AM vendors missing a trick?

Putting together my previous blog post made me poignantly aware that the majority of additive manufacturing vendors (those that manufacture metal systems and/or those pointing predominantly at industry) have a very poor internet presence, some in terms of their own sites and most in terms of visibility on the social/business media sites. I think I already know why this is — from my own painful experience of trying to extract stories from them in the past — working with industrial clients, NDA's are everywhere and they make it very hard to promote some of the most compelling additive manufacturing stories!

ZCorp and Objet are leading the way in making their presence known globally. They regularly publish their own blogs and comment far and wide on forums and social media sites. They are getting significant profiling as a result of their efforts. There is also a notable but more subdued presence from Stratasys, RepRap (& derivatives), Mcor and 3D Systems (although DDD gets a lot of coverage from many different sources due to its acquisition strategy - I am a good example!!).

They probably already know who they are, but just in case — EOS, Arcam, Optomec, Fcubic, Envisiontec, Renishaw (previously MTT), Huntsman, Concept Laser, Voxeljet and Sintermask. These are some great companies doing some incredible things with additive technologies — but you need to share more :-) 

3DP/AM Apps Increase & Improve

As usual, I have been spending some time looking at the breadth of 3D printing (3DP) / additive manufacturing (AM) applications ‘out there’. It is something that I have been lucky enough to do for many years now, but this week I approached the online search conscious of the many “newbies” that were potentially doing the same thing following the viral video and TV air time on a series of news/information channels. 

A couple of things struck me.

The first was how pleasing it is to get pages of links that all take me directly to genuine 3D printing applications or commentaries on tech developments, rather than having to scroll through copious irrelevant sites that either offer 3-dimensional products / photographs / films or 'superior, can't be beaten on price' 2D printing services. Of course, there are also plenty of ads promoting companies that offer 3D printing services, but in this context, I don't think it is such a bad thing. Overall, this is an improvement on even just a few months ago when I set out looking for new applications for the TCT Live 2011 programme (which, incidentally, is complete and can be found here: http://www.tctmagazine.com/x/tct-live/v-seminar.html)! For anyone newly interested in 3D printing or additive manufacturing, the fact that there is a wealth of applications and information at their fingertips is great and will hopefully serve to develop their curiosity into something more.

Second, there is a definite divide in the type of applications that exist. Even going back to the earliest days of rapid prototyping (RP), this divide was in evidence, but today it is stark. I am referring to the aesthetic versus the functional applications of additive technology (I did consider labelling the difference as sparkly versus non-sparkly or consumer versus non-consumer, but they were technically less correct!). Even using the aesthetic versus functional terminology it should still be noted that the terms are not mutually exclusive, as the aesthetic products often have a function and functional products can look attractive. However, I believe it makes the point I am making most successfully.

Whether the dominant aim is to achieve an aesthetically pleasing product or a fully functional part or prototype, the designs and products being realized with 3D printing are just so impressive — occasionally breathtaking and always inspiring.

As a commentator (and a consumer, it must be said) I am constantly blown away by much of the aesthetically pleasing 3D printed products available and I aspire to own them in the fullness of time. However, it is important to recognize and fully appreciate the engineering brilliance and technical capabilities of AM parts. You may have picked up on the nuances of the language I am using (3D printing for aesthetic/consumer facing applications and additive manufacturing for functional/industrial applications) but without getting into the whole terminology debate once again, I think this works. As 3D printing continues to take centre stage, it is vital that the strides being made within industrial applications are not overlooked. A few days ago, EADS and EOS announced a collaboration exploring weight reduction with the DMLS (direct metal laser sintering) process. Weight reduction has been cited as an advantage of additive manufacturing for some time, but the huge benefits that can be derived from it — particularly for aerospace companies — cannot be underestimated in terms of money, sustainability and the environment.

Being on the fringes of this industry (as I consider myself to be) is a really great place. The industry is truly blossoming as I always believed it would. New companies are being set up at an increasing rate, based solely on 3D printing. More established 3D printing/AM companies (previously RP bureaux) are reporting growing order books and increased uptake, and the vendors of the machines, in the main, are reporting year on year growth and profits. The revenue being generated by these applications is vital to the continued growth of the industry and indeed, western manufacturing economies.

