BFB RapMan is Manufacturing Parts

Commissioned to find and write a compelling case study on the BFB RapMan, I knew it would not be a hard brief, in that uptake is pretty rapid at the moment. However, what I was not expecting, was to come across a user that is employing the kit form of the RapMan machine to manufacture end-use components! I was staggered, I have to say. This is immense. An additive technology, under £1,000, is producing plastic components for a finished product. Granted, the volumes are not huge — yet. But, the potential is there.

I am currently waiting for approval to get this story out there into the public domain, but just as soon as I do, I will be posting it here, as well as sending it as far and wide as possible.

The Transition Period

As a long term advocate of additive technologies I have been through the peaks and troughs associated with an emerging sector. However, I have never before been witness to the growing momentum behind these technologies that exists today.

It is not possible to point to one single factor, which is probably why there is strength behind the momentum as opposed to 'hype'. Rather, it is now possible to identify a cumulative range of events and circumstances that are contributing to this escalating energy behind both 3D printing and additive manufacturing.

As the world tentatively heads out of recession, albeit teetering on the brink with economic commentators uncertain about which way the cards will fall as of yet, the vendors of additive technology platforms have fared pretty well. Some better than others, as would be expected, but what it very telling is that none have gone into administration. All of them have managed to keep their heads above water. Stratasys recently released its end of year results for 2009, and the general pattern is probably similar across the board, in that unit sales were down on the previous year, but still healthy enough. Cost cutting and belt tightening helped to buoy up the figures some, and overall the rhetoric was positive. An industry that can demonstrate positive results after a devastating year — economically speaking — only points to further significant growth at a faster rate as global circumstances improve.

Awareness is another significant factor in this building momentum. It's been a slow process (akin to wading through treacle at times) but it is now spreading at an exciting rate. There is much more talk, debate and understanding of the additive manufacturing concept. From a personal perspective, I am finding that I rarely have to explain the concept itself anymore, as most people that I speak to have heard about it and grasp the basic idea. Rather it is a case of explaining the different processes and the range of capabilities. This is progress!

A further significant pointer that I became aware of yesterday is that a large retail outlet that has picked up on the technology. PC World posted an article on its website: http://www.pcworld.com/article/189880/affordable_3d_printers.html. It refers directly to HP's interest in 3D printers and I imagine this is what brought it to the company's attention. Also, the article talks about 3DP and AM as a technology of the future, but it is talking, and more to the point, it is taking the message wider. Just think of the number of people that would never come across a manufacturing or technology website but will visit the PC World website. There could be many more 'Eureka' moments as a result!

Many of the blogs relating to 3DP and AM are also becoming much, much more prolific with their posts. A great many of them distinguish between the industrial strength processes (Stratasys, 3D Systems, Objet, ZCorp et al) and the 'hobbyist' platforms (RepRap, Fab@Home, Makerbot and BfB RapMan etc). The hobbyist platforms being those 3D printers that come in kit form. I am not sure if the 'hobbyist' label works for me, I don't think it conveys the full potential of these machines, but I get the point and the differentiation.

As of today, I think the sector is mid transition — somewhere between niche and mainstream — and moving faster than it ever has before!

When Wohlers met Cameron

James Cameron that is, not David!

Terry Wohlers recently witnessed James Cameron being interviewed at the recent SolidWorld event, talking knowledgeably about 3D software and 3D printing in particular. The interview was followed up by a 1-to-1 conversation.

The full post can be found here: http://wohlersassociates.com/blog/2010/02/james-cameron-uses-3d-printing/

The gist being the positive effect on the 3DP industry when people so much in the public eye know about AND talk about the applicability of these technologies.

What was also very interesting was how Mr Cameron is renowned for "getting his hands dirty" in order to make stuff, both early on in his career as a machinist and even now, as (one of?) the world's greatest film directors.

This may sound strange coming from someone that has only worked with words her whole life, and watches in amazement from the sidelines as the real (and often dirty) work is carried out by the true pioneers of 3DP, but this is key! The desire to make things and to practice and learn. Innovation is born of an inherent creativity together with hands-on practical knowledge. It's not exactly a fast process, but one that fosters enthusiasm, passion and determination over a life-time.

I was talking to Dan Johns of Airbus recently (who, incidentally, was the ALM evangelist behind the Telegraph article I posted about last week) and this was central to his thinking too. I am sure he will not mind me saying that he does not profess to be especially academic, but as a child he spent hours and hours in his Grandad's shed, playing with a host of different tools and making things — all sorts of things. From this his passion for engineering and manufacturing was born. His imagination was totally captured by the emergence of rapid prototyping in the early 1990's and the potential that he saw then prompted him to take the time to fully embrace the capabilities and the limitations of the processes. His understanding through practical, hands-on experimentation, has driven these technologies to unprecedented depths within one of the largest Aerospace companies in the world. He freely admits there is still much work to be done, but his fascination and zeal for all things additive is only increasing as time passes.

Drive, passion and dirty hands — the roots of success. Without them, the rest of it cannot grow.

