Not mentioned in the article is that forging delivers a stronger part than casting or machining, since the grain of the metal remains continuous. Hence its use in turbine blades and so on.
If you ever want to see a true craftsman in action, it's a master blacksmith in charge of a steam hammer. He can go from literally cracking an egg to delivering a blow whose resonance nearly brings the building down. Combined with with the way he manipulates the workpiece, it is poetry in motion.
I was visiting Chicago a while back and rode the North Central from Vernon Hills into the city a few times. One day we stopped, waiting for the tracks to clear, in an industrial area I got to drool over a bunch of BIG decommissioned power hammers. (I believe it was the east side of the train for those who are curious.)
I have a friend who is working on a book of what is basically smith porn. Beautiful photos of big power hammers and presses in action and some stories of the men that have used them. These have been gathered on his "vacations" and at work over 40 years or so.
It isn't quite as simple as saying that forging produces a stronger part since a monocrystalline casting of a turbine blade would be stronger than a forged polycrystalline one.
For most materials monocrystalline casting is still science fiction. And as much as I've studied the subject, metals are used so much because they have good strength properties at relatively high temperatures. These glass metals turn liquid at relatively low temperature. So I have to say that it's not simple as you say. I'd anyhow be more worried about oriented strength of forged parts. And internal stresses. And funny material folding that sometimes happens in badly designed die forging.
My point was that x isn't always better than y. And in the case of turbine blades, monocrystalline is the way they are made.
On the topic of forged turbine blades, the oriented strength of the resultant blade _is_ the advantage of using forging over conventional casting for a polycrystalline blade. Since the load on a turbine blade is mostly axial it makes no sense to not have favorable grain orientation to maximize strength in the axial direction. As a result, turbine blades are forged such that the grain orientation and size is elongated and coarse. This minimizes grain boundary area perpendicular to the load direction and thus minimizes creep at the high operating temperatures of a gas turbine.
Thanks for the insight! My original message was just me not understanding your real point. I'm usually little allergic to an attitude like "you can't understand this high magic!", but in this case I must apologize my misunderstanding.
Looks like you live in Calgary, based on the website in your profile. Definitely a lot of blacksmiths up that way, but you might have to get out of town a little bit.
Blacksmiths are always having hammer-ins (hackfest/demo day analog). If you can get to Brooks, AB, CA in June there is a forged knife hammer-in. Email me (in my profile) and I'll get you details. Abana.org is also a great place to find smiths.
The cool thing about hammer-ins is that newbies or people with only a casual interest often get to play with the toys (with careful instruction).
I'm a blacksmith, as a hobby, and would like to suggest that any interested parties check out the Artist-Blacksmith's Association of North America (ABANA, http://www.abana.org) for a chapter in their state. Many of them have conferences and other events that are open to the public. The California chapter (http://www.calsmith.org) puts on a great show every April or so, and has power hammers.
Also, there is a power hammer workshop in a week or so, in Loomis, near Sacramento, CA. These power hammers are very small compared to the 50, but still incredibly impressive in person.
It's a great hobby, with a great group of people, and I'd recommend checking it out if you're at all interested.
I love the pictures in that article. The views of Metsa machine tools creating Metsa machine tools has a real "self replication" feel. Put iron into an engineering shop and out pops a copy of the engineering shop.
In Warfighting, the USMC doctrinal manual, there is a discussion of war as a process of seeking out and exploiting weaknesses in the enemy's system.
This press strikes me as such a weakness: it is the only one of its kind in the US, a pretty clear industrial chokepoint. And there are lots of such chokepoints. German military production was stunted during WW2 by the bombing of ball-bearing factories.
German military production was stunted during WW2 by the bombing of ball-bearing factories.
I've read that that was a goal of the strategic bombing campaign against Nazi Germany, but I've also read that even with the famous raid on the ball bearing plant in Schweinfurt--repeated with unsustainable losses of air crew and aircraft after the Germans learned how much the Allies valued that target--the strategic bombing campaign was much less effective than the Allies had hoped.