Fabulous stuff.

Talking of fabulous, watch out for my favourite finds — coming soon — a hat tip to some of the sensational work of the designers and the technology.

AMF File Format Approved - Users Are Itching to Try It Out!

The announcement that the new file format for 3D printing has been approved by the ASTM F42 committee went live a few weeks ago. The successor to the widely used STL format, AMF — dubbed by some as STL 2.0 — has been two years in development, and the process has been an inclusive one. Over this time I have watched the mailing list that was set up inviting anyone involved with additive manufacturing and 3D printing as well as 3D CAD to take part in the initial survey and the subsequent discussions, drafts and revisions, which at times got highly technical and occasionally contentious.

All of this bodes extremely well for AMF. It has been a carefully managed process that has taken into account the requirements and opinions of a wide user base. Hod Lipson, of Cornell University & Chairman of the ASTM Subcommittee overseeing the development process of the AMF file format deserves particular recognition for his contributions and management skills.

Since the announcement, I have put out a few feelers to see what people that use AM & 3D printing think. The general consensus is that they are excited about it, believe it will make their lives easier and can't wait to get their hands on it. All of my contacts have indicated that they are not downloading it for themselves, but they are waiting for the CAD vendors and/or AM system vendors to incorporate it into their products and provide upgrades for existing equipment. Fair enough, but who's responsibility is it to get it out there and working for people? There has been little filtering through from the vendors as to when we will see it but I imagine since the announcement, which they will have been aware of ahead of time, there is a race on to get it to market within the product ranges. After all, the first to market could gain a competitive advantage.

Now where have I heard that line before ...... ?

3D Printing, The Press & The Future of Manufacturing

The last few weeks & months have moved breathtakingly fast around the world of 3D printing. Particularly since the Maker Faire event in San Francisco in May, the buzz has been tremendous as more and more people are confronted by the reality of 3D Printing. The Maker Faire event is itself a growing phenomenon, but one that fits perfectly with the advent of 3D printing for the individual maker.  Couple this with the advent of simple, easy-to-use 3D design software and the explosion of interest that has been predicted excitedly — and often unrealistically — for many years is materialising in front of our very eyes.

It is also exciting to report that I have lost count of the number of articles, blog posts and references that I have read recently, about 3D printing, in a wide cross section of the press. The Telegraph, the BBC, the NY Times and the Economist are just a few that spring to mind as I write.  It is not that long ago that anyone in the right place at the right time would see me dancing around a room, jumping up and down in delight, if just one reference to 3D printing (or RP, or AM, or Fabbing) appeared in an obscure technology section of a trade magazine. I would then proceed to wax lyrical about it. I think those days can now be confined to the annals of history.

Many of these articles are talking about 3DP hitting the mainstream but I don't think we are quite there just yet. Although I do believe that we are right on the cusp — and, contrary to my own musings even within the last few months, I think I will be around to see it. I'm glad I was wrong too.

The other critical area for 3D technologies that is also being much more widely debated and discussed is that of education. Many western economies are facing a skills shortage, specifically for engineering and manufacturing, the UK among them. There are numerous reasons and contributing factors for this, which the bureaucrats will contemplate until kingdom come, but action is needed. Advanced 3D technology, including 3D printing, is a real — and accessible — solution.  It is gratifying to see that there are growing numbers of champions that are forcefully promoting the advantages of getting 3D digital technologies into schools and into the hands of children. By doing so, I fully believe that the future of 3D printing — right across the board — will be secured and that the strength of western manufacturing can grow once again and continue to return from the East.

Airbikes, Airtime & Airy-Fairy Claims

The interview with EADS on BBC's Breakfast programme yesterday, with the full Airbike demo, had me instantly reaching for my phone to tweet. Got the company Chief Exec's name wrong as well — just to clear that one up, it is Robin Southwell not Robert Southwell. Sorry Robin. The TV was on in the background as I was trying to get the offspring off to school, and no amount of 'shushing' and 'be quiets' could mute said offspring long enough for me to get the full interview and unfortunately the news is not available on BBC iplayer.

