A1 is Maxing it Up

I got to see the new Maxit 3D printer from A1 Technologies on Friday last. A1 was exhibiting at the TES Resources North show in Manchester, and seeing as that city is a hop, skip & a jump from me, I decided it was an opportunity not to be missed.

When I excitedly tweeted about it, one response I got back was "but it's just another RepRap". Well, yes, it is! No denying it. I'll be honest, my heart sank momentarily, as I wondered how many others respond like that. It didn't last long. That is the beauty of the whole RepRap concept and the genius of Adrian Bowyer's vision of an open source 3D printer. Anyone can take the basic premise and develop it and make it better. Not everyone that tries will succeed of course, but this is one instance where I believe that is precisely what has been done. It's an incremental improvement, granted, but that needs to be accepted as the norm by the 'additive informed' because there is no sea change yet visible on the horizon.

A1 Technologies is jointly run by Martin Stevens and Trupti Patel — two of the most ethical, unassuming and yet passionate people I've had the pleasure to meet in this industry. A1 Technologies is a 3D company, that is to say a company that provides accessible (ie easy to use and low-cost) tools for designing and making in 3D for anyone. The complete portfolio of products has been put together with a view to the whole design AND make process. Designing in 3D (Chameleon), Scanning in 3D (David Laserscanner) and Making in 3D (Maxit 3D printer and Studiomill 5-axis machine).

Before the Maxit, A1 was a reseller for another RepRap platform, indeed the company sold the very first sub £1000 machine in the world, and since that time has been a strong advocate for low-cost 3D printing. However the fire-fighting and problem solving that went with this was time-consuming and difficult — specifically in terms of supporting clients with assembly, reliable 3D print results and consistency. It was this that prompted the decision to change course and invest in their own R&D to overcome these specific problems. The result is the Maxit. It is an entry-level, self-assembly machine but it will not be the cheapest platform on the market, and it was never intended as such. The criteria for development was that stated above and as such, while it can print some of it's own parts, the mechanics have been sourced to ensure reliability and consistency and the number of parts is greatly reduced over comparable platforms, such that it can be assembled by ANYONE in one day. I challenged this claim, with a raised brow, but Martin insisted this was a prerequisite and it has been tested, tested and tested again. Furthermore, one of the beta machines is due to arrive at a secondary school in the next week or so, and this is the first challenge for the students - it will be documented.

The primary target market for A1 at this point is education. As Martin explained to me on Friday, this is not to exclude other markets now, but these technologies have to be introduced to our next generation of designers and engineers. Martin is an ardent believer that education is the way forward for UK & indeed global engineering & manufacturing by putting the technology into the hands of students so that "they learn by doing, not just listening and watching." Bascially, I couldn't agree more. Just some basic asking around at my daughter's school has left me flabbergasted at the lack of resources in this area. I am formulating my own personal mission in this area separately!!

Back to A1, what I saw on Friday was a company that doesn't just spout the rhetoric, they get on the road, weekly, to practice exactly what they preach and put the tech into the hands of kids. According to Martin, this approach has never failed to excite and enthuse the students that get the chance to try the technologies for themselves. As the Maxit 3D printer becomes commercially available within the next month or two through a number of different channels, this is only set to increase.

So there we are, there is yet 'another' RepRap platform hitting the streets, some of you may pull your noses up at it, but, the reasons for its existence as well as its capabilities and where it is headed, I think, are extremely positive and will make a difference.

All Change Again - And a Personal Epiphany

While I have been kept busy, fruitfully so, I had been thinking that things have been pretty quiet across the 3D printing universe recently.

Silly me.

It all started kicking off again last week. The first announcement came from (surprise surprise) 3D Systems (3DS), which announced on 10th April that the company had acquired My Robot Nation. It caused a bit of a stir because many had assumed that the 3DS spending spree was on hold while its numerous other acquisitions were consolidated into the business. Obviously, 3DS are not yet where they want to be, and, after short respite, the acquisitions are go again.

My Robot Nation (MRN) is a relatively new start-up, a consumer facing business, engaging its customers in customised design and supplying the 3D printed results. It's a good fit with 3DS, the new owners of ZPrinting, as the MRN interface produces full colour digital models that are printed on ZPrinters. The whole business, including the founders who were originally from the gaming industry, will be folded into the Cubify division of 3DS to further develop its reach and consumer interaction. Like I said, a nice fit.

This news was followed on Monday by a much more potent, albeit previously forecast, announcement from Stratasys and Objet, in that the two companies are set to merge to form the largest 3D Printing vendor company visible on the sector's landscape. Valued at $1.4 billion, this new company, to be called Stratasys Ltd, has really grabbed people's attention in a number of ways. First and most obvious is the sheer size and scale of the new operation. The share prices of both Stratasys and Objet increased by 25% and 20% respectively within 24 hours, so the response is largely positive. Furthermore, the combination of these two technology bases, complementary for the most part, will also bring together two of the very best R&D departments within the 3D printing sector. I think we will see some very interesting developments from this. A few on the twittersphere had seen this one coming after the news broke a few weeks back that Objet was on the market, myself included. The prediction now is that Stratasys Ltd will need to introduce &/or acquire metal capabilities to firm up its standing in terms of a fully comprehensive 3D printing technology portfolio. My hunch is that we won't have to wait too long for this to happen.