The moral of the story appears to be that it takes a nearly total trade embargo as well as direct attacks on factories producing critical supplies (as well as stockpiles of those supplies in other places) for "strategic" attacks to have actual strategic effect.
AFTER EDIT: Farther down in this subthread, the prediction is made that future wars might involve the massive destruction of nuclear missile attacks. As the thirtieth anniversary of the Falkland Islands War approaches, I am reminded that contemporary commentary on that war pointed out that nuclear weapons had ceased to be a deterrent in the modern world, in which nuclear weapons have not been used in warfare since 1945 (in the same war as the Schweinfurt ball bearing plant air raids, against a combatant country that had directly attacked a neutral country's main military base in the ocean between both countries by surprise attack). Argentina was not deterred at all from occupying the Falklands by Britain's possession of nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles. And of course the terrorist attacks on the United States in the year 2001 were not deterred by the the United States possessing similar weapons. There seem to be a lot of kinds of warfare that can go on with no resort to nuclear weapons, and thus no deterrence by nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons don't stop attacks in general, but they do stop existential threats. It's unlikely that France will ever be invaded and occupied again for as long as they have a nuclear deterrent, for example. France (or other such countries) may well be attacked, but not conquered. This is at least an improvement over the previous state of things. Warfare without the existential threat leaves room to be considerably more gentle.
Considering the decimation of the manufacturing base here in the USA, I shudder to think what would happen were we required to make war on the scale of the previous World Wars.
Virtually all our electronics are made somewhere else. We can't even build our own infrastructure[0]. Who will build the Liberty Ships[1]?
As long as we don't forget how to do everything, we can ramp manufacturing back up quickly. Currently there are manufacturing plants pumping out aircraft, tanks, ships, and munitions at a slow rate. They are limited by money and lack of demand, not by the ability of the manufacturing plants to pump out more. If suddenly we needed to double or triple capacity you bring in more people and machines to do the work, but the process is in place.
But if we stop building - even for a few years - we will lose all that and be back at square 1. This is why the Navy has a huge number of aircraft carriers. We don't need that many really, but if we stopped producing them we would lose all the institutional knowledge and experience. So they dribble one out every 5 or 6 years so that lots of people are constantly working on it.
That will not happen again. It is a bygone era. Now it will either be country to country attacks (Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam) or full blown nuclear wipe-out. In either case protecting Cleveland won't make much of a difference.
We manufactured more in 2009 than Germany, Japan, Italy and the U.K. combined. China's growing fast, but we're still outputting something like 40% more.
Strategic resource storage and strategic industry development was a big part of making me start questioning libertarianism. I then learned a bit about common power dynamics and met a lot of people who felt trapped in bad situations getting screwed around with, and the break was made for me.
I'm still sympathetic to the cause, and think libertarians are really fantastic people who believe immensely in human potential. I also know the counterarguments -- at what cost?, etc, etc -- but I'm glad the USA built industry that wouldn't necessarily be economical on the timeframes that standard capital investments generally look for.
There's two kinds of Libertarians - the ones who actually think all government interference is bad, and those who think that governments simply have a tendency to go too far, so fighting government interference will probably push them back to a more reasonable position. The first kind are louder.
I can't help think that we started without governments and ended up with them. In fact it seems like governments beat every other known alternative power structure.
In other words even if we removed all nation states and started from scratch we would most likely end up with some sort of government.
The reasons for this are manifold, but especially the democratic state have some inherent perceptual integrity since it allows for "resetting".
But of course as always these are not objective metrics at all. But the problem with libertarians isn't their view but rather the idea it itself.
We started in many ways in a libertarian world. Evolution took us to the states and technology will maybe take us through the state and to something completely different but carried on from the current system.
