If You're Reading This You're Probably 'Additive-Informed' — Which Subset(s) Do You Belong In?

Lots (and lots and lots) of noise about the recent developments with and forecasts for 3D printing and additive manufacturing.

The debate is healthy, but it does become extremely complicated. I have tried, for my own sake, to break this down, but it is never simple, and always becomes convoluted by the numerous different factors that are in play. (I have even tried diagrams — didn't work — but if someone wants to give it a go???) Anyway I'll give it a try here, with my favourite medium, words, because it is important to understand these factors and to use them in a positive way when facing the market at large.

There are two obvious groups to start with: the 'additive-informed' (subsets include vendors, resellers, users and media) and there are the 'additive-oblivious', by far the largest group at this point in time, that may or may not have heard about the technologies, but, either way, they do not comprehend or use them in any constructive way.

The additive-oblivious group, symptomatically, are not involved in current debate, but they are beyond important, because in terms of growing the awareness and the industries themselves - they are the target market. And we are talking about two different industries here: additive manufacturing and 3D printing.

Am I repeating myself? Yes. Can I overstate this point? I don't think so.

These two industries are two further subsets within the 'additive-informed' group, both of which are targeting different subsets of the 'additive-oblivious' group: industrial users and general consumers.

And, if you're confused already, this is where it gets even more complicated: within the 'additive-informed' group I've already identified six subsets. Two further subsets, which are interacting frequently and vociferously are the 'believers' and the 'cynics', I should clarify that this is predominantly to do with the 3D printing for the consumer subset, not the additive manufacturing for industry subset. Having said that, there are still cynical voices that acknowledge the value of additive manufacturing technologies for prototyping and product development but refute the production capabilities. (See what I mean about complicated?)

However, differentiating between additive manufacturing and 3D printing is essential to move both forward in a cohesive and clear way. Unfortunately, the candid conversations that are taking place about the current state of these industries, blur the lines between the two, and keep them from being mutually exclusive. For example, the consumer focused 3D printers that have been presented to the market recently, are being compared with the earliest RP processes of the late 80's / early 90's, and not faring too well as a result, with claims that these consumer printers are not matching the output of RP machines 20 years ago. But this is like comparing apples and oranges, or, a Smart Car with a Formula 1 car!  It is an unfair comparison because the intended applications of industrial grade machines are not reconcilable with those of the 3D printers we are starting to see today. Both the additive-informed and the additive-oblivious as they become aware, have to understand that these two industries should be mutually exclusive, despite some similarities in the nature of the processes. Even when the 3D printers improve (they will) and the additive manufacturing machines come down in price (they are).

The above point also provides a good opportunity to highlight the significant improvements to the additive manufacturing machines in the last 20 years since they were only plastic rapid prototyping machines. Some of the most developed processes — DMLS, EBM, SLM, LENS etc — can now process titanium and similar high grade materials with good repeatability for highly engineered parts. They still don't come cheap, but investment is justified for many global manufacturers of highly engineered parts because additive manufacturing is producing complex structures that are both stronger and lighter than traditionally manufactured components. 

Which leads to yet another good opportunity to restate an important point: for these manufacturers, additive manufacturing will never be a replacement process, it is an additional tool that can bring huge advantages to their overall manufacturing strategy. For instance, Rolls Royce, Boeing, British Aerospace and Airbus have all gone on record as having invested in the technologies. These companies are well advanced in establishing, from a standards point of view, that the process of choice is a viable and compliant manufacturing method. The regulations and testing requirements, are, as would be expected, demanding, expensive, time-consuming and rigourous. Components are invariably tested to destruction over and over again to ensure regulatory compliance. But the payback for such investment is huge. Take just one component  — incorporated onto an aircraft — if it is lighter it is more fuel efficient and contributes to meeting environmental targets and if it is stronger it can withstand greater stresses. Now if this is rolled out to 50, 100 or even 500 aircraft components (of the many thousands required for a single plane), and then applied across a fleet of aircraft — even assuming only an average 0.5 kg reduction in weight for each component — any airline finance director will immediately see the sums starting to add up favourably, their environmental officer won’t be unhappy either. These equations also make sense for automotive manufacturers and governmental defence departments. 

These very high-end machines belong to a further subset of additive manufacturing, another of which is the additive machines targeted at prototyping applications. These 'middle-of-the-road' additive systems offer smaller companies a much more attractive price-performance ratio for their product development activities than the RP machines of 20 years ago. This target market is often over-looked these days, generally the message is considered to be old news. Nothing could be further from the truth actually. This is still a huge, untapped market that needs time and investment to convey the worthwhile benefits that additive technology can bring. The breadth of vendors of this type of machine increased following Euromold, and as the machines start shipping this subset should start to expand faster and further. 

