laser powder bed fusion (also sometimes called selective laser melting or SLM), it is common to cut the part from the build plate, often using a machine tool. With electron beam melting (EBM), there are still support structures connecting the part to a build surface, but they are lighter and generally can be removed manually.
What is EBM? The somewhat desperate attempt of the e-beam folks to stay relevant in mass use. So are some of the "advantages" are skewed. The powder size is most often limited by the desired surface finish of the parts. It would be nice to use coarser powder for productivity reasons, but in practice often finer powder is used than what Lasers could melt - for surface finish reasons. Laser melting could also pre-heat the material - and it is sometimes done, when necessary. So mostly not. Laser melting can also stack workpieces, but - again - it is rarely done as it is much easier to just reset the work chamber. Don't get me wrong: The e-beam is an incredible tool and can do some (very few but awesome) niche things that nothing else can. But Lasers are simple and e-beams with their high vacuums and X-Rays are an inherent pain in the rear.
less warping and stress. That is good step for mass prototypes and even mass production because more units per total print can be used after oven treatment. That in space and aircraft is good because use complex geometry wich cant be made by CNC. Of course if come at lowers cost( but they say are more expensive so..)
Can you also add commentary about price per part? E.g., comparing same part, same material - via SLS and EBM. Major manufacturers of EBM machines and maybe some details on the time needed for post production cleanup and going from green parts to finished. Thanks!
good idea, but the presenters have poor delivery of content, the video is not polished
From what I understand though the finer powders produce improved over wrought billet metallurgical properties, so is this a disadvantage for the EBM coarser powders?
I assume the vacuum combined with the higher temperatures leads to much more uniform and dense sintering. I was just looking at cross section electron micrographs of the structure produced, and it is very clearly higher density with a lower propensity for the formation of voids (a common problem produced with laser sintering). My guess is that higher temperature really helps avert the issue of void formation, thereby producing denser parts.
@@saml7610 Yes OK that makes sense re the voids. Again from what I understood was that the molecular structure of the resultant alloy was much better in the fine powder melt in terms of atom behaviour like better crystal structures which produced higher properties like tensile strength. The advances with some titanium alloys come to mind . BTW I'm just a grey haired machinist and dont really understand the science behind metal atomic structure.
There is no sense to use powder size like in the L-PBF technology for two reasons. Larger diameter of the electron beam spot compare to laser metods and problems with process stability due to the "smoke" effect. Currently, new scanning methods, the so-called pixelmelting or spotmelting, are slowly solving the second problem. New scanning methods do not require the use of support structures as in polymer technologies (SLS). It is worth noting that the scanning speed reaches 8 km/s and this is possible due to the lack of mechanical elements to control the beam. Everything is done by electromagnetic coils. There is another big advantage of EB-PBF technology, in-situ monitoring process. Machines in this technology are actually more powerful electron microscopes, so if we add a backscatter detector, we can generate photos of each layer with resolutiuon reserved for electron microscopy.
@@hawkuu Thank you
@@hawkuu Any sources on that the resolution in such a scenario comes anywhere close to electron microscopy? While the general setup is similar, the mode of operation is fundamentally different.
Zelenski... Didn't he shrink his kids?
which one of the technique need to Separate metal AM parts from the build plate? SLM and EBM
With laser powder bed fusion (also sometimes called selective laser melting or SLM), it is common to cut the part from the build plate, often using a machine tool. With electron beam melting (EBM), there are still support structures connecting the part to a build surface, but they are lighter and generally can be removed manually.
Neat! 😎
What is EBM? The somewhat desperate attempt of the e-beam folks to stay relevant in mass use.
So are some of the "advantages" are skewed. The powder size is most often limited by the desired surface finish of the parts. It would be nice to use coarser powder for productivity reasons, but in practice often finer powder is used than what Lasers could melt - for surface finish reasons.
Laser melting could also pre-heat the material - and it is sometimes done, when necessary. So mostly not.
Laser melting can also stack workpieces, but - again - it is rarely done as it is much easier to just reset the work chamber.
Don't get me wrong: The e-beam is an incredible tool and can do some (very few but awesome) niche things that nothing else can. But Lasers are simple and e-beams with their high vacuums and X-Rays are an inherent pain in the rear.
less warping and stress. That is good step for mass prototypes and even mass production because more units per total print can be used after oven treatment. That in space and aircraft is good because use complex geometry wich cant be made by CNC.
Of course if come at lowers cost( but they say are more expensive so..)
@@slevinshafel9395 EBM doesn't need a kiln afterwoods does it?
00:58
Can you also add commentary about price per part? E.g., comparing same part, same material - via SLS and EBM. Major manufacturers of EBM machines and maybe some details on the time needed for post production cleanup and going from green parts to finished. Thanks!
If you're worried about this.... You're probably not going to afford this...