Some extreme Libertarians think governments have an extremely limited place - protecting personel and property rights, for example. Others are outright anarchists.
Though there's a number of different kinds of anarchists, who really don't agree with each other - the "Anarchism" page on wikipedia is both "part of a series on Libertarianism", and "part of a series on Libertarian Socialism".
So when I said "there's two types", I was lying a bit.
In my experience far too many avowed libertarians are simply dilettantes. They do not fully appreciate the seriousness of the courses of action they advocate. To the degree that in many cases the ultimate outcome of their ideas would be despotism, not libertarian utopia, and are ultimately just as clueless and dangerous as folks advocating marxism. Which, I think, substantially undermines the whole movement.
I'd love to have a chance to see it in action. Many of us here work as engineers. Few of us are likely to be building something like this, a machine that will be able to serve its purpose relatively unmodified for over a century.
Very neat, but I'd be more worried that the next generation of materials manufacturing - carbon fiber and nanotube looms and autoclaves - will be completely China based.
The more interdependent the world gets, the harder it will be for any one nation to go rogue. That is a good thing. However, if, instead of a cyclical graph, we wind up with a tree, things could get very ugly (but don't have to).
The US likes to think of itself as the root of the tree, and maybe it even was for part of the 20th century (the US was central to a lot of manufacturing and design), but those days seem to be over now. As a citizen of the US, I find that scary, but only because I think many people in the US will fight tooth and nail to try to keep being the root.
"The more interdependent the world gets, the harder it will be for any one nation to go rogue."
The world pre-WWI was actually quite globalised[1], more so than most people today would imagine that it was. Yet that wasn't enough to prevent the horrors of WWI trench warfare. I think a similar fallacy exists today - that globalisation will prevent WWIII. Violence and combat has existed for all of human history and there's no reason to think it will ever disappear, sadly. In a few decades anyone that remembers being alive during WWII will be dead and the possibility of WWIII will become stronger, IMO.
Just like the Glass-Steagall act was enacted after the 1929 crash[2], but repealed once the scars of the Great Depression had faded from the public's consciousness, the spectre of the outbreak of WWIII will loom ever larger as those who remember the horror of WWI & WWII pass on, and the lessons learned forgotten.
Why worried? I understand it signifies less of an exciting engineering presence in the united states, but beyond being disappointing, why is that actually a problem?
One reason is that whole ecosystems and expertise grow up around manufacturing, so it means the U.S. would lack both the knowledge and secondary industry. Also we'd be basically screwed in any standoff with China! Especially since their economy is heavily state-controlled, they would have a de-facto veto over any U.S. equipment that they didn't want built.
To quote one passage:
"Mr Collini is moved by Newman’s insistence that a liberal education is not about what students learn or what skills they acquire but “the perspective they have on the place of their knowledge in a wider map of human understanding”."
I visited the ALS at LBL many years ago. Then I got to see that big (really big) laser at LLNL a few years ago. I'd like to see this machine too, I bet it's bigger than both of those...
This type of romanticization of military production is obscene.
One of my worst fears is that we might see the current military campaigns surrounding Iran and the area around it develop into another "great" war.
There is nothing stopping us from using this manufacturing equipment to build tools of creation rather than destruction.
I remember reading something in my history textbooks many years ago that suggested that although war meant massive loss of life and destruction, it wasn't all bad, because it was "very good for the economy". That line of thinking only holds water if you believe that humans are disposable or buy into a sort of 19th century Social Darwinism.
There is so much money to be made in war. Please, everyone look at a map. http://binged.it/A6U96Z These activities in Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, etc. are not isolated instances.
This is an aggressive war of domination, resource acquisition and territorial control. It is completely insane and inexcusable.
I think you're reading into this what you want to read into this rather than what is actually there. Sure, this is being used to build JSF's, but really it is a romanticization of American production-- an antidote to the "nothing is made here" nonsense that has become popular these days.