As for 3D printing, while it has been born of additive manufacturing, it is a completely different beast and it is much earlier in its life-cycle, with endless possibilities ahead of it. As the 'additive-informed' we all have different opinions that shape our forecasts for the future of the technology. But none of us really know. It kind of all comes down to our experiences to date, and, dare I say it, faith. It is natural to compare it with other successful products (computers / mobile phones) or not so successful products (virtual reality) depending on your stance, but in reality, it will forge a market of its own. 

The only thing I know for sure? 

Either the believers will be proved right ..... or the cynics will! 

I'm firmly in the believer subset, I do believe that 3D printing will become an everyday consumer commodity, albeit not in its current form, despite the early adopters. And, how's this for an admission, for a while, I started teetering with regards to my own timeline forecasts, but, I am back from the brink, and I am going to stick with it (see previous post). 

3D Printing: "We're in this time - where it's the beginning!"

I hope Bre Pettis of Makerbot doesn't mind me quoting him for the title of this post. I was watching the CNET video, again, of his and Cathy Lewis' joint interview (face-off actually), which was hosted during the recent Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas. Bre delivered this line towards the end of the 17 minute video, which I would recommend, and it struck a chord, because I have been saying much the same thing in a bid to counter the hype surrounding 3D printing. The excitement, the promotion and the evangelising are all great to see as the 3D printing mantra spreads, these are staples of my daily existence, but the hype needs to be neutralised — by reason and by reality.

The CNET video can be viewed here: http://cnettv.cnet.com/future-3d-printing/9742-1_53-50118533.html

Above and beyond the fantastic fact that both 3D Systems and Makerbot were extremely visible on the show floor at CES, getting hoards of visitors together with a great deal of press attention, remains the grounding fact that we are, indeed, just at the beginning. 2012 is going to be another exciting year for the 3D printing sector — but it will not be the year that millions of consumers will put a 3D printer onto their 'to buy' lists. I've documented the reasons why in previous posts, and comments on other people's posts. But we are edging closer. Makerbot and 3D Systems are, in no small way, contributors to this movement forwards. While they have the media's attention, it is important to stress that they are not the only companies doing great things with and for 3D printing, but they do personify the trends that are emerging.

For many years I have expounded the divergence in the 3D printing / Additive Manufacturing sector, visible from those two terms - the personal manufacturing vision with 3D printing versus the industrial vision with additive manufacturing. The chasm between these two application areas is increasing all of the time, and rightly so. Consumer products, whether practical or decorative, designed for 3D printing with consumer-enabled customisation, will flourish and thrive and savvy creative individuals are already creating businesses based on this model. There are many, but a nice example that springs to mind, is Michiel Cornelissen (@michiel_ontwerp), a designer with a range of jewellery on Shapeways' website, who tweeted recently: "My monthly @shapeways payments are beginning to look suspiciously like an income. [the] 3D printing economy is here."

But while this consumer facing model is expanding, almost daily it seems, with creatives such as Michiel, validating the 3D printing possibilities of today, the industrial users of additive manufacturing are going from strength to strength also. And, I am sure this will continue, because regardless of whether personalised manufacturing becomes a reality or not, consumers, en masse, are unlikely to ever make their own cars, aeroplanes, medical devices / equipment, and national defence equipment etc. Nor should they, IMO. This needs qualified, experienced and informed manufacturing companies that are subjected to rigorous testing standards and security.  Incidentally, it is this differentiation that will also come into play on the fractious issue of firearms, I believe. Off on a bit of a tangent here, but there are voices that claim that personalised 3D printing is  bad because it means that criminals and terrorists can design and build whatever they need to carry out their villainy. I'm not buying this! There is evil in this world, there has been from the beginning of time and there will be until the end of time, and the perpetrators of such evil find a way through the barriers of civilised society, I don't think 3D printing will enable or disable them more or less than they are now, to be frank.

And back to the main thread — where we have individual creative makers and small start ups versus different industry sectors, all making different grades of additive technology work for them. Right now, it is happening and the market is growing steadily.

The claims for the future potential of 3D printing as a mass consumer technology is also stregthening. I am a (100%) believer, have been for years, but it's a while away yet. Broken record, I know, but I do have to keep saying it — it is not just around the corner, hence the title of the post. My bet is placed on 15-20 years, maybe longer. In the meantime, what watching the CNET video did clarify for me is the very different approaches to achieving this goal. On the one side we have the corporate giant with structure, IP and implemented strategy to attain corporate goals and on the other the passion and inspiration of a community leader, for who, it has to be said, 3D printing is a way of life. Only this morning, Deelip Menezes, commented to me that the video highlights the huge difference in the target audience of the two printers. I can't agree — both Cathy and Bre were at pains to convey that their respective printers were for "everyone". They both have the same target audience — EVERYONE. The difference, apart from the machines themselves, is how they talk to them, convince them and convert them to using 3D printers.

