Exodus from Loughborough & Genesis at Nottingham

So, I'm pleased to report that after a little digging around I do have the low down on what is going on at Loughborough University, for anyone that is interested. I have a number of sources & some of the information I have gleaned is conflicting, but essentially, I think I understand the decisions that have been made and what will be taking place as a result over the coming weeks, months and possibly years. And as is my disposition I'll share what I have learned.

For some years Loughborough has been considered by many to be the UK's centre of excellence for research into Additive Manufacturing (AM). While it remains to be seen whether this epithet changes, as I tweeted last week, there is a fundamental shift taking place that will reverberate for some time. In brief, the core AM research team from Loughborough, headed up by Professor Richard Hague and minus a couple of notable exceptions and a few additive machines, are going back to their roots at Nottingham University along with the bulk of the EPSRC funding as a result of Professor Hague been the primary grant holder.

It seems that the Additive Manufacturing Research Group (AMRG) moniker will remain at Loughborough, headed up as of last week by the newly appointed Professor, Russ Harris. However, this is yet to be finally determined. Russ will be focussed on his primary research areas: Ultrasonic Consolidation and Medical Applications.* Professor Phill Dickens, the guru behind the original Rapid Prototyping (RP) Research Group, will remain at Loughborough "for the foreseeable future." Take from that what you will, but personally, I get the feeling it's to do with approaching early retirement. Phill's original PhD students, most now Professors in their own right, have flown the nest. As stated, Richard and his 45+ strong team are going back to Nottingham University — their original home back in the '90s for the early research into RP under Phill, after which they took a short tenure at De Montfort University before settling at Loughborough.

As yet there is no formal identity or branding in place for the new centre at Nottingham, which seems a bit strange, however the focus is very much on the work they will be doing and one of my sources was at extreme pains to stress that this was much more important. He's not wrong, not based on the activities that are planned as he revealed them to me. Now, don't get me wrong, I do know that what I got was very much the party line, there has been much going on behind closed doors, this was alluded to in the conversation, and it doesn't take a genius to realise that the gloves have probably come off a few times in various quarters. It is unlikely that everyone is happy, but, everyone is smiling! 

I must confess that I like the shape of what is emerging and find it fascinating in terms of the research focus that is planned. Essentially this comes down to a "back to basics" approach for multifunctional development of 3D printing. (Yup, they've caught on, and are moving away from the AM label to functional 3D printing. Didn't see that coming at all, but I think I like it, too!) Again according to my source, this approach will all but negate the existing additive technology platforms and using the last 20+ years' of RP/RM/AM research they will combine this with a much deeper scientific research element. And this, apparently, is where Nottingham won out — considered, as it is, to be one of the leading global scientific research universities. The interdisciplinary opportunities are vast I'm told. It seems the financial pockets are deep too. 

To be honest, I'm still processing this and therefore will most likely have thoughts to add to this at a later date. But my initial response is that this is probably a good thing. (I am purposely covering my backside with the 'probably'.) The existing additive technology platforms offer industry much, you know I believe THAT, but in terms of developing further it is currently all about tweaking the processes and focussing on materials. Going back to basics to find new ways of actually processing existing and/or new materials, with the 20+ years of R&D knowledge that is abounding within the new Nottingham research team, it is not beyond the realms of expectation that they could bring about a dramatic and dynamic shift in additive capabilities — a completely new generation of intelligent 3D printers that bridges the industrial and personal uptake of 3D printing. It's a fascinating take on the current situation and one that I have to say, suggests that the team does seem to have its fingers on the pulse of what is happening in the real world. 

When I tweeted last week to see if anyone know what was happening after my first hint of this, the twittersphere (at least my bit of it) was not forthcoming with information. Academics are not exactly prolific on Twitter, and as much as they are into personal networking I kind of get the feeling that Twitter is considered to be beneath their efforts. Shame really! What did happen was a reemergence of the Industry vs Academia argument.  It is hardly a secret that there has been a long term stand-off between the two with industry arguing that the vast sums of funding capital that is pumped into academic research would be much better used on the front line of industry for SME's and apprenticeships. It is also argued that the capital equipment placed in research centres are ring fenced solely for research activities that may or may not become embedded in industrial outlets as a result. Furthermore these activities are only carried out by senior academics & post graduates, when it would befit the universities to open the equipment up to undergraduates and promote applied excellence that would be of value to employers and not just newly qualified career academics.

These are valid opinions, but, with a central, fairly neutral position within the argument I have had a clear view of both sides for many years, and I still stand by own opinion that actually, both academic research and industrial testing and implementation of that research are vital components in driving additive technology forward — not that either side would readily admit it, but they need each other. That said, it's always going to be an uncomfortable relationship.