However, I got the gist and have reread much of the content many times over in the EADS press release that has appeared all over the place today. Many great positives to draw from it but plenty of things to hum and ha about too.

By far the most favourable outcomes of the Airbike coverage on the BBC was the great UK-based publicity for additive manufacturing (AM), from an inspirational brand, with an eye-catching demo piece, that will appeal to the masses — despite the wobble as the BBC presenter cycled across the studio at the end of the slot.

Other elements of the interview got me twitching though, and pulling faces that my six year old would be proud of. EADS is a huge global organisation, of which Airbus in Bristol is one part, and its corporate politics — which I have witnessed first hand — are staggeringly bureaucratic. I can see the logic for putting the Chief Executive in front of the cameras from a corporate point of view, but I don't think it achieved the best results. It was obvious to me that Mr Southwell had been primed, but it was also clear that he did not really understand additive technology or the industry that has sprung up around it. Don't get me wrong — EADS are doing great things with AM, seriously great actually. But it is not the only company doing it, and the way it was promoted as "new technology in the UK" was misleading at best. EADS is pushing the boundaries of AM technologies — particularly laser sintering and direct metal laser sintering — in terms of capabilities and materials development, which gives them ownership rights to some excellent applications, but not this sort of claim to the technology itself.

There was also some naivete demonstrated on the potential of the technologies, with it being vaunted that  this technology will be in shops and homes within 10 years. This is nothing new, but you know when you just get that sinking feeling, not to mention a headache, because you have been banging your head against the same wall for so long!

And on to the ripple effect of publicity that has gone live today with many media platforms picking up on the story and publishing it all over the web. The likes of BIKEmagic and Popular Science, that may not have been confronted with AM before, can be forgiven for relaying the PR copy verbatim, but there are some that really should know better!! Eureka and The Engineer regularly report on AM and 3D printing, and therefore have the know-how and the editorial staff to correctly position the information with which they are provided.

However, the old addage that, "there is no such thing as bad publicity" will hopefully be true here, and the results will be all good. I hope so.

TCT Live 2010 — A worthwhile trip.

The fog is starting to clear following a successful TCT event at the Ricoh Arena earlier this week. This is a show that I have been involved with in one way or another for the last 15 years, and the 2010 edition was, it has to be said, a triumph — in terms of organisation and results.

TCT has continued to grow in terms of its physical size and visitor numbers year on year, and 2010 was no exception. The industry's worst kept secret was also launched on the second day of the show, with the announcement that in 2011, TCT will move to the NEC in Birmingham to run alongside MM Live once again, as well as Interplas — Rapid News Communications' latest acquisition.

Although no longer directly employed by RNC, this year I was commissioned to draw together the conference programme on Additive Manufacturing and it was a good line up (even if I do say so myself). The subsequent feedback has been very encouraging from delegates at the conference during the two days as well as notes dropping in my in box since. (Almost worth the sleepless nights!!)

Walking the halls was also very positive, virtually everyone I met and spoke with was infinitely more up beat than this time last year, although it should be said that quite a few of them were tracking the CSR as it was delivered on Wednesday afternoon on their hand-held devices. Nobody can quite define how the impact will roll out into industry, but business seemed brisk on the show floor.

The other thing that struck me was that TCT continues to gain prominence for the additive technology vendors — for AM and 3D printing. The majority of vendors have always had a presence at TCT but now the CEO's are showing their faces and not just sending minions!

All in all a valuable three days away from the office.

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.

3 New 3DPs

So a few days away from it all, with the smart bit of my phone switched off, and I come back to three new additive manufacturing (AM) machines and an inbox groaning under the strain of undeleted messages!


/Aside/ The aim of the time away was quality time with the children before they took off for independent adventures at summer camp. Having a bolt hole in a beautiful location on the coast of the island of Anglesey, North Wales, courtesy of my parents' love of the place half a century ago, and hard work to acquire a place there, is something for which I am eternally grateful. The third generation of our family is now completely besotted with the place. A safe haven that allows for freedom and adventure. The quality time did not quite pan out as I had envisaged, however it was 100% quality nonetheless.  It turned out that all my two needed for "the best week ever" was the freedom to roam with their new BFF's, material for building dens, regular fuel stops, the odd plaster and an occasional snuggle (the power of which should never be underestimated). The only discord originated from the disparity in what was deemed to be an acceptable time to end the day and get ready for bed. We came back on top of the world.