Currently, to use a 3D printer, you need technical knowledge — to design for it, to set it up, to make it run properly and to keep it running properly. This is a fact, and anyone that says different is hyping up the technology or process they are talking about. Part of the current appeal for creative users of 3D printing that are also tagged as makers, hackers and so forth is the technology itself, and making it work for them. I see this as an interim stage, that will co-exist with the later stage of consumer use. But for consumers to use this technology en masse what is required, apart from the documented plug and play usability, improved materials and lower capital cost, is a social change. This won't happen quickly. It needs education, which will breed know-how and familiarity across a couple of generations. Only then will 3D printing truly filter through to everyone.

3 More Additive Manufacturing Machines - Large & Small, New & Not so Much

It seems that everyone has been waiting for Euromold to unleash their new additive machines. After the two new 3D printers I reported on yesterday, there are three more I am having to wrap my head around today. These three are all very different in their own right and they are each very exciting. Exciting for me, because I just love this stuff, and five of them in two days, well, anyone that knows me will be able to imagine!! And, more to the point, exciting for creative and industrial designers, engineers and manufacturers. These new machines are truly fulfilling the evolutionary promise of additive technology and not just for the super rich — right across the board. Indeed two out of the three are 'hybrid' machines, that is, systems that take all the advantages of additive technology and make it even more productive by combining it with other technologies.

A quick overview of each:

The FreeForm Pico is a straight up 3D printer — it's cute courtesy of it's very small and tidy footprint of just 22 cm and its attractive facade, but boy does it pack a punch. The resolution that it offers is 37.5 µm pixels in UF mode. Asiga — the company behind this printer — defines the process as "sliding separation" and it uses an LED light source to create each layer of the part build. The price point for the Pico is $6990, which means that this manufacturing quality machine is available to small and medium sized companies in a range of industries that have been waiting for the quality they need at a price they can justify.

Then there is the machine with no name! It's a big one. And it is from TNO, a company with a long history of working with additive technologies in terms of R&D. The tag line is "Fast and Flexible Production" and it "is the embodiment of TNO's vision for additive technologies."This is because the sole selling point is not just the additive process (deposition, by the way), rather it is a machine focused on speedy, quality production; incorporating other processes, such as pick-and-place robots and surface finishing equipment. This means that the machine can operate continuously, even with multiple materials, and produce a hundred different parts extremely quickly, we're talking minutes here, not hours or days! The production machine is flexible and can be tailored to fit any application.

And finally, although not entirely new, a true hybrid machine — additive & subtractive — the Lumex Avance 25, got some deserved attention today at Euromold. This one is from Matsuura, a Japanese stalwart in the industrial machining market, and it is a combination of metal laser sintering with 3D milling. Looking at the history of the company, they have been working on hybrid technology since 2002. Indeed the first machine, the M-PHOTON 25C' won the 33rd Japan Industrial Technology Grand Prize in 2004. This machine got noticed in Japan four years ago, but little has been heard in Western territories. It's really great to see this changing. IMO, hybrid machines are what will make additive processes truly mainstream within industry (as opposed to 3D printers for consumers) — and I've held that view for a few years since talking to Mike Ayre at a TCT event, when he succinctly and convincingly presented on this very topic. I have remained convinced since.

It just remains for me to tip my hat at Mr Duncan Wood, for his top three tips from Euromold 2011. Thx DW - well tweeted sir!!

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.

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.

No Single Product Development Tool is King

For years (and years and years) I have tried to promote the message that no one tool within the product designer’s toolbox is more vital than another. The key to successful product development is to combine a number of advanced tools to achieve a propitious result.

My particular area of interest and knowledge is additive technology — for prototyping and for manufacturing — but within the discipline of product development this is only one component tool that can help to improve the overall process.

Off the top of my head, 3D design software, 3D scanning hardware and software, simulation software and 5+ axis machines are all advanced tools that are competitively available on the market to designers and engineers looking to enhance their product development procedures.

Within each ‘tool’ category there are a host of choices — product capabilities, costs and vendor selection are important issues, as is whether to invest in house or contract out — but the point I am making here is finding the right blend of technologies rather than picking up on one of them and believing that it will solve all problems!

As an example, there have been rumours rumbling around that some of the problems besieging Toyota in recent months are because the car giant has depended too heavily on simulation methods for testing. If this allegation is proven, this makes my point extremely well. Simulation is a brilliant tool; the developments in computing power and software interface make it a fast and accessible way of testing products under any conditions. That said, it cannot and should not fully replace physical testing with a physical model. Simulation can reduce the number of physical tests by arriving at an optimum solution faster and more economically than the traditional cycle of ‘make and break’; but it cannot be used in isolation.

Understanding how to integrate advanced technology tools for product development provides the most solid foundation on which to build an overall process that is most likely to bring success.