News has just reached me, via press release, that Stratasys has fully engaged with HP, with the two companies signing a definitive agreement whereby Stratasys is going to develop and manufacture an HP-branded line of 3D printers based on Stratasys’ patented Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) technology. The plan is for HP to begin a phased rollout of the 3D printers in the mechanical design (MCAD) market in selected countries later this year, with the right to extend distribution globally.
During the recent past (probably going back to mid-2008) I have had numerous conversations that have been geared around how and when 2D printing and 3D printing companies would find some synergy. While some more cynical individuals have intimated that there were no real grounds to draw parallels and assume that 3D printing could ever follow the growth curve of 2D printing, I have believed for a while that it was only a matter of time before the two hooked up in one form or another. I have to be honest though, I didn't think it would be these two!
Scott Crump, Stratasys CEO and Chairman, now "believe[s that] the time is right for 3D printing to become mainstream.”
Ok, well, many people have been saying that for years, and beaten down with cries of "hype - it will never happen." The thing here is that he is backing this comment up with support from a huge, globally recognised brand. It could be a real turning point.
My only reservation about this announcement is the application area. MCAD is a good place to start, and could bring 3D printing centre stage in industrial circles (which is, I think, the aim) but it won't necessarily take 3D printing mainstream.
Another key enabler, as Crump mentions, is HP's "sales and distribution capabilities", something that the 3D printer vendors have struggled with.
All in all, an extremely interesting development, but as ever, we have to wait and watch to see if it fulfills its potential. And, realistically, it is going to be at least a year before there will be any real signs of how it's going.
About Me
- Rachel Park
- Ewloe, United Kingdom
- Writing, tweeting, debating and occasionally getting a little over-excited about 3D Printing. But always aiming to keep it real!
Tuesday, 19 January 2010
Monday, 18 January 2010
Could THIS be the Killer App for 3DP?
A fascinating post on the REPLICATOR blog [//replicatorinc.com/blog/] by Joseph Flaherty [3D Printing and beyond] highlights how Disney is 3D Printing (3DP) some of its most beloved characters using the Zcorp colour technology. The availability of printing single models in multi-colour is key to this application, and it is taking longer for the other vendors to catch up with this concept than I originally anticipated when I first saw ZCorp's colour offerings.
Flaherty also suggests the possibility that Disney could be key a player in "broadening the awareness of 3D printing tech via the coming revamp of their stores and theme parks." After all — who doesn't recognize the Disney brand? Love it or otherwise, most of us have been captivated by at least one of the Disney blockbusters, personally or via our children/grandchildren and Disney has a massive market share in its field, not to mention hundreds of potential outlets.
Debate about how to bring 3DP into the mainstream consciousness — both in terms of engineering/manufacturing and the consumer at large — has recently focused on finding a 'killer app', one that captures people's imagination and becomes a 'must have' item. Of course, many consumers are generally not necessarily concerned, or even interested, in 'how' something is made, but as Flaherty implies, if 3D printers were on site at the Disney theme parks and/or in the flagship stores then children and parents would be able to watch as their own, personalised models were created.
As with so many 3DP concepts over the years, this is speculation, but I intend to watch this one closely, I would love to see this happen!
Flaherty also suggests the possibility that Disney could be key a player in "broadening the awareness of 3D printing tech via the coming revamp of their stores and theme parks." After all — who doesn't recognize the Disney brand? Love it or otherwise, most of us have been captivated by at least one of the Disney blockbusters, personally or via our children/grandchildren and Disney has a massive market share in its field, not to mention hundreds of potential outlets.
Debate about how to bring 3DP into the mainstream consciousness — both in terms of engineering/manufacturing and the consumer at large — has recently focused on finding a 'killer app', one that captures people's imagination and becomes a 'must have' item. Of course, many consumers are generally not necessarily concerned, or even interested, in 'how' something is made, but as Flaherty implies, if 3D printers were on site at the Disney theme parks and/or in the flagship stores then children and parents would be able to watch as their own, personalised models were created.
As with so many 3DP concepts over the years, this is speculation, but I intend to watch this one closely, I would love to see this happen!
Friday, 15 January 2010
Back to the Future at TCT 2010
Many of the 'usual suspects' from the additive manufacturing (AM) world — you know who you are! — will know that even when I left Rapid News Communications, the publishing and media company behind the TCT Magazine and Annual TCT Live event on which I had a permanent position, I stayed involved on a freelance basis with the coordination of the 2009 Conference on AM. I am delighted to be doing the same for 2010!