So, the new AM machines — a new entry level 3D printer and two more from ZCorp (100% ZCorp) in the mid-range market.


The two new machines from ZCorp are the lowest priced offerings from the company. A fact that, coming quite closely after the uPrint, sees many of the predictions from the last decade — of how the competitive landscape will shape the industry and what it can offer in terms of improved performance — coming to fruition. The two machines in question are the ZPrinter 150 (monochrome, priced at £10,900) and the ZPrinter 250 (multicolour, priced somewhat higher, at £17,900). With this announcement, ZCorp is highlighting lower prices and higher specs, claiming that they 'print 5–10 times faster than other 3D printing technologies, with the unique ability to print multiple, stacked models simultaneously.' Obviously, the other big selling point — for the ZPrinter 250 — is its capability of simultaneously printing in multiple colours. What did make me smile was the swipe that ZCorp took at the entry level machines. Check this out: "Unlike low-end 3D printers, the new ZPrinter 150 and ZPrinter 250 are: easy to use out of the box; build 3D models with five times the resolution; and have the industry’s lowest operating cost (lowest cost per model)."


At this point, I would dispute the last claim in that list, but will try and get some actual facts and figures together before I wax lyrical, the stacking capability may just swing it in ZCorp's favour. 


And despite ZCorp's prickles at the increasing volumes of 'low' end systems, this competition is all good. Besides, there is another 'low' end contender coming into play, priced under £1,000 (sort of). 


The UP! system comes from a company that seems to be overly fond of alliteration and wants to remain shrouded in terms of its origins. UP! is a Personal, Portable 3D Printer and is being marketed as a 'micro-factory for Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime.' Okay, cynicism aside, the machine itself looks quite interesting (and different), plenty of pictures and standard spec info at the pp3dp site: http://www.pp3dp.com/. However, little to go on in terms of who, why and what is behind this development. And the $1500 price tag, it should be noted, is only for the first 100 system sales, after that, the RRP is $2990. 

Sciaky Goes Above Radar

With its presence at the upcoming International Conference on AM at Loughborough in July, Sciaky is taking it's EBFFF technology into the mainstream consciousness of the Additive world. EBFFF — or Electron Beam Freeform Fabrication, which the company shortens to EBF3 — could make a big impact because it seems the thing that makes it different is that it is a big technology. 

I cannot find any specific information on part dimensions at this point, maybe that will be part of the unveiling at Loughborough, but deposition rates are quoted as ranging from 15 to 40 pounds of metal per hour — depending on the material and application (of course, this is standard patter). This deposition rate of metal, if accurate, is a significant increase from what has been available to date and could be the key to success here. Add to this the material choices — titanium, nickel, stainless steel and refractory alloys — and the application base becomes even more interesting. 

Sciaky’s historical pedigree is founded in electron beam welding, a technology that is used in industries such as aerospace, defence and manufacturing so the company has all the right contacts for introducing the first large scale Additive Manufacturing process.

The other angle that caught my attention is the PC-based control system, which according to Sciaky, takes advantage of the company’s extensive experience using integrated CNC motion and process controls.

Sciaky is a subsidiary of Phillips Service Industries (PSI) so backing and further development should not be an issue.

I suspect this is one to watch. 

BFB RapMan is Manufacturing Parts

Commissioned to find and write a compelling case study on the BFB RapMan, I knew it would not be a hard brief, in that uptake is pretty rapid at the moment. However, what I was not expecting, was to come across a user that is employing the kit form of the RapMan machine to manufacture end-use components! I was staggered, I have to say. This is immense. An additive technology, under £1,000, is producing plastic components for a finished product. Granted, the volumes are not huge — yet. But, the potential is there.

I am currently waiting for approval to get this story out there into the public domain, but just as soon as I do, I will be posting it here, as well as sending it as far and wide as possible.