All in all though, I think this is a positive merger, a combination of two of the most operationally successful 3D printer vendors. And it should be noted that my language here is a reflection of the language used by both Stratasys and Objet in their corporate releases about this venture. Both were at pains to convey a mutual coming together, never once was the word acquisition used. I thought that was quite telling in itself! 

This particular announcement also set tongues wagging about the consolidation within the 3D printing sector, with bets being taken on how long before only the two largest companies are left standing. Either that, or one of the truly vast electronic/tech companies joining the party properly. If you didn't catch that, it was a reference to HP's half-hearted dalliance with Stratasys to date. Personally, I don't think the 3D printing sector will ever be reduced to just two dominant companies. I certainly hope not anyway.

And then on Tuesday came a further announcement from 3D Systems, which on that day, acquired Paramount Industries. Headed up by Jim Williams, Paramount is renowned for its use of 3D printing technologies for additive manufacturing applications, most notably in the aerospace and medical industries. Indeed Jim is a veteran user of additive tech, and has been working in this field since the origins of rapid prototyping way back when. Offering complete design to manufacturing services, Paramount will fit right into the 3D Systems corporation, alongside Quickparts & 3Dproparts, with specific emphasis on manufacturing capabilities. It is another nice fit, but I can't help but wonder how many more companies can and will be accommodated under the 3DS umbrella?

As things continue to change, and they will, as the consolidation takes a shape of its own and awareness increases apace, I should just mention that I had my own epiphany (finally) on the terminology around this industry. I was mid debate with a couple of people (Al Dean, Kevin Quigley and Jim Woodcock) about how 3D printing is different to additive manufacturing, and should be defined so. Al, who is never one to pull his punches, argued that they are all 3D Printers, "bang, done!" I was arguing that a "3D printer" is not the same as an "additive manufacturing" machine. I used the analogy that a Vauxhall Corsa is not the same as an Aston Martin. Kevin then commented, I think in agreement with me, that similarly an £800 CNC machine is not the same as a £500k CNC machine. Which is when it hit me — fully, completely and overwhelmingly. A Corsa is NOT the same as an Aston Martin, but they ARE both cars. An £800 CNC machine is NOT the same as a £500k CNC machine, but they ARE both CNC machines. A Makerbot is NOT the same as an EOS P700 but they ARE both 3D printers. The differences between 3D printers comes from the capabilities offered, the applications they serve and the users that employ them. Therefore, context is vital, but responsibility for this must fall to the marketing & branding by the machine vendors as well as commentators and journalists.

It really is that simple. And that is exactly what this industry needs — simplicity with context.

Vote for the TCT Top 20

TCT is 20 years old - gulp - that makes me feel old. 

As part of its celebrations to mark this anniversary the magazine is currently taking votes from readers and the industry at large to find the Top 20 Influencers to the Additive Manufacturing industry (no mention of 3D printing but I think 3D printing people will get voted anyway!). The results are to be published in an upcoming issue.. This is a great feature — last carried out 5 years ago for the 15 year anniversary — and over a 1000 votes were cast back then. With the explosion of online activities and social media in particular, I would expect the vote numbers to be exponentially higher this time round. I will be very keen to see the results too, so much has changed in just five years in this vibrant industry, which continues to evolve apace.

I urge you to vote, and, if, like me, you want to recognise the work of more than one of the many fantastic individuals within this industry that dedicate their careers to driving it forward technologically and/or help people to understand it, you can vote more than once, although the Editor might frown at you a little (sorry Jim). I've voted three times. After which I kept thinking of more people that I really should vote for too. But I've made my choices and I'll stick to them. However, below is a list of people that I think will make the grade based on the work they have done in the last five years, although it should be noted that one has left the industry recently and one (maybe two) is due to formally retire. 

Can't wait to see if I get close:

In alphabetical order ie not my preference order or where I think they will come in TCT's Top 20 line up.

Adrian Bowyer, Bath University / RepRap

Phill Dickens, Loughborough Univeristy

Todd Grimm, T.A. Grimm & Associates

Lisa Harouni,  Digital Forming

Dan Johns, Bloodhound

Hod Lipson, Cornell University

Jason Lopes, Legacy Effects

Gary Miller, IPF

Vanessa Palsenberg, iMaterialise

Bre Pettis, Makerbot

Jeremy Pullin, Renishaw

Julie Reece, previously ZCorporation

Abe Reichental, 3D Systems

Martin Stevens, A1 Technologies

Scott Summit, Bespoke Innovations

Graham Tromans, GP Tromans & Associates

Wilfried Vancraen, Materialise

Peter Weijmarshausen, Shapeways

Terry Wohlers, Wohlers & Associates

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!!)