3D Printing and RPES Catch Up

Not quite sure what happened to summer, but it's been a busy one. I don't even really know where to begin to catch up here on my own blog - I have been so caught up writing for other people.

Actually, that's where I'll start, with a mini bibliography of my recent published work, just so you know I'm not making this up! ;-)

Obviously there are the posts on Personalize — all 18 of them:

Also, I started a series on Engineering.com about 3D printing and barriers to adoption. That started out as a single post but developed a life all of its own — thanks must go to contributors: Kevin Quigley, Russell Beard, Jez Pullin, Rachel Trimble, @RichRap and Magnus Bombus!

First three have been published, and I think the last one is scheduled for next week.

Part 1, looking at costs of 3D printing is here; part 2 covers materials and surface finish/accuracy and can be found here; and part 3, published today, covers 3D data and is here.

I've also conducted and written up some interviews for Innovate3D & CADdigest. Some inspiring stuff going on:


BeautyBit™ – a Broken Nail Leads to an Invention


Inventor Profile: Julie Hyde Edwards’ re-Contour™


North American Eagle Using Modified Jet Fighter in Land Speed Record Bid 

There has been the TCTLive Conference on 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing to finalise and prepare for. Just in case, it's next week (25th/26th Sept) at the NEC, Birmingham UK.

Plus have you seen all the news lately, so many new 3D printers — right across the board — from ExOne and Sigma Labs with new metal systems. New entry level machines include the Pandabot, Eventorbot and the HYREL. There's a really interesting new one coming next Wednesday from Formlabs too — this one is causing much excitement as a few details start to leak. I've been promised more info by the end of the week — I'll share here if my source comes through!

And then of course there is the big announcement from Makerbot in approximately 5 and a half hours. The pre-announcement announcement that is so de-rigeur these days came with a slight twist as the cover of Wired Magazine — depicting Bre Pettis holding the latest gen Replicator — was "leaked". It was a nice touch, I have to say.

I have an announcement of my own to make soon too, but fear not, it won't be pre-announced!

I hope to see some of you in person next week .... take a deep breath, TCT is always a wild ride!

Three more 3D printers that came to light last week.

There has been a surge of new additive machines recently — all demonstrated at Euromold last week. I reported on five in my blog last week. Here are three more! 

The BluePrinter comes from a Danish company of the same name, and is “an affordable 3D printer with new ‘Selective Heat Sintering’ (SHS) technology.” In terms of capital costs, it has an introductory price tag of 9,995 euros, which does make it affordable for small and medium size enterprises looking for additive technologies for product development. And for a sintering machine, this is an attractive price. My spies on the ground have also reported that the quality of the parts coming off the machine is very good, with a print resolution of 0.1mm. The real eye-opener though is that the machine is supplied with thermoplastic powder materials costing just 49 euros per kilo – which equates to 3 euros for an average sized model. This is very impressive and an extremely attractive selling point.

The SHS process (trademarked) distinguishes itself from laser sintering (LS) by using a thermal printhead rather than a laser to sinter the plastic powder. The powder bed also negates the need for support materials and clean up of the models is similar to LS; ie excess powder removal. Can be messy. But with a web-based interface and a neat, desktop sized foot print, this is a 3D printer that could attract industrial users and the maker movement.

The second is actually a series of machines from a new technology company — RapidShape — based in Germany. The series includes the S60 mini, the S60 midi and the S60 maxi. So, essentially the same machine, from what I can tell, each offering different resolutions — ultra fine, super fine and fine respectively. The design of the machine itself is very reminiscent of the Envisiontec Perfactory, the process is resin based, and the prominent target market looks to be jewellery, so I am thinking there is some collaboration between the two here, but that’s just a guess. The parts out of the machine look extremely impressive with fine details and a range of materials for specific applications. Another impressive feature is the speed of the build — quoted as 10mm in 10 minutes. I haven’t found a price yet, but let me know if you do!

Finally, I have heard that DWS Systems, based in Italy, has added to its range of machines with the 030d model. I don’t have any details on this one yet, but just as soon as I do, I will get them up.

So, that is eight machines in seven days! Really can’t ever remember a week quite like it. It’s brilliant to see the additive sector proliferating in this way. And for anyone that saw the 3D Systems acquisition of ZCorp as having a contracting effect on the sector, I think this last week can set any fears to rest. 