Meanwhile, I'm confused why you're so quick to start what will only be an incendiary political discussion that has nothing to do with the article at all. There are probably better forums than HN to post essays about U.S. military and foreign policy.
I find people with an agenda will do their best to warp anything remotely related to fit & promote said agenda. Man in uniform saved a kitten from a tree? Clearly pro-Iraq war propaganda. Etc.
Man in uniform saved a kitten from a tree? Clearly pro-Iraq war propaganda. Etc.
Actually, sounds terribly like it. I.e not pro-Iraq per se, but pro-military in general. Those kinds of images are used all the time, especially in countries heading or involved in wars. Also the "soldiers doing cool things", "soldier playing guitar back in the camp and longing for home", "soldiers having some innocent fun between attacks", and the "soldier is a regular guy from some place back home", etc. They are used in order to make the military personnel look humanize, and in effect humanize the war effort.
(Of course, that's not to say that soldiers aren't human: just that this has nothing to do with them being soldiers. Everyone is human -- but war is dehumanizing and makes you do dehumanizing things).
With the same logic it's bad to show a dentist in television doing anything else than playing with peoples teeth. At least he/she should take of the lab-coat before playing guitar or buying coffee. And it must be bad thing to show a cleaning lady rescuing a kitten if it happens in her uniform.
I understand opposing war, but are you going little over the board?
Sure, this is being used to build JSF's, but really it is a romanticization of American production-- an antidote to the "nothing is made here" nonsense that has become popular these days.
This nonsense can also be fought with simple facts. Depending on how you count it, the US manufactures either the 1st or 2nd most amount of stuff in the world. It's just that we do it with drastically less people and with robots now instead. The US manufactures more things now than it ever has before.
"Nothing to do with the article at all" -- read the last three paragraphs of the article.
I anticipate that there will be many more similar articles and pieces in the coming months and people will suggest that the war was a blessing in disguise because it was the "only thing" that could bring American manufacturing back to life.
You are laughably uninformed. None of the major weapon systems that require big manufacturing were impacted at all by the war.
The Navy isn't cranking out more aircraft carriers, destroyers, or submarines. And they just announced they are retiring all of their cruisers early.
The Air Force lost most of it's F22 and the JSF is on the ropes. Neither got cranked up to support the wars of the last 11 years.
The Army barely got to use its M1 battle tanks and hasn't built any extra. The Bradley is in the same boat. Some of the other vehicles like the Stryker and the mine resistant trucks and upgraded HUMVEES might have gotten increased production, but those are small potatoes in terms of cost.
The Marines lost their new vehicle in the last 10 years (the expeditionary fighting vehicle).
Other than the army light vehicles and UAVs (again, small potatoes, a submarine costs $5-7 billion each) I don't see anything that has been increased by the wars. And general manufacturing and defense manufacturing are basically entirely seperated these days. There are no ship builders pumping out both commercial and military ships. As far as I know, there are no companies pumping out tanks and cars. Aircraft are the only area with overlap.
I think that the wars must have at least contributed to some justification for maintenance of the current armament level.
But I was talking about when the planned World War III gets kicked into high gear towards the end of this year, as false-flags or other actions force Iran to defend itself, and Russia and China are then morally obligated to get involved.
> One of my worst fears is that we might see the current military campaigns surrounding Iran and the area around it develop into another "great" war.
I am a supporter of American world domination through preferably peaceful means, and think that criticism of social Darwinism was mostly misdirected, but your fears are not at all unfounded. Back in the 19th century, Bismarck famously said, "One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans" -- we all know what happened next.
I didn't see any romanticization of military production - just a fascinating description of a very interesting piece of engineering. The article specifically mentioned that the press is used to create parts for commercial aircraft as well.
> This type of romanticization of military production is obscene.
If you study history even on a superficial basis, you'll find that violence only breaks out in asymmetric situations. In other words, only when one side is thoroughly convinced it can kick the other's ass.