The Press is Starting to Pick up on 3DP/AM

The chatter about whether or not 3D printing and/or AM is or will become mainstream has been centre stage again of late. Is it mainstream now? No, of course it isn't! That said, the mainstream press here in the UK are starting to pick up on just what these technologies can do. Indeed, just today, two articles on the subject have gone live.

Stateside there has been more mainstream press visibility with articles in some of the major daily titles, and the Jay Leno effect has had positive repercussions with increasing profile.

Today, the Daily Telegraph ran an article in its print edition outlining the impressive ALM capability at Airbus / EADS in Filton and how these companies are driving innovation and research with additive manufacturing applications that are currently undergoing the lengthy testing necessary for flight.

The Times Live also ran an online opinion piece of journalism, with a slightly tonge in cheek tone, but one that easily captures the imagination of people not familiar with 3D printing. They might need some ST knowledge though!!

http://www.timeslive.co.za/opinion/columnists/article293024.ece

The Optomec Position

Today Optomec will introduce its Aerosol Jet Display Lab System to the American market at the FlexTech 2010 Conference in Phoenix, Arizona, USA. The system has been designed and developed for the production of next generation touch screen and display applications.

Optomec is a company that intrigues me. Its proprietary LENS additive process has been around for many years and is well established and utilised among savvy clients in advanced sectors such as aerospace and defence. The applications for the LENS process have proved diverse — manufacturing and repairing high value metal components from aircraft engine parts to medical implants. However, the company often seems to fly below general radar levels, quietly going about its business.

The Aerosol Jet Display Lab goes a step further than LENS, it is an advanced additive platform that utilises Optomec’s patented Aerosol Jet technology, which in turn enables high resolution deposition of a wide variety of materials including conductive nano-particle inks, insulators, dielectrics, polymers, adhesives and other advanced materials. The system can print onto a wide variety of flexible and rigid substrates.

Despite the US launch today, a number of customers in Asia, including a leading industrial electronics research institute and a leading touch screen company, have already purchased and taken delivery of their Aerosol Jet Display Lab systems, which are being used to develop applications such as bridge/jumper circuits for bus lines on ITO/Glass, edge circuits for handheld displays, and fully printed Thin Film Transistors.

According to Optomec, the benefits of the Aerosol Jet Direct Write technology are the multi-material, fine line (<10 um) printing capability which eliminates many process steps/costs associated with current photolithographic and vacuum based display manufacturing processes. Also, the Aerosol Jet Print Engine can be integrated into automation platforms to meet high volume display production requirements. Multi-nozzle dispensing heads can be configured to meet specific end-user throughput needs. The additive process employed by Aerosol Jet technology reduces environmental impact by minimizing waste and chemicals that are prevalent in traditional electronics’ manufacturing processes.

The company has released a huge amount of information — with very little fanfare — all of which has even greater implications for future development.

The things that really stand out for me are:

• the high resolution deposition of nano-particles
• companies in the middle East are already using the systems
• multi-material deposition
• < 10 µm printing capability.
• and last, but by no means least, the system was developed for a specific application, and Optomec launch direct to its target market at FlexTech, an event dedicated to flexible technology for electronics and displays.

Basically, when a company bylines itself as "the world-leading provider of additive manufacturing systems for high-performance applications" my instinctive response is, 'yeah, yeah, you and every other AM vendor'. In this instance though, with a significant and very noticeable lack of hype around the company, I am inclined to agree that Optomec is making huge strides that are ahead of the game.


[NB: I have absolutely no commercial / financial interests in Optomec or associated companies.]

Advocating Additive Technology and Change is on the Horizon

As the Editor of the TCT Magazine I was a 100% advocate of additive layer technology. Partly because it was my remit and partly because I caught the bug. Now, it is wholly through choice, although often more tempered by cynicism. I have been wondering of late where this cynicism has come from.

By nature I am an optimist, so can I be optimistic and cynical at the same time? The answer is yes I can. I am cynical about some of the predictions and claims about 3D Printing (3DP) and Additive Manufacturing (AM), these days. I now have a tendency to reserve judgement until I see proof, or establish a strong belief system, before I start waxing lyrical. That said, I am very optimistic about the future of additive technology.

A couple of posts back I positioned myself on middle ground, with a good view. That has brought with it an accusation of sitting on the proverbial fence and acquiring splinters in uncomfortable places. In view of this coming close on the heels of a very exciting meeting I had recently, I am going to vocalise some of my optimism and go on the record with a couple of predictions of my own.

I am not at liberty to disclose any of the contents of my meeting — yet — suffice to say, it prompted this post.

IMHO:

The current additive technology field will diversify, it's already started and it will become much more defined. It will go in two directions with two clearly identified markets — prototyping (3DP) and production (AM). I am not quite so bold as to put a precise date on this, but within the next 5 years. Sooner if Stratasys/HP make good on their promises and the price of concept modellers goes into freefall with the other 3DP vendors scrabbling to compete with RapMan, Solido and Makerbot and regain some of the market share that they will surely lose in the short term.