I think that just about sums up the feedback I got anyway! Please feel free to add your thoughts and perspective on this - regardless of which side of the fence you are on.

Another interesting aspect of this is that despite Richard going full circle (Nottingham, De Montfort, Loughborough, Nottingham) in the wake of that circle, each of those universities has retained a dedicated and valuable research base into AM / 3DP. There are many others in the UK too: Liverpool, Sheffield, Cambridge, Cranfield, Lancaster, Bath, Exeter and UWE. There will be more but that list was off the top of my head.

All of which gives what my source told me a ring of truth, and that is that the UK has the largest and most developed scientific research base in the world for Additive technology.

It remains to be seen if we (the UK) can build on this. I want to believe it, but age and experience, not to mention the current government, leave me hoping rather than expecting to see this claim materialise and grow into itself to maximum benefit for the world at large.

* Russ will be presenting the specifics of some of his AM research for medical applications at TCTLive in September. And surgery schedules allowing, the medical staff he works with will provide the user's perspective and how it impacts their work and their patients' lives. I don't know about you, but that's a huge draw for current AM in my book. 

My Day at Develop3D Live

I had a great day yesterday at the Warwick Arts Centre — the venue for the inaugural Develop3D Live one day conference. The event was organised by the publishing team behind the Develop3D magazine (print & online). After yesterday, this event will become an annual one I am sure, and a welcome addition to the Develop3D product group. I do not know most of the team personally, despite feeling like I do from seeing them online most days (they use Twitter brilliantly). From this I have gleaned that they are a closely knit team, passionate & knowledgable about their subject area and often outspoken; some give the impression that they fly by the seat of their pants, they probably do, but this belies an informed strategy that has brought well-deserved success.

Product development using 3D tools is what Develop3D is all about. The clue is in the name funnily enough! The one-day conference and exhibition served to bring together a community of designers and developers that are using and often abusing the very latest 3D tools in their day to day work, although to hear some of them talk they go to work to play. Software for design, analysis, data management, reverse engineering etc as well as hardware — computers, scanning, milling & 3D printing — were all represented.

Apart from the first keynote presentation by Jason Lopes of Legacy Effects (more of which later), the presentations ran across two streams all day and were an eclectic mix of personalities including end users, vendors and service providers. I fully admit that prior to attending I wondered if this would work. It did! There were many complimentary comments that I heard on the range of speakers and the content covered across the day.

From my point of view I was extremely keen to hear from the speakers covering 3D printing and additive manufacturing (kind of obvious huh?) and they didn't disappoint. There were two end users, a vendor and a reseller presenting. All did a great job of positively promoting the technology from their own perspectives with engaging presentations that also provided key information for delegates.

First up was Jason Lopes, the keynote I mentioned earlier. Jason works at Legacy Effects in California, and I have been aware of his truly stunning work within Hollywood for some time, producing as he does some of the instantly recognisable and iconic film props and masks for blockbusters such as Iron Man (I saw, touched and photographed the original mask, my son was sooooo impressed), Avatar, Real Steal, Twilight Breaking Dawn, and so on.

3D printing is a key enabling tool for the Legacy Effects team, along with 3D scanning and data manipulation tools. Meeting Jason in person yesterday was a real honour and a delight, he is a rare breed, all at once unassuming, extremely knowledgable and a wholehearted 3D printing supporter that keeps it totally real. His presentation was, for many people I think, a highlight, showing as it did just what this technology can do, when used alongside other 3D tools. According to Jason, Legacy Effects realised early on "that it could utilise 3D printing on every project it is involved with in one way or another." Perhaps the central message Jason imparted to the audience was this, traditional tools are still valid, indeed vital, but 3D printing brings added value. Chatting with Jason after his presentation I was not at all surprised to hear further evidence that he is passionate about his work, what did come across though is that he is even more so about his children, who at 9 and 5 are fully conversant with 3D design and 3D printing. He couldn't wait to get back to them — a true measure of the man in my opinion.

A couple of presentations later it was gratifying to hear Alice Taylor present her experiences setting up Makielab, a toy company she has established and developed in the last 12 months. After having worked in the toy industry for some years, Alice founded Makielab to challenge the traditional doll sector, and 3D printing is a central tool within this premise. To date traditional methods of manufacturing dolls has prohibited true customisation for the customer due to costs and the difficulties involved. However, Alice believes that 3D printing has evolved to a stage where this is changing and the Makielab concept will take doll customisation directly to the customer, enabled by 3D printing. Like Jason, Alice is fully committed to and engaged with the capabilities of 3D printing in the real world. Excited about the opportunities if affords, certainly; but totally without hype and exaggeration. Another truly inspiring individual.