I have absolutely no regrets about the decision I made at the end of 2008, but as far as the manufacturing calendar of events goes, TCT is in a very small minority — probably on its own — and is definitely one of those shows that once you get caught up in it, you find you don't want to miss it when it comes around again. I realise that I am talking from a position of bias, but I have worn out a substantial number of shoes walking show floors in my time and I believe I have enough experience on which to make this judgement. I think there are a number of reasons why TCT stands out on the calendar for me. Primarily, despite year on year growth, it is very different to the super-sized, soulless exhibitions that one can attend with halls and halls of exhibitors, because it draws together a real community of professionals focusing holistically on advanced product development and manufacturing. It's also a show that doesn't pretend to be anything other than what it is, and it is done well, providing an exhibition, conference and tutorials; together with many other useful on-site resources. Moreover, and this is significant, most people who attend TCT in any given year will remember it long after they return to their desks, and will be able to recall their time there, even many years later (the event is in its 16th year). Often the result of a successful business contact coming to fruition, this is also invariably to do with the fact that TCT offers a unique face-to-face opportunity for social/business networking for a fantastic and growing community that are not afraid to let their hair down when the business of the day is completed!
I have absolutely no regrets about the decision I made at the end of 2008, but as far as the manufacturing calendar of events goes, TCT is in a very small minority — probably on its own — and is definitely one of those shows that once you get caught up in it, you find you don't want to miss it when it comes around again. I realise that I am talking from a position of bias, but I have worn out a substantial number of shoes walking show floors in my time and I believe I have enough experience on which to make this judgement. I think there are a number of reasons why TCT stands out on the calendar for me. Primarily, despite year on year growth, it is very different to the super-sized, soulless exhibitions that one can attend with halls and halls of exhibitors, because it draws together a real community of professionals focusing holistically on advanced product development and manufacturing. It's also a show that doesn't pretend to be anything other than what it is, and it is done well, providing an exhibition, conference and tutorials; together with many other useful on-site resources. Moreover, and this is significant, most people who attend TCT in any given year will remember it long after they return to their desks, and will be able to recall their time there, even many years later (the event is in its 16th year). Often the result of a successful business contact coming to fruition, this is also invariably to do with the fact that TCT offers a unique face-to-face opportunity for social/business networking for a fantastic and growing community that are not afraid to let their hair down when the business of the day is completed!
Ice and Age
As any UK residents will be aware, the snow and ice that has blanketed the country for the last couple of weeks has brought with it a host of practical problems that we are not too clever at dealing with! Whether walking, driving or commuting by any other transport, the delays and difficulties are endless until the thaw begins. For more elderly citizens there are the more somber issues of just being able to keep warm eat enough food. The only thing we are really any good at in this weather is playing, and the joy of that has worn off pretty quickly!
For me, this weather has also triggered fervent family battles that demonstrate the different priorities of generations. My (soon to be) teenage daughter has implied that her father and I are positively geriatric because we would rather she be warm and safe when out of the house (ie attired in thick coat, hat, scarf, gloves and, heaven forbid, wellies). Her clear priority, meanwhile, is to maintain a cool image and to be as unburdened as possible around the school she attends (no lockers!). I can understand this, to a point, no one wants additional baggage (literally) — but sometimes it is necessary, along with the inconvenience.
What has struck me most about my daughter’s position is how convinced she is that she is right and that we are wrong. There is little room, if any, for negotiation in her thought-process. Everything that she knows within her world is enough to make her absolutely certain. I can remember being that sure of myself too. However, age and experience now convinces me that I can always learn more because there is always something new — or there is a new way of looking at an existing concept. Furthermore, I think we can learn the most by listening to other people — from our own and from other generations. This is true in family hierarchies, but it is also true in any business situation. Experience is a valuable and important asset, but youth — with its vibrance, creativity and new ideas is vital too. Bringing the two together successfully is the hard part.
For me, this weather has also triggered fervent family battles that demonstrate the different priorities of generations. My (soon to be) teenage daughter has implied that her father and I are positively geriatric because we would rather she be warm and safe when out of the house (ie attired in thick coat, hat, scarf, gloves and, heaven forbid, wellies). Her clear priority, meanwhile, is to maintain a cool image and to be as unburdened as possible around the school she attends (no lockers!). I can understand this, to a point, no one wants additional baggage (literally) — but sometimes it is necessary, along with the inconvenience.
What has struck me most about my daughter’s position is how convinced she is that she is right and that we are wrong. There is little room, if any, for negotiation in her thought-process. Everything that she knows within her world is enough to make her absolutely certain. I can remember being that sure of myself too. However, age and experience now convinces me that I can always learn more because there is always something new — or there is a new way of looking at an existing concept. Furthermore, I think we can learn the most by listening to other people — from our own and from other generations. This is true in family hierarchies, but it is also true in any business situation. Experience is a valuable and important asset, but youth — with its vibrance, creativity and new ideas is vital too. Bringing the two together successfully is the hard part.