Two New Kids for 3D Printing

There are two new entry level 3D printers hitting the market — Printrbot (no, that's not a typo) & Fabbster.

They both look very interesting and will be competing in the same space, which is a different discussion all on its own!

The Printrbot is a kickstarter project that was looking for funding. It's hit the headlines because a week in and the project had surpassed 600% of its funding aims. This in itself is a great achievement, but it also speaks volumes about the awareness of 3D printing and the belief that this technology is going to make a huge difference. The printer itself is still only in the beta stage of development. The new funding will take it into the realms of a commercial product, and the Printrbot website is current, honest & with no small hint of national pride as it sets out the aims and ambitions of the project.

Here's a flavour:

"One particularly exciting development is the opportunity to partner with an established local manufacturer of educational and DIY projects - including robots and whatnot.  We are in talks to partner in a move that would change the world of consumer 3D printing forever - bringing 3D printers to the masses at a price never before seen.  It's a pencil sketch on the back of a napkin at this point, but some really great things came off the back of a napkin, ya know."

There have been no price point numbers quoted at yet though.

Printrbot website: http://printrbot.com/


And then the Fabbster was unveiled today at Euromold. This one has been at least a couple of years in development, and I have heard whispers about it on & off, with increasing noise more recently as the launch approached. Coming from the Sintermask and Netfabb stable, this 3d printer has a good pedigree and it goes without saying that the software will be very strong, and it all runs from a standard PC, which does move it towards mass use. The quoted price point is €1000, with first deliveries scheduled Q1 2012.

Fabbster website: http://www.fabbster.com/

Both of these 3D printers are also citing that ease of construction (time & effort) are a novel selling point. Indeed this has been problem for 3D printer kits. And if this corner has been turned, then the market space will increase. For mass use, they have to be quick and simple to install and start running.

Less Revolution and More Evolution as New 3D Printers Hit

Two new kids in the fold this week. One joined the party straight off, the other will follow soon.

First is the Buildatron 1, which was launched at the Maker Faire event in New York last weekend. The byline that has been steadily accompanying this new kid's marketing chatter is: "A Revolutionary 3D Printer".

It's not!

Sorry to be blunt, but it really isn't. Furthermore, the stated and single purpose of Buildatron Systems — the company behind Buildatron 1 — is to "Build a Revolution through affordable 3D printers and robotic devices." And it's not just Buildatron — the word 'revolution' is over-used, and more often than not, used incorrectly, around 3D printing.

To be clear, in terms of definitions, a revolution involves a forcible overthrow of an existing system or a dramatic and wide-reaching change in the way that something works. Therefore, it could be argued that 3D printing does offer a 'revolutionary' approach to manufacturing industry and making things per se, because it challenges the way things have been made for many thousands of years. However, I think that even this is tenuous because 3D printing is never going to replace or change every other method of manufacturing and making — it just offers a great alternative.

I get the aim of the folks at Buildatron Systems, the intention is grand but I don't think 'revolution' is the way to go. The Buildatron 1 (DIY and assembled models), in my opinion, is a great example of how 3D printers are evolving to bring the consumer better, more usable and accessible 3D printers. This is a good looking printer, an evolution of the RepRap open source project. It has some really neat selling points that do set it apart from comparable models on the market, apart from how it looks, including a proprietary internal gear-fed plastic spooling cartridge system. The website is designed to engage a community, the information provided is broad and sound. Another one to watch closely. 

The other new 3D printer announced this week is Origo (one of my first questions is where this name came from??). This is a really cool looking machine, vital to the target demographic: children! I love the ideology behind this development, and it emerged yesterday that Joris Peels has had significant input on this so my hopes are high. The downside is that when pushed by Joshua Johnson (@protobotind) on twitter about when we could expect to get our hands on one of these machines, the typically honest response was 18 months — 'if things go according to plan, which they probably won't'. Origo also revealed that the planned retail price is $800, no assembly will be required. This is evolution at it's best. No real indicators on the performance of the machine, but it was being bandied around that it will be the EZ-Bake oven of 3D printing. Again, I took a deep breath with that one, I remember my daughter's EZ-Bake oven, and it was no where near as much fun as it was supposed to be, and I know for sure I wasn't the only parent to think that and my daughter wasn't the only frustrated child. I think they might need to rethink that comparison. If my instincts are correct, they don't need a comparison at all. Kids will love it.