On the other side of the Warwick Arts Centre, about an hour later, in a much darker room, with no phone signal for tweeting, David Price of Laser Lines presented on the latest developments within the Stratasys brand of additive manufacturing systems, and how these compare with the emerging 3D printers at the entry level of the market. The central proposition being that the development of these machines and the materials for them is wholly driven by MANUFACTURING applications. Examples of how this is so came from a video demonstration of the ULTEM 9085 thermoplastic material, which has been approved for flight applications and demonstrates superior strength. Dave went on to inform his audience (and me, wasn't aware of this) that Laser Lines also offer materials for additive manufacturing applications with full batch traceability.

Finally, later in the afternoon, after a lovely lunch (the raspberry chocolate things were to die for) it was great to settle down and listen to my old friend Stuart Jackson of EOS tell the audience about the state of play for the vendor of superior laser-sintering additive manufacturing machines. I thought I knew about everything he would cover. Pride comes before a fall and all that. I didn't! I did know that like Stratasys, the emphasis is all on manufacturing applications — the EOS range can sinter PEEK and other plastics and metals. I did know about the great work EOS is doing supporting Digital Forming, a company that is developing consumer facing design software, with manufacturing & design based constraints built in. I did know that EOS had sold its 1000th system towards the end of last year. And I have seen most of the applications that Stuart demonstrated in his presentation (the violin, the teeth, the lamps, the work at EADS with aerospace components, the architectural models, the bionic arm, the skull implants and the prosthetics).

Here's what I didn't know:

EOS is about to launch a micro machine — an additive system that builds micro parts, in metal, at 2 micron layers. Applications endless. Cliched but true!

EOS is regularly and successfully laser sintering 18 carat gold. I saw some stunning images of jewellery and consumer products built in that very material.

Over 70% of dental crowns produced in Israel are produced using laser sintering!!

So that's a quick overview of the additive presentations — I saw a few others too. Highlights were Gustavo Fontana of Bose (just too cool for words) and Blake Courter of SpaceClaim (2012 software version released yesterday & looks impressive, even to my inexperienced eye).

I also met up with old friends and new, contacts exchanged, lots to get on with.

A really great — and productive — day, and everyone that I spoke to and that has tweeted about it since seems to agree with me.

The Role & Responsibility of B2B Press

So, an evening caught up on Twitter last night got me to thinking about the role that Business to Business (B2B) media plays within industry, and how far should it go beyond the basic premise of providing a conduit between businesses — businesses that provide products and services and businesses that use those products and services.

I am pretty sure of my position on this, and, as is my nature, am going to share my thoughts here — if you feel the urge, you are more than welcome to throw in your opinions and have your say on the issues, but I would politely request that no one uses this blog as a platform for personal attacks on specific titles / personalities. And at the risk of being accused of censorship, I am stating upfront that any offensive or personal comments will be deleted. This is my blog, with no financial gain involved, my decision is final, please respect that.

Okay, with that out of the way, many of you probably are aware that I did work as an Editor on a B2B title for many years, therefore I do consider that I have significant insight into the commercial demands of this type of publication. And here is the central issue — it is a commercial operation that provides a service — to clients (advertisers) AND readers. Pretending or wishing otherwise is naive.

Editor's of B2B publications often have to walk a knife edge to achieve the right balance, keenly aware of their readership and increasing circulation with objective content, whilst cultivating relationships with advertisers, to source new information and challenge them where necessary. It's not easy, and you can never keep all of the people happy all of the time — it is an old adage, which is supported by my own experience — but with care and attention, you can keep most of the people happy most of the time.

My opinion is that B2B media offers a valid service, useful to both sides when done well.

It's the relationship between the three parties — advertisers, readers, B2B medium — that raises the interesting dynamic, because they are all completely interdependent.

The B2B model, whether in print or online, generates revenue predominantly through advertising. That's a fact. Any advertiser in any given publication is looking to generate business through the promotion of their product or service to a guaranteed audience of readers, for which there are audits. The magazine cannot exist without the advertisers, the advertisers won't place ads without readers, and the readers will fall away without decent magazine content.