Things are going to change, and they are going to change in a big way, for AM; and the changes are going to come from left of field. Currently AM activities are viewed as a fringe activity, a process for OEM's with deep pockets or artistic types to 'play' with. As of today, this is a misguided perception, with a host of real applications that one can point to and say, "No, the capabilities of AM technologies are real and they make a real difference." The one that stands out for me is the use of titanium human implants built using the DMLS process from EOS, but there are many more. The problem is, there is no one application that makes enough people sit up and take notice. The applications do not make a 'big enough' difference. Volumes and infrastructure are key limitations.

However, this WILL be turned on its head in the mid-term. I am absolutely, positively convinced of it. Around the year 2013 I fully expect to point people back to this post and say I believed!

All optimistic and cynical comments welcome ....

The Dust Settles on the Stratasys/HP Announcement

It's been a couple of days since Stratasys announced its definitive partnership with HP — enough time for dust to start to settle. The markets, the commentators and users of 3D printing technology went into overdrive in the 24 hours following the announcement, which was to be expected, and was probably a primary aim of Stratasys in making the announcement.

There are, of course, polar opposite and rather extreme schools of thought depending on who you talk/listen to. On the one hand you have the enthusiastic "sea change" posse, who categorically see this as the moment that the 3D printing market will change forever. They are battling the more reserved and cynical crew that view this announcement as a publicity stunt that has seen Stratasys stock soar by an unprecedented 44% following a dismal financial year in 2009.

I have to say it, I love being a part of this industry. I really do. It excites me and it frustrates me in equal measure. The thing I have learned though is not to jump too far either way when something big happens, and make no mistake, however this Stratasys deal plays out, it is big!

There is something to be said for the middle ground, okay I possibly sound like the Clover ad, but it is the place where one can see most clearly — in all directions. At this point in time I can see that the announcement has brought Stratasys (in particular) and 3D printing (in general) centre stage. That is a great thing in itself. However, as I mentioned in my previous post, we have to wait for some months for the machines to hit the market when the real impact can start to be measured.

Also, while it is the lower end range of Stratasys machines that HP will be selling (Dimension/uprint), there is still no real visibility on the spec of the machines that HP will be selling. Personally, I don't think this is too much of an issue. The FDM process is an established and reliable one that will turn the heads of people that are being introduced to 3DP for the first time. The key to unlocking greater awareness is HP's ability to take sales & distribution much deeper than Stratasys, or any of the other 3DP vendors for that matter, into untapped markets. This is what excites me about this announcement.

Taking stock, I am of the opinion that the announcement is one amongst many factors that are driving the 3DP sector forward. Another vital element of this, as I have expounded for a while, are low cost 3D printers. An analogy that works here is by considering how the 3DP market could operate in much the same way as the housing market. Few first time buyers will (or can afford) to buy a £1,000,000 house with everything that they think they want or need. They get onto the property ladder by starting small (and less expensive). Once they have made the initial investment, they then upgrade at a later date. Recent history shows that without first time buyers, the housing market stalls. This is how I see 3DP. It needs lots and lots of first time buyers, starting small to get a full understanding of the capabilities and potential of the technology. Once that understanding is in place they can take stock and upgrade in line with their requirements — the whole industry benefits! The higher general awareness will also mean that new applications will invariably follow, and I'm going to say it again, and that killer app could emerge!

The desire by many commentators for 3D printing / Additive Manufacturing to be THE dominant force in the way we make things sometimes works against their good intentions. I hope that by raising awareness and uptake of 3DP it will become ONE of the dominant forces and fulfill its great potential that largely remains untapped.

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!

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.

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!?

A New Decade — A New Outlook?

2010! A new year, a new decade — a very good time to reflect and to look ahead. I can't quite believe how fast the last year, indeed the last ten years have flown by. Probably a sign of my age, but let's not dwell on that.

Happy New Year to anyone reading this in the next week or so. I really do hope that the next twelve months will be as happy and as engaging as the previous 12. As I take stock, I am quite astounded that I have spent a whole 12 months now working for myself, and it has gone so much better than I could ever have imagined this time last year. I love it. Particularly the fact that I have been fortunate enough to work with some truly inspirational people, promoting companies and products that I genuinely believe in. All but one project that I worked on throughout 2009 was focused on the additive manufacturing (AM) / 3D Printing (3DP) industry, which is probably not that surprising really, but I am truly delighted to still be so involved in this fascinating and dynamic industry sector.

Keeping abreast of all of the news and updates is a little more challenging than it was before launching RPES, as the information no longer lands in my inbox, I have to actively search for it. That said, the breadth of my knowledge is still growing and as the result of signing a couple of NDAs with my clients I am also extending the depth of my knowledge, and it is compelling, to say the least.

I am not yet convinced that 2010 is going to be as easy as some commentators predict, I think there will still be a distinct cautious approach to business. However, overall AM & 3DP has fared quite well (comparatively speaking) and I do believe that these sectors will continue to move forward and grow this year.

One company in particular that I think will have a major impact on the uptake and therefore growth of the 3DP market is A1 Technologies. As I mentioned before, I am lucky enough to be working with a number of companies that I personally believe will make a big difference, and A1 Technologies epitomises this for me. The