But this type of news is only going to increase as the evolution of 3D printing gathers pace — which it will!

Planes, Refrains and 3D Printing's largest Audience yet.

Another eventful week in the world of 3D Printing – long may it continue.

New Scientist magazine ran a feature in print & online covering work undertaken at the University of Southampton that resulted in the design and build of the world’s "first fully 3D printed flying aircraft". The title of the piece is a little deceptive – the ‘uninitiated’ as they have been labelled in certain quarters will probably be imagining themselves boarding a plane that has been completely 3D printed.

This project actually demonstrated some impressive results for a model plane-sized UAV. The aircraft was designed by the  engineering team from Southampton and 3D printed by 3T RPD — a reputable 3D printing service provider — all within a week and on a low budget (£5000).

The video release has had lots of attention and rightly so, this successful application (10 minutes in flight) has huge implications for many different applications of UAVs. Add a real time camera feeding images to a safely positioned computer & operator and no one but a hard core 3D printing fanatic would shed a tear if one of these aircraft was shot down over dangerous terrain! Just an idea. 

[http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20737-3d-printing-the-worlds-first-printed-plane.html?full=true]

And then on this week’s edition of BBC Click, Spencer Kelly, the show’s presenter underwent a head scan. This was to demonstrate the capabilities of hand-held 3D scanning and 3D printing.

The episode is definitely worth a look and can be found here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0134bpt/Click_30_07_2011/co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/default.stm

A great many positives, with current applications described and reducing costs allowing the technology to go mainstream; along with the customary talk of the future. This included a nod to the open source RepRap project with machines that replicate themselves. Already starting to happen, incidentally. It also described the sustainability and environmentally-friendly benefits of producing products locally.

I was slightly disappointed to see that the film location was described as a ‘rapid prototyping lab’. In fact, the episode was filmed at Ravensbourne, a university sector college in London, with what looked like nice range of equipment. This out-dated description is not overly helpful for the industry’s efforts to move forward with standardized terminology. But this was the least of the confusion that emerged. 

Initially Mr Kelly describes the materials that can be 3D printed under the categories of ‘plastic’, ‘resin’ or ‘even food’. Later on in the broadcast he categorises 3D printing into three types —again according to materials — but this time it is powder, resin and paper (it was product placement only for those in the know). Kelly went on to explain the powder bed, inkjet process quite well, similarly for the paper process, but this completely overlooked the powder sintering and deposition processes. With the resin system, he simply looked in the machine and described it as a ‘large microwave’ with little more added about the process itself. No mention of vats and/or cartridges.

Kelly went on to interview Jeremy Gardiner, Ravensbourne’s course director. This guy seemed to knew his stuff, but unfortunate editing led to further contradiction. Asked, “Is there anything you can’t use to print?” Gardiner replied, “There are certainly lots of different technologies out there. You can boil it down to two, really. Additive processes and subtractive ones.”

Notice the “two technologies” following Kelly’s “three processes” earlier. Not good. I know subtractive processes have a lot to offer within the big picture of engineering and manufacturing, but in the context of this programme, introducing the subtractive option was counter-productive.

Furthermore, and this is annoying, apart from Mr Gardiner casually dropping into the conversation that printing in titanium implies you are printing a hip replacement; there was no explanation of metal-based processes. EOS/Arcam/Concept Laser/Optomec/Renishaw – all of these companies need to up their game on the awareness front. The spark from 3D printing is bursting into flames and now is the time to engage and demonstrate the advantages of additive manufacturing.

/Climbing down from my soapbox/ Maybe I’m getting a little pedantic – the BBC coverage was great in terms of getting the message out and demonstrating applications. Newbies that want to know more can follow up — right? The TV and online audience from this is a significant one, indeed I was woken up by hubby (on early dog walking duty) to be told “your stuff is on the news – look /switches on tv/ — I didn’t know it was THAT advanced!” /sigh/ He did bring me a cup of tea though.

And Stephen Fry obviously saw it, resulting in his refrain on twitter: “I think I need all three of those 3D printers – link” Well that went out to 2.8 million followers!!