It's a fairly obvious thing to say, but adverts are typically going to over hype the company, product or service it represents — it's the nature of the beast — and companies pay to do it. That said, any reader with a single ounce of common sense understands that medium.  The editorial content, however, has to be different — it has to be both credible and tactful — a source of information that is valuable to the reader without alienating magazine clients. By its very nature, a B2B publication will focus on a specific industry sector, and as such needs to cover the breadth of its industry as impartially as possible, to offer constructive information, that informs the reader, from as many angles as possible, with what he/she needs to improve their own business. My opinion is that it is the Editor's primary responsibility to take the breadth as wide as possible to ensure credibility, that, along with keeping abreast of the latest breaking news. For me a B2B publication needs to offer breadth over depth, and where depth is required, it will seldom be within the remit of the Editor, who then looks to independent industry experts to supply what is required. The independence is highlighted because this is what is required — by advertisers and readers — to maintain integrity in the long term.

When difficult questions arise, which they invariably do, then a B2B platform can offer a professional and positive forum to debate the issues at hand — this often leads to new ideas and extending networks. It can get heated, it can even turn nasty, but the majority of people tend to have the perspective to understand the dynamics and the manners to agree to disagree where necessary.

When a B2B title works for an industry, there is no better place to be to get the big picture.

Writing about all this is making me feel nostalgic — and just a little sad that I'm out of the game.

Adrian Bowyer: Driving the RepRap Vision and Introducing NextGen Researchers

Yesterday was a long day, but it was a really, really good day.

An exciting project that I am involved with demanded a trip down to the University of Bath to conduct an interview with Dr Adrian Bowyer, who conceived the RepRap project back in 2004 and initiated it the subsequent year. This is a man whose work and opinions I have respected for many years as he has gone about the business of evolving his vision for a self-replicating 3D printer. We have communicated in various forms during those years and, as might be expected, he was a contributor to the TCT magazine during my tenure there. Indeed, it was weirdly satisfying that as I carried out some research prior to the interview, Google actually took me to an article that I wrote in 2006 for TCT. Adrian's quote in the article was, as he said yesterday, "typically me" — articulate, forthright and well-informed. I also owe Adrian thanks for introducing me to the wonderful word: mellifluous.

However, we had never met in person, for one reason or another, and yesterday way exceeded any expectations I held beforehand.

In between filming we were able to chat at ease, and I was allowed to poke around the RepRap lab at the University and talk to some of Adrian's researchers and students. Well, I was in my element, and the jaw dropping moment came when I picked up the following piece:

Chatting away to Adrian and his PhD researcher Rhys Jones (@rhysoj on twitter), I wasn't immediately aware of what I was holding, and then it sank in. I asked the obvious question, [add slightly incredulous tone] "Are you printing metal?" The affirmative response from Rhys, who is leading the research into this, came with a combination of slight amusement and typical self-deprecation. That is exactly what they are doing. Despite the fact that it is still quite 'crude' - his word not mine - the fact that it is possible at all on a RepRap machine is a testament to just how far the boundaries are being pushed towards the reality of personal manufacturing. Rhys showed me how they are creating the low-melting point alloy, and it is currently labour intensive, with moderate results. But it's getting very interesting and he promised more "fun" things in the not too distant future. These will be posted here in due course.

The other area where the research at Bath is pushing boundaries is that of colour. An issue that I asked about as I was fiddling with this 3D printed part:

This is a typical RepRap style multi-colour part produced from using two different spools of coloured filament material through different print heads. Nothing startling there, but research being conducted by Myles Corbett, a final year project student under Adrian's tutorage, is looking into a 5-drive RepRap model that will result in a CMYK palette + white, fusing the colours precisely as they are printed. Anyone that works in graphic design or publishing will be aware of just how many colour options are available on a CMYK palette; 3D printing demands a white input to mimic the white paper onto which 2D CMYK colours are printed. For anyone not familiar with this, think endless colour possibilities.

As we stood there discussing those very possibilities, one of them proposed making it 6 drives and including translucent PLA. It was deemed a good idea - and further research was to go in that direction. And that's exactly how it gets done. So simple, so mind blowing.

Again, some success to date with the colour fusing, as documented on the RepRap Blog, but which of you would bet against them? I know I wouldn't.

The other issue that I discussed with Adrian, off camera, was that of when and how nano materials and 3D printing would and could merge. As I put forward my views, Adrian totally agreed with me, which, as he pointed out, doesn't mean we are both right; regardless, it was a satisfying moment.

For anyone that didn't see my tweet on this last week, this video link is a vision of the future that I have bought into, or something like it.

Adrian did also confirm to me that he is retiring from the University at the end of this academic year. However, as you would expect, he's not going to be sitting around twiddling his thumbs. His plan is to throw himself into his commercial business — RepRap Professional — which he runs with his business partner Jean-Marc Giacalone and his daughter, Sally. Needless to say, he is already looking at expanding the business.