The Transition Period

As a long term advocate of additive technologies I have been through the peaks and troughs associated with an emerging sector. However, I have never before been witness to the growing momentum behind these technologies that exists today.

It is not possible to point to one single factor, which is probably why there is strength behind the momentum as opposed to 'hype'. Rather, it is now possible to identify a cumulative range of events and circumstances that are contributing to this escalating energy behind both 3D printing and additive manufacturing.

As the world tentatively heads out of recession, albeit teetering on the brink with economic commentators uncertain about which way the cards will fall as of yet, the vendors of additive technology platforms have fared pretty well. Some better than others, as would be expected, but what it very telling is that none have gone into administration. All of them have managed to keep their heads above water. Stratasys recently released its end of year results for 2009, and the general pattern is probably similar across the board, in that unit sales were down on the previous year, but still healthy enough. Cost cutting and belt tightening helped to buoy up the figures some, and overall the rhetoric was positive. An industry that can demonstrate positive results after a devastating year — economically speaking — only points to further significant growth at a faster rate as global circumstances improve.

Awareness is another significant factor in this building momentum. It's been a slow process (akin to wading through treacle at times) but it is now spreading at an exciting rate. There is much more talk, debate and understanding of the additive manufacturing concept. From a personal perspective, I am finding that I rarely have to explain the concept itself anymore, as most people that I speak to have heard about it and grasp the basic idea. Rather it is a case of explaining the different processes and the range of capabilities. This is progress!

A further significant pointer that I became aware of yesterday is that a large retail outlet that has picked up on the technology. PC World posted an article on its website: http://www.pcworld.com/article/189880/affordable_3d_printers.html. It refers directly to HP's interest in 3D printers and I imagine this is what brought it to the company's attention. Also, the article talks about 3DP and AM as a technology of the future, but it is talking, and more to the point, it is taking the message wider. Just think of the number of people that would never come across a manufacturing or technology website but will visit the PC World website. There could be many more 'Eureka' moments as a result!

Many of the blogs relating to 3DP and AM are also becoming much, much more prolific with their posts. A great many of them distinguish between the industrial strength processes (Stratasys, 3D Systems, Objet, ZCorp et al) and the 'hobbyist' platforms (RepRap, Fab@Home, Makerbot and BfB RapMan etc). The hobbyist platforms being those 3D printers that come in kit form. I am not sure if the 'hobbyist' label works for me, I don't think it conveys the full potential of these machines, but I get the point and the differentiation.

As of today, I think the sector is mid transition — somewhere between niche and mainstream — and moving faster than it ever has before!

The Press is Starting to Pick up on 3DP/AM

The chatter about whether or not 3D printing and/or AM is or will become mainstream has been centre stage again of late. Is it mainstream now? No, of course it isn't! That said, the mainstream press here in the UK are starting to pick up on just what these technologies can do. Indeed, just today, two articles on the subject have gone live.

Stateside there has been more mainstream press visibility with articles in some of the major daily titles, and the Jay Leno effect has had positive repercussions with increasing profile.

Today, the Daily Telegraph ran an article in its print edition outlining the impressive ALM capability at Airbus / EADS in Filton and how these companies are driving innovation and research with additive manufacturing applications that are currently undergoing the lengthy testing necessary for flight.

The Times Live also ran an online opinion piece of journalism, with a slightly tonge in cheek tone, but one that easily captures the imagination of people not familiar with 3D printing. They might need some ST knowledge though!!

http://www.timeslive.co.za/opinion/columnists/article293024.ece

The Optomec Position

Today Optomec will introduce its Aerosol Jet Display Lab System to the American market at the FlexTech 2010 Conference in Phoenix, Arizona, USA. The system has been designed and developed for the production of next generation touch screen and display applications.

Optomec is a company that intrigues me. Its proprietary LENS additive process has been around for many years and is well established and utilised among savvy clients in advanced sectors such as aerospace and defence. The applications for the LENS process have proved diverse — manufacturing and repairing high value metal components from aircraft engine parts to medical implants. However, the company often seems to fly below general radar levels, quietly going about its business.