The best way to prevent war is through trade. The second best is to make sure both sides engage in "obscene" military production and are evenly matched. Weapons are merely tools. If deployed intelligently, they can be used to mitigate any violent impulses and keep the peace.
I was under the impression that most prolonged conflicts prior to the 20th century involved well-matched opponents: Greek city states, Rome versus Carthage (except possibly the third Carthaginian war), the Three Kingdoms period in China, and practically all of European history post 1648. Then in the twentieth century alone we start with WWI and WWII (the German military did not view the war against the Soviet Union as winnable), and end up with a great number of proxy wars in the mid-East and Asia.
The trade argument is strange considering that the world economy was more tightly integrated in 1914 than it is today. It is probably correct that nuclear weapons exert something of a stabilizing force, although it is disconcerting that the nash equilibrium for games of mutual-assured destruction requires random detonation by both parties in order to demonstrate irrationality and establish deterrence.
I had the impression that wars mostly break out when each side thinks they have the upper hand. While there are some instances of suicidal attacks by societies that have been backed in to a corner, I would expect that in most cases, the obvious loser of a potential conflict will try to find some less costly way out.
I think I first encountered this idea in an essay about Lewis Fry Richardson's research, but I can't find the citation. His idea was that by analyzing the theory of conflict, he hoped to make prediction of the eventual winner more reliable, reducing the occurrence of mis-matched estimates leading to war.
Actually trade means opposed interests, which is the fastest way to get into a war. There's a wishful thinking picture by some economists that trade is always beneficial to all parties involved, and countries that trade cannot go to war, bla, bla. The funny thing is, those theories were at their peak around 1900 too, "surely global trade as it is now will end wars etc" and we know what followed then.
Actually, weren't Afghanistan and Iraq countries that traded oil with most of the countries that bombed them? Then, one thinks, why pay X for oil, and be subject to the seller's demands and/or willingness to prefer my over other buyers, when I can just get there and just take it?
"Actually, weren't Afghanistan and Iraq countries that traded oil with most of the countries that bombed them?"
No, they weren't. Afghanistan has very little oil. They had some other trade but it was relatively small and inconsequential even before the Soviets invaded (and it hasn't gotten better since).
Iraq clearly has a lot of oil. But your history is a little short there. Prior to them invading Kuwait we were trading heavily with them, but then they invaded Kuwait. There were a lot of countries that showed up to push them back into their own country. Then they became the subject of sanctions, no-fly zones, WMD inspectors etc. There was a lot less trade at that point. THEN the US went in an invaded. Truthfully it kind of makes the OP's point that trade is a good way to prevent war, because there was a notable lack of trade before the US invaded in the 2000s.
> Actually trade means opposed interests, which is the fastest way to get into a war.
Actually, trade means a joined interest in making an exchange, since if both sides didn't see the exchange as in their own best interest they wouldn't be making the trade. Moreover, trading relationships are not usually based on one-off trades. Which means that you'll want to trade again. Which means that getting into a war with the other party would be a bad idea.
All this reminds me of a quote by the late philosopher Robert Nozick, who defined "Marxist exploitation" as "the exploitation, by Marxists, of people's ignorance of economics."
Actually, trade means a joined interest in making an exchange, since if both sides didn't see the exchange as in their own best interest they wouldn't be making the trade.
Moreover, trading relationships are not usually based on one-off trades. Which means that you'll want to trade again. Which means that getting into a war with the other party would be a bad idea.
In this naive worldview there are only two parties that trade. It also presumes, "getting into a war" means you don't get to trade anymore. Like, how Japan and Germany do not trade with the US after WWII, right? The only thing it means is that you get to dictate the terms for subsequent trading.
But the worst about this view is that it also presumes this traded material comes out of thin air: ie. it forgets that trade can lead to war for control of natural resources, trade routes, and, of course, markets.
