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). 

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.

Piecing the ZCorp Puzzle

So back in May, ZCorp introduced a 3D printer — the Zbuilder Ultra. Actually, they called it a 'rapid prototyping machine'! I usually jump all over press releases such as that, but in this case I held back. Even on the first read a couple of things struck me as odd — the release talked about the DLP technology employed by the machine, a complete deviation from its traditional technology base for its ZPrinting range of 3D printers, but there was not one single mention of "new", "revolutionary" or even "improved" technology. Now that is beyond odd for an announcement like this. The second thing that occurred to me was how similar the image of the machine was to the Envisiontec 3D printers. It seems I was not the only one to notice that!

Reading the press release more closely, it was extremely carefully worded throughout and prompted me to do a little digging and wait and see what emerged. Sure enough, an anonymous tip declared that ZCorp and Envisiontec have come to an agreement and Envisiontec is the manufacturer.

I have no idea why all the cloak and dagger theatrics are deemed necessary. It is not a huge surprise that machine manufacturers are looking to join forces at some level following the Stratasys / HP announcement. Moreover, these two are a good match. Envisiontec's technology is extremely competitive on accuracy and speed and has made significant in roads into the jewellery sector as a result. ZCorp offers full colour options and has a good market profile. By initiating a collaborative agreement, both companies are strengthening their position ahead of a shifting market dynamic.

Personally I think that their positions would be even stronger if they were just upfront about the whole thing!

I love it when this happens ....

..... when the light suddenly goes on for someone! 

Edward Machin from 'The Manufacturer' recently visited GKN and EADS on the same day. He blogged soon after. What he saw at EADS seems to have blown his mind. The following is just a snippet of what he wrote, but the full post can be viewed here: http://www.themanufacturer.com/uk/content/10276/We_are_the_dreamers_of_dreams

"Additive layer manufacturing (ALM) effectively ‘grows’ components layer by layer from a powdered material, be it plastics or metal....

Very simply, this stuff shifts the shifts that paradigms shift. Yes, these terms get tossed about like cheap orange frisbees at the first sign of a British summer, but genuinely, people, and to co-opt Lincoln Steffens, “I’ve seen the future, and it works.” Moreover, with its genesis in Rapid Prototyping’s underlying technology ALM appears to have found a soulmate in the direct manufacture of net-shape and high performance aerospace components.

The ALM project at Innovation Works, EADS’ research and technology production facility, is headed up by Dan Johns. A charmingly infectious chatterbox, he wastes little time in introducing me to a selection of structurally superior, ultra-efficient (with a percentage of raw materials reniserted into the stock in powder form) and aesthetically beautiful structures — in a way that carbon fiber-reinforced polymer seldom is. Did I mention drastically reduced lead times, to boot?

His team of technological merry pranksters, with breakdancing ecological evangelists and ex-national table tennis champions among their number, are perhaps more remarkable still. Now, I’ve never been one for sentimental blubbering, but the guys and dolls at Innovation Works truly live and breathe this stuff, and it shows. Heck, I’ll just say it; tis a beautiful thang." 

Following on from the recent article in the Telegraph covering EADS Innovation Works, I also happen to know that the BBC are interested in what is going on at EADS too. In terms of proving the reality and not just the hype — EADS really is leading the way and taking it much wider than it has EVER been before. 

What's in a Name?

I mentioned the RP-ML last week, and it really is seeing a huge volume of posts over recent days. If this continues one might even be able to label it a full-on revival of the forum that had been seriously waning.

Talking of labels, that is just what the latest debate on the forum is covering. Once again the topic is what terminology is universally acceptable for additive processes. The thread has been met with the inevitable howls of anguish from individuals on the list that have seen/heard this discussion hundreds of times before. I did respond to the initial post posing the question as I am strongly of the opinion that this is an important issue, regardless of how many times it comes around and how long it takes to get a unanimous verdict. However, my post seems to have got lost in the ether — it may turn up, it may not — but having my own 'ether' space I have therefore decided not to waste the time spent writing it and post it here.

Under the thread title: Re: [rp-ml] milling=am?, it went as follows:

It's interesting, and inevitable, that this subject raises its head again. It will rumble on for some time yet — probably years rather than weeks or months. It's the nature of an emerging industry, and that is what we are all a part of.

Lino was absolutely right, a thread ran on the RP-ML at approximately the same time last year, titled: [rp-ml] International Terminology Standards. The thread was started by Terry Wohlers, in preparation for an upcoming ASTM meeting to try to start to establish universally accepted standards.

There are so very many variables here that it is hard to condense it all into a concise overview, but I'll give it a go.