The Aerosol Jet Display Lab goes a step further than LENS, it is an advanced additive platform that utilises Optomec’s patented Aerosol Jet technology, which in turn enables high resolution deposition of a wide variety of materials including conductive nano-particle inks, insulators, dielectrics, polymers, adhesives and other advanced materials. The system can print onto a wide variety of flexible and rigid substrates.

Despite the US launch today, a number of customers in Asia, including a leading industrial electronics research institute and a leading touch screen company, have already purchased and taken delivery of their Aerosol Jet Display Lab systems, which are being used to develop applications such as bridge/jumper circuits for bus lines on ITO/Glass, edge circuits for handheld displays, and fully printed Thin Film Transistors.

According to Optomec, the benefits of the Aerosol Jet Direct Write technology are the multi-material, fine line (<10 um) printing capability which eliminates many process steps/costs associated with current photolithographic and vacuum based display manufacturing processes. Also, the Aerosol Jet Print Engine can be integrated into automation platforms to meet high volume display production requirements. Multi-nozzle dispensing heads can be configured to meet specific end-user throughput needs. The additive process employed by Aerosol Jet technology reduces environmental impact by minimizing waste and chemicals that are prevalent in traditional electronics’ manufacturing processes.

The company has released a huge amount of information — with very little fanfare — all of which has even greater implications for future development.

The things that really stand out for me are:

• the high resolution deposition of nano-particles
• companies in the middle East are already using the systems
• multi-material deposition
• < 10 µm printing capability.
• and last, but by no means least, the system was developed for a specific application, and Optomec launch direct to its target market at FlexTech, an event dedicated to flexible technology for electronics and displays.

Basically, when a company bylines itself as "the world-leading provider of additive manufacturing systems for high-performance applications" my instinctive response is, 'yeah, yeah, you and every other AM vendor'. In this instance though, with a significant and very noticeable lack of hype around the company, I am inclined to agree that Optomec is making huge strides that are ahead of the game.


[NB: I have absolutely no commercial / financial interests in Optomec or associated companies.]

Advocating Additive Technology and Change is on the Horizon

As the Editor of the TCT Magazine I was a 100% advocate of additive layer technology. Partly because it was my remit and partly because I caught the bug. Now, it is wholly through choice, although often more tempered by cynicism. I have been wondering of late where this cynicism has come from.

By nature I am an optimist, so can I be optimistic and cynical at the same time? The answer is yes I can. I am cynical about some of the predictions and claims about 3D Printing (3DP) and Additive Manufacturing (AM), these days. I now have a tendency to reserve judgement until I see proof, or establish a strong belief system, before I start waxing lyrical. That said, I am very optimistic about the future of additive technology.

A couple of posts back I positioned myself on middle ground, with a good view. That has brought with it an accusation of sitting on the proverbial fence and acquiring splinters in uncomfortable places. In view of this coming close on the heels of a very exciting meeting I had recently, I am going to vocalise some of my optimism and go on the record with a couple of predictions of my own.

I am not at liberty to disclose any of the contents of my meeting — yet — suffice to say, it prompted this post.

IMHO:

The current additive technology field will diversify, it's already started and it will become much more defined. It will go in two directions with two clearly identified markets — prototyping (3DP) and production (AM). I am not quite so bold as to put a precise date on this, but within the next 5 years. Sooner if Stratasys/HP make good on their promises and the price of concept modellers goes into freefall with the other 3DP vendors scrabbling to compete with RapMan, Solido and Makerbot and regain some of the market share that they will surely lose in the short term.

Things are going to change, and they are going to change in a big way, for AM; and the changes are going to come from left of field. Currently AM activities are viewed as a fringe activity, a process for OEM's with deep pockets or artistic types to 'play' with. As of today, this is a misguided perception, with a host of real applications that one can point to and say, "No, the capabilities of AM technologies are real and they make a real difference." The one that stands out for me is the use of titanium human implants built using the DMLS process from EOS, but there are many more. The problem is, there is no one application that makes enough people sit up and take notice. The applications do not make a 'big enough' difference. Volumes and infrastructure are key limitations.

However, this WILL be turned on its head in the mid-term. I am absolutely, positively convinced of it. Around the year 2013 I fully expect to point people back to this post and say I believed!

All optimistic and cynical comments welcome ....