Here's a funny story:
= = =
The Great Illusion is a book by Norman Angell, first published in Britain in 1909 and republished in 1910 and subsequently in various enlarged and revised editions under the title The Great Illusion. (The "Great Illusion" of the title was the belief that there would soon be another major and destructive European war.)
According to John Keegan "Europe in the summer of 1914 enjoyed a peaceful productivity so dependent on international exchange and co-operation that a belief in the impossibility of a general war seemed the most conventional of wisdoms. In 1910 an analysis of prevailing economic interdependence, The Great Illusion, had become a best-seller; its author Norman Angell had demonstrated, to the satisfaction of almost all informed opinion, that the disruption of international credit inevitably to be caused by war would either deter its outbreak or bring it speedily to an end."
= = =
We know how that one ended.
All this reminds me of a quote by the late philosopher Robert Nozick, who defined "Marxist exploitation" as "the exploitation, by Marxists, of people's ignorance of economics."*
Yeah, except most marxists have also studied thoroughly traditional and liberal economists of their time, from Ricardo and Smith to Hayek and Friedman. Including Marx himself, who was a walking encyclopedia of political economy. Criticizing something does not mean you are ignorant about it. While not a Marxist, I'm with the camp that calls the entrenched political economy a "dismal science", 90% ideology and 10% applied mathematics.
That observation of how peaceful and interdependent the world looked at the dawn of the 20th century is also how Niall Ferguson's book The War of the World starts.
It really is quite sobering to appreciate how people back then really believed that mutual dependence and globalization would make large-scale warfare impossible.
It's arguable whether that's really trade then - it's a bit more like a mugging.
Well, historically large scale trade has been more like mugging. Perfect "free trade" only exists in dogma/ideology. Just consider the "East India Company", how the rich cities of the american South worked, etc. Also of so-called Banana Republics, Africa colonialism and post-colonialism, etc. (Not to miss the party, USSR also had a whole array of "socialist" countries to buy their production and "trade"). Of course, there are millions of examples of political pressure to "buy our stuff", "give our companies your resources at our terms", etc. A multinational is seldom cosmopolitan -- they go where the might is.
I'm reading it at the moment and, to be honest, I'm finding it utterly fascinating but also a bit depressing. If even half of what that book says is true then I really was very naive about how utterly corrupt the world is at a large scale.
Right, weapons are tools for peace. Of course they are. How ignorant of me.
This type of thinking and other similar viewpoints indicate a strong likelihood of another world war. Realistically, it has probably already started in a way.
Does anyone own a nuclear-proof bomb shelter? Seriously, I am looking for a place to hide.
This type of thinking and other similar viewpoints indicate a strong likelihood of another world war.
Yeah, but why should they care? A war for a sufficiently advanced country such as US just means some place thousands miles away getting bombed, and a small percentage (compared to the enemy) of professional soldiers getting hurt. In other words, they have no f/n concept of what war actually entails and the toils of a country at war.
Well, the budget might be hurt a little, but that's it. Whereas even the budget of the other small country will be totally devastated by a war.
Agreed. Was disheartened to read that the machine's primary use in the coming years will be to build JSF planes instead of infrastructure for new light rail networks.
At least that fact that it was refurbished and continues to be used means that when the time comes (and it will), the US will have the equipment it needs to produce most of that infrastructure itself.
The JSF was just an example. With a 30 cycle per hour rate it should be obvious that JSFs can't be a primary use.
They make a lot of critical parts for commercial airliners.
Parts where a high strength to weight or volume ratio is critical are the candidates for such an expensive process. I suspect most of the output is in aircraft, spacecraft, turbine blades, and possibly other machine tools. The journalist had to pick one that people would recognize.
If you ever want to see a true craftsman in action, it's a master blacksmith in charge of a steam hammer. He can go from literally cracking an egg to delivering a blow whose resonance nearly brings the building down. Combined with with the way he manipulates the workpiece, it is poetry in motion.