This, on top of THAT youtube video exceeding 7 million hits,  coverage on BBC Radio 4 profiling Digital Forming and an extensive article in the Daily Telegraph which heralded 3D printing as ‘The Technology that could Reshape the World’ [http://t.co/M3jYuIz] means that 3D printing has definitely come before a larger audience than ever before.

/smile/

A Perfect Storm is Required for 3D Printing to go Mainstream - The Wind is Picking Up

Ok, so we have been here before, many times. Talking about what needs to happen for 3D Printing to "go viral" to use the term that is currently on trend. 

And before you question this post going over old ground, I'll tell you why I am cogitating on this. It seems the debate has subtly moved on from the "will it/won't it happen" discourse, where two clearly and strongly argued points of view were professed. Essentially, the "Aye's" seem to have it, because the general assumption now is that it will happen, but the debate centres around how and when. It is the 'how' question that throws up many different angles, which all need to come together at the same time to create the 'perfect storm' referenced in the title of this post.

Also, it should be noted, there are still a number of full-on dissenters out there, but their voices are receding and they are in a minority. 

So on to how and when. 

How will 3D printing penetrate everyday life? Many of the machine vendors and their allies are still pushing for '3D Printers in every home'. Obviously they have an ulterior motive here, because if/when demand like this does materialise, volumes of sales and their bottom lines will shoot through the roof. Realistically, IMHO, I think that 3D printers in many homes is entirely feasible (it will never be every home) — but this is no where near imminent. I think that I have said it here before, it probably will not happen in my lifetime. 

Before it can happen though, people have to want it, they have to understand it, and, more importantly, they have to want to understand it because they believe that they "need" it. Beyond the 3D printing itself, we really do have to take a step back — in the process that is. How many people, in general, can design in 3D? Proportionally, very few indeed. Based on the fact that 3D designs are the prerequisite for any 3D printer; education and ‘desire’ has to start here. Until there is a profusion of 3D designs, for which the designers (for designers read anyone) require an output, things will not move forward any quicker than they are now. As an analogy think about computers and 2D printers. 30-40 years ago computers were emerging as workplace tools for a few companies, the numbers increasing exponentially with time. Moreover, 2D printers did not become "must have's" until computers did. As the number of people that were familiar with computers and different software programmes in their workplace grew, this was mirrored by the uptake of computers — and printers — for personal use. I don’t know the precise figures, but I imagine the recreational use of computers is at least as great as their commercial use today. I believe a similar path will be traversed with 3D printing. But until lots of people can — and want to — design and create in 3D there will be absolutely no requirement for 3D printers in large volumes.

But that still leaves us with the philosophy of the killer app [Post of 18/1/10] — the first application of 3D printing that provides the reason to want to have it locally. New applications seem to push out a little further into mainstream consciousness each time, but nothing has emerged to date that has blown it out of the water. 

There is a growing argument, one that I back 100%, that the best way to get 3D printing into the mainstream is to start with schools. Get 3D design software and 3D printers into every school and college. The kids will eagerly learn to understand it, they will subsequently want it and one of them will probably come up with the killer app to finally bring on the perfect storm.

However.

There is also another school of thought, the other side of the 'how' debate, which advocates the internet as the medium by which 3D printed objects will become mainstream — my old boss is on this side of the argument, and I am sure he won't mind me quoting him! You can have it in his own words, rather than me paraphrasing.

Duncan Wood, Rapid News Communications: 

"I think that the idea of a printer in every home is never going to happen ....... What I think will happen is that every home will have access to 3DP/AM via the online space, just as soon as every home gets the internet, then we'll see an explosion in 3D printing use. Choosing unique customised parts, gifts and designs will be the way people access it, choosing from the range of technologies available, not just the cheapest one they can afford to purchase out of their own pocket." 

Now, I don't dispute this as a growing and potentially huge application for 3D Printing, particularly if you take this a step further and consider the additional possibilities offered by replacement products and parts (eg dishwasher parts, kettles, toasters and so on). But, IMO, this will be an interim measure, a solution that will grow in it’s own right as a precursor to the perfect storm when 3D printers will become a common commodity.

3D Systems Buys Bits from Bytes — A Significant Manoeuvre for 3D Printing?