It was a pleasure to meet Adrian and some of his students yesterday, and I would like to thank them for the time they spent talking to me. Definitely worth 9 hours in the car, alone but for mini eggs, red bull and my music. (Was going to put the band names, but it's just not worth the grief I'll get!!)

3D Printers Featured on C4's Homes of the Future

As I watched this programme on Channel 4 last night, it filled me with great joy to see just how far 3D printing has come just by virtue of the fact that it was featured on prime time TV on a Sunday evening. The coverage was positive, presented simply and informatively and came across as a relevant tool for households of the future.

My position on 3D printing and additive manufacturing is unequivocal in that it is a fantastic technology capable of great things for both industry and customised manufacturing — which are just starting to come to fruition. In previous posts, I have given my opinion and predictions on how 3D printing could potentially become a household tool, with a timeline of around 20 years. This was the subject of last night's programme, and it did a convincing job, although no specific timeline was offered.

3D Printing was introduced by the presenter as technology that offers, "a technological revolution in manufacturing and retail and I believe it will be as big as the internet."

Quite a statement. He went on to say that the 3D printing industry is estimated as being worth over £3 billion by 2020. Which sounds a large sum, but in the context of current global tech companies, is just a drop in the ocean. Indeed, 3D printing still has a lot of growing up to do.

A couple of things left me feeling a little uneasy though as I watched (resulting in the occasional twitch) namely that the programme made no reference to costs or required know-how, the assumption being it was a plug-and-play activity with a cursory nod to the need for design input via one's computer. It is precisely these issues that will, in my opinion, determine whether 3D printing does become a viable household tool in time. Those together with the material choices and material handling capabilities. Household use of 3D printing will require continued evolution of the processes that result in plug & play machines, well under £1000, that can process multiple materials safely & easily, and don't take up quite as much space as the Objet machine that was sat in the corner of the dining room in the "house of the future". The only other twitchy moment came when Mia, the daughter of the house of the future, was asked her opinion of the opportunities for customisation that 3D printing offered. She was excited and very obviously inspired by the tech, but this quote sums up the monumental cultural shift that also has to take place, in that Mia, a teenager, said, "I'd still prefer to go out and shop."

Indeed.

Jaws & Other 3D Printing News

What a start to 2012! Inspiring and exciting in the world of 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing. But while the debate continues apace about the future, and I love being a voice in that debate, I think it is also important to highlight the great things that are happening now — these technologies are doing great things and making a real difference with every week that passes.

iMaterialise in Belgium seems to be on a similar wavelength, and since the start of this year, each week we are treated to the week in 3D printing. I recommend it highly. (Although, top post today is a treat from 1989!)

The most touching 3D printing application story that has emerged this week, reported across many media channels, is the replacement of the lower jaw of an 83 year old woman, once again in Belgium. The replacement jaw implant was a complete success and the fact that it was 3D printed in medical grade titanium, with a bio ceramic coating brought advantages that included reduced surgery time and faster recovery. In addition, the implant was tailor-made to fit precisely reducing discomfort significantly, with the ability to talk, swallow and eat with 24 hours. How's that for making a real difference?

In terms of developments on the personal 3D printer front. I have only just discovered Makibox. Makible emerged last year as a crowd funding site for "makers and cool projects". Since the start of 2012, however, the team behind this project has launched, predictably on Makible (why wouldn't they), the Makibox DIY 3D printer. Frustrated in their efforts to build a Prusa RepRap kit, and logging their efforts, telling comments include: "it came in a few boxes with no concise instructions and literally was a box of parts." And: "the connections to the driver shield were confusing to even the competent engineers within the group." These frustrations are not uncommon and rather than whining about them, the team set about creating a new printer — one that overcomes these problems.

Another company that has done exactly the same thing, for exactly the same reason is A1 Technologies, based in London. A1 has long been an advocate of low-cost 3D digital technologies for designing and making in 3D, indeed they sold the very first low-cost commercial 3D printer — a RapMan kit — back in 2009 and have built up an impressive portfolio of low-cost advanced technologies for 3D input & output that can all be integrated. As a distributor of low-cost 3D Printers (RepRap derivatives) with a wealth of experience and expertise, A1 has been vividly aware of the frustrations of assembling a 3D printer that would then go on to print parts reliably and consistently (or not). They looked around at the emerging different options, from a distributor perspective, and decided to take their philosophy of designing and making to heart. The result is the Maxit 3D printer, which has been designed, developed and constructed to overcome all of the issues A1 faced daily. The printer will be launched within the next few weeks as a crowd funded project for the first 100 machines.

What strikes me about these two projects the most? People that believe in 3D printing, identifying some of the current problems, and actually taking the challenge on, directly, to move forwards. Positive innovation driven by negative experience. 

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).