Wednesday, 13 January 2010
Dimensional Improvements to uPrint
I've just received notice of the updated uPrint Plus 3D printer from Dimension Printing, part of the Stratasys stable. It looks the same as the original machine released last year, and aesthetically, it would definitely fit unnoticed into any design office. The major upgrade, along with a slightly bigger build volume and a new smart-support material, is that the uPrint Plus prints models in a range of colours.
ABSplus is the material that the printer utilises, and until now, this has only been available in standard ivory. Seven more colour options have now been added — red, blue, black, dark grey, olive, nectarine or fluorescent yellow. You can only build in one colour at a time! With two resolution settings for printing (0.254 mm and 0.33 mm) I am looking forward to seeing some of the parts that come off the machine, which, just in case you were wondering, costs just under $20,000.
I will sit them next to the Z-corp colour models that I have (part of my collection over the last 15 years) and some RapMan parts that are made in ABS (red, blue, white) and I will feedback my thoughts here as soon as poss!
ABSplus is the material that the printer utilises, and until now, this has only been available in standard ivory. Seven more colour options have now been added — red, blue, black, dark grey, olive, nectarine or fluorescent yellow. You can only build in one colour at a time! With two resolution settings for printing (0.254 mm and 0.33 mm) I am looking forward to seeing some of the parts that come off the machine, which, just in case you were wondering, costs just under $20,000.
I will sit them next to the Z-corp colour models that I have (part of my collection over the last 15 years) and some RapMan parts that are made in ABS (red, blue, white) and I will feedback my thoughts here as soon as poss!
Tuesday, 12 January 2010
Yet another interesting dynamic raised on the RP-ML
Yes, okay, you might be forgiven for thinking that I do little else other than read posts on the RP-ML. It is a side line, I promise, I do work as well!!
It does raise interesting issues in the world in which I spend much of my time though, and therefore sets in motion different thought processes that I can unleash here.
Battles are starting to rage on the forum, and it has highlighted the vast chasm that exists between the "real" world of industry and the more "idealistic" domain of academia. The irony being that developments in one often depend on the other — and that goes both ways. They coexist, with a tenuous connection that is vital to both, but with levels of suspicion, and even outright antipathy, which are immediately obvious when the two come together.
In my experience, neither side is opposed to raucous debate over a few pints when in the same room, but looking back, I don't think the issue has ever been resolved fully — neither will it be. I have spent much of my working life somewhere between the two and as a result I have respect for both and can see the value of both. In the oft hallowed halls of superior academic institutions (across the globe) the desire for knowledge (and recognition, let's be honest) drives technological developments in an environment that positively encourages all boundaries to be pushed to breaking point, with fairly deep pockets to fund such activities. In the realms of industry, and manufacturing in particular, things have to be made, and they have to work — reliably — often on tight budgets; so if there is a proven way of doing it — why reinvent the wheel?
Well, you can probably see where this is going ...... the point is that additive manufacturing would not be where it is today without the research and proven results produced by leading universities in the field. Similarly, without pioneers in industry using and proving the technologies for real applications, the whole industry would come to nothing.
They are inter-dependent on many levels, but neither side will ever really like that fact.
It does raise interesting issues in the world in which I spend much of my time though, and therefore sets in motion different thought processes that I can unleash here.
Battles are starting to rage on the forum, and it has highlighted the vast chasm that exists between the "real" world of industry and the more "idealistic" domain of academia. The irony being that developments in one often depend on the other — and that goes both ways. They coexist, with a tenuous connection that is vital to both, but with levels of suspicion, and even outright antipathy, which are immediately obvious when the two come together.
In my experience, neither side is opposed to raucous debate over a few pints when in the same room, but looking back, I don't think the issue has ever been resolved fully — neither will it be. I have spent much of my working life somewhere between the two and as a result I have respect for both and can see the value of both. In the oft hallowed halls of superior academic institutions (across the globe) the desire for knowledge (and recognition, let's be honest) drives technological developments in an environment that positively encourages all boundaries to be pushed to breaking point, with fairly deep pockets to fund such activities. In the realms of industry, and manufacturing in particular, things have to be made, and they have to work — reliably — often on tight budgets; so if there is a proven way of doing it — why reinvent the wheel?
Well, you can probably see where this is going ...... the point is that additive manufacturing would not be where it is today without the research and proven results produced by leading universities in the field. Similarly, without pioneers in industry using and proving the technologies for real applications, the whole industry would come to nothing.
They are inter-dependent on many levels, but neither side will ever really like that fact.
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!?
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!?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)