On Tuesday the news broke that 3D Systems had acquired Bits from Bytes (BfB). This strategic move is not surprising in itself, and is precisely the sort of acquisition that 3D Systems is renowned for — and seemingly very good at. I'm thinking back to the middle of last year when 3D Systems acquired Desktop Factory.

So the company has bought up two low-end 3D printing manufacturers and all of their IP in just over 12 months.

I suspect the dust is settling all round — the news has been spread far and wide across all the usual distribution channels, but there has been surprisingly little commentary on this. It's taken me a few days to formulate my own thoughts into some sort of order on this news, and it's definitely not clear cut yet, but here goes ....

Despite the surface similarities of the two acquisitions there are also some huge differences. The Desktop Factory machine, despite clever marketing had never actually reached the market, it was more about acquiring R&D and a very good marketing professional (Cathy Lewis, formerly CEO at Desktop Factory, is now the marketing spokesperson for 3D Systems). Bits from Bytes on the other hand has been shipping 3D printers — the Rapman kit and latterly the plug & play BfB 3000 — through various global channels to some acclaim for two years, with an ever increasing order book.

My first ruminations were on the motivation for these acquisitions. Call me cynical, but I could not help but wonder at first if the company motive was to buy the low-end 3D printer vendors to suppress sales, and protect market share within the whole additive manufacturing (AM) industry. 3D Systems does have a reputation for being aggressive and pretty closed off to journalists and customers alike. But although hard to interact with, it is hard to deny the success the company has achieved with additive technologies. I have come around to thinking that there were probably different motivations for each acquisition rather than one holistic subversive conspiracy!

Desktop Factory was hitting the headlines at a similar time to the 3D Systems V-Flash 3D printer — both hailed as the answer to the industry's needs in terms getting a foot on the AM ladder. Indeed the prospects of both were great but neither ever seemed to fulfill the promised potential. For Desktop Factory lack of financial backing and some technical / production issues prevented the company from actually reaching the market. The technical problems may yet be resolved, but the Desktop Factory concept has still not materialised into a working machine for sale. For the V-flash — well no one ever did get to the bottom of why the launch date kept getting postponed. However, the machine did finally filter through, but lost some credibility as a result; plus the market dynamic had shifted significantly too with the arrival of working 3D printers under £5000, namely the Makerbot, RepRap and RapMan. Since then there have been more changes with the arrival of the UP! 3D printer and the BfB 3000.

So why has 3D Systems bought Bits from Bytes (BfB)? Well, as stated, 3D Systems is very protective of its position in the AM industry. It is one of a very small minority of AM vendors that occupies space selling across the whole spectrum of machines — low to high end. Stratasys is the other, but does not have a product offering under $10,000. I suspect that the V-Flash has not met expectations — internally or at large — and therefore the BfB product line was an attractive proposition in that it was a ready-made, working solution. It has been bought as a going concern, and the 3D Systems announcement asserts that the Bristol, UK-based BfB facility will be undertaking business as usual. The 3D Systems website has the BfB machines on its product selector feature already too — and they are the only machines offered under $5000. Not something the company could offer last Monday!! I can't see the BfB brand disappearing as too much is invested in it, but based on historical performance I don't think it will remain without some sort of 3D Systems trademark for very long either.

This is beyond a doubt a significant development in the 3D printing arena. How far it will penetrate remains to be seen, but with the competition heating up things are getting very interesting again.

It's Good to Like what you Like and to Do what you Do...

This recent post by Brock Hinzmann on the rp-ml list really struck a cord with me:

"I've always found it interesting that artists often call their works 'experiments' (as in 'Experiment in White on White No. 9'), while scientists often discuss their experiments in terms of the 'state of the art.' Some artists are very purposeful and tell me it's art if the person that makes it says it is and anyone who calls themselves an artist is one. And some artists probably don't even think of themselves as artists so much as a person following a muse in their head to bring forth a mind-body experience of one sort or another. The art can grate on the senses, it can lack craft or skill and it can be highly offensive to some beholders, but it is done for a reason that is art. Making an exact duplicate probably is not. The great thing about RP is the ability to experiment. I try not to be too judgmental these days about artists or art critics. However, I prefer critics (of paintings, of sculpture, of movies, of music concerts) who can clearly state their own biases and assumptions, which I can compare against my own biases and assumptions about art. I like what I like."