The term Rapid Prototyping is the one that is most recognised as a result of its longevity. The problem with it is that "prototyping" does not cover all of the applications of additive technology today, for casting (Rapid Casting), tooling (Rapid Tooling) and final production products (Rapid Manufacturing). Originally, it was used to differentiate additive prototyping from traditional forms of creating prototypes, but now it seems to incorporate any method of making prototypes very quickly. This is another reason why many of the 'additive die-hards' have back away from the term!

Furthermore, there is a school of thought that "Rapid" is not correct terminology — for any additive application — because the processes themselves are relatively slow compared with other traditional and established manufacturing processes such as milling/machining etc. The "Rapid" was originally used to convey faster product development times and speedier time-to-market overall.

The quest last year seemed to be for a universal umbrella term for the additive technologies, of which 3D printing emerged as a clear contender, along with Additive Manufacturing on the responses from the RP_ML membership. I believe I am correct in saying that the ASTM meeting resulted in the consensus of Additive Manufacturing. Personally, I think that the additive processes themselves have gone in two different directions, the higher spec machines capable of manufacturing production parts (Additive Manufacturing), and the lower spec machines for concept and functional models (3D Printing / Rapid Prototyping).

What is interesting in the latest thread is that it has been started based on a quest for classification of additive AND subtractive processes, with both being accepted as legitimate options.

I don't think it is about hierarchy, it is just about labelling, and therefore clarity. Personally, I believe it is important to debate and ultimately establish the terminology, as it is the lack of clarity that has contributed to the slow understanding and therefore uptake of the technologies themselves (along with other factors such as entry level price points and patents - as discussed last week).

It's just my opinion of course, and subsequent posts from others involved in the ASTM and the resulting committee suggest that the industry is much further down the road to universal acceptance than I had anticipated (which is a good thing). However, disseminating, distributing and implementing the committees decisions still needs more work. There is still much confusion out there — hence the repetitive threads.

Additive Manufacturing is, it seems, the final decision, and is being used as the catch-all phrase for additive processes, regardless of application (prototyping, casting, tooling, manufacturing etc). I can get on board with this, I certainly don't think it is wrong, I would say, however, that as of today, I am not 100% convinced. I still think the industry is going two ways and I don't necessarily think it is vital to keep the two together. I think that the additive manufacturing and the 3D Printing markets can develop, grow and flourish with different "labels". It might even make them stronger!?

3DP: What will the future be?

Having posted on the RP-ML (rapid prototyping - mailing list) fairly late yesterday evening in response to an extremely interesting thread (that got started as the result of a benign, but slightly distasteful offer by an RP-ML member to supply an stl file of the would-be Detroit bomber's face) I found myself unable to sleep in the early hours of this morning as I debated the future of 3D printing and additive manufacturing — with myself.

And, oh yes, I am more than aware of how sad that is!!!!

In my post, I stated that I no longer believed that we would one day see a 3D printer in every home — with people ordering any stl file they may wish from the internet, of any given consumer product or replacement part. This vision has been greatly expounded during the last decade by many excited individuals prophetically revealing the future of 3D printing, myself among them at one time. I had since arrived at a more balanced view that this was unlikely, because as much as it sounds like a good idea, the concept of millions of households trying to 'print' 3D products in polymers, metals or any other material was simply unrealistic. Most lay people struggle with getting Word and A4 paper to do what they want without wanting to throw the devices through a window, much less manipulate stl files and get the desired result from a 3D printer in the desired material(s).

However, my post also applauded the enlightened approach of spreading the word about 3D printing by putting the technology into the hands of students — not just those at university — but children as young as 5, as I mentioned in yesterday's post. It's already happening here in the UK. You may have picked up on the fact that I think this is a really great way of channelling young people towards the fields of design and engineering. However, the thing that was keeping me awake last night was the thought that if we keep doing it, and in a few generations time 3D printing (and other advanced technologies such as 3D CAD, rendering, 3D Scanning and simulation/VR etc) become common place in our schools, and children are happily familiar with them, why would they not be confident about having them at home as and when they acquire their own homes?

So, have I come full circle? Am I back to thinking that the potential for this technology is as big as I once believed, in terms of the target market being anyone and everyone, rather than the more tempered opinion of it being relevant to every company that is involved with developing new products?

Well, it was 2.30 am, and despite the passing of time I am not sure which way I'm going on this yet. In reality, I'll probably traverse a few more circles, maybe engage in some heated debates as there are strong feelings on both sides of this argument, but the answer is probably not going to emerge in my life time, I do like being a part of the history though!!

Incidentally, the RP-ML is a great forum — it can go quiet for months at a time, but when it kicks off, it really kicks off. There are many knowledgeable individuals on there, many from the earliest days of RP, some that believe it will solve all the world's problems and some so cynical I laugh out loud as I read their posts. I highly recommend it for anyone involved with, or interested in, any type of additive processes.