It resonated for a couple of reasons, first, because I agree with it. I no longer like to be told what is good or what is bad — art is a good example — I would rather decide for myself, but understanding other people's perspective is, IMO, a good thing. It doesn't have to be the same as mine though. 


Second, it took me back to another conversation I had not that long ago about the additive manufacturing (AM) industry. The slow growth reality, compared with the hyped predictions of 15 years ago was a central theme and what could be done to push the technology harder, wider and faster. Typical stuff really. But one of the comments that has stuck with me is that — "it won't happen like that, people do what they do" [with additive technology]. In other words, the general population of existing AM technology users — whether the application is prototyping with 3D printers or manufacturing or something inbetween — have grasped the technology and only use it to fulfil their application — nothing more.

I kind of got a sinking feeling as this hit home. I don't agree with it in full because it does not take into account the individuals that I have met who passionately believe in this technology and spread the word at every opportunity. Also, things are still moving forward, and I believe they will continue to do so. The article on 3D printing in the New York Times (one of the US' largest circulation daily newspapers) yesterday proves this point nicely. Growth is slow and the minority of AM evangelists is still small and while I have been struck by the truth of the statement that — often of necessity — 'people do what they do', it is not such a bad thing. I actually like doing what I do — I hope you do too.

An Uninspiring Consensus on the Future of 3D Printing from the Trade Press

A fair proportion of my time is spent reading — whether in print or online — as there is a great deal of information and endless opinions about additive manufacturing (AM) and 3D printing (3DP) available these days. I like to keep up, partly because it is good for my business, but also because I like it! I do sometimes miss the more classical material that I used to lose myself in, prior to two children and running my own business, but sleep deprivation is something I don't cope well with. 

Anyway, the reason for this post? A noticeable consensus between the two Editors of the only two trade magazines that focus heavily on AM and 3DP in the UK. And strangely enough, both aired similar opinions when discussing the arrival of the two new ZCorp 3D printers (see previous post). 

In a blog post dated 27th July, entitled 'The Rise and Rise of 3D Printing,' James Woodcock, Editor of the TCT Magazine stated: 

"Some see the ultimate goal for 3D Printers to be on every desk next to your home computer. I don't see it happening myself, but I realise that could be a 'one computer in every town in America' type of statememt." 

And then, today I was flicking through the latest print edition of Develop3D and came across this commentary from Al Dean, Editor: 

"The mass adoption of 3D printing has been talked about for some time, but I'm not entirely convinced that everyone is going to have a 3D printer in their home for a good long while .... if at all." 

The similarity in their opinions is striking, but notice that they both include a get-out clause!! 

Having been there myself, it is a tricky course to negotiate. One can't be too negative, there are clients to consider after all, and they sell these machines and pay your bills!! On the flip side, if you go out too positive then you risk credibility. 

For my tuppence worth, I am still where I was about 6 months ago, I think that the volumes of machines sold, starting at the entry level sub-£5k machines, will continue to increase. System and material performance will be incrementally improved, as will usability. This will open up the rest of the market and when one or more of the system vendors taps into a universal application and is in a position to scale up their own production, then at that point the universe will be the limit!

For positivity and a genuine interest in making this happen — my vote goes to Shapeways. This is a company that is doing AND saying, albeit online only. I wonder what would happen if they went into 2D print???? 

Clever, Canny or Just Cynical and Gimmicky?

So 3D Systems and some of its distributors are offering trade-in deals for a ProJet 3D printer.

The logic of replicating a very successful business model is undeniable, whereby users of 3D printers can 'trade-up' to a ProJet. Beyond the logic of the idea and the gimmicky rhetoric, which goes something like this:

For a limited time only, we will credit you up to US$15,000 toward the purchase of any new ProJet 3000, or a new ProJet 5000 3D Production System when you trade-in your existing 3D printer.

... the reality is that the customer will be surrendering their exisiting 3D printer for up to $15,000 off a new ProJet, that costs in the region of $60,000.

Furthermore, 3D Systems also lists the equipment brands that can be traded in:

• Stratasys
• Dimension
• Objet
• Z-Corp
• Envisiontec
• 3D Systems' InVision series 3-D modelers. 

Obvious choices perhaps, but it begs the question, if this offer works, and even one person takes it up, what will 3D Systems do with the old machine(s)??? 

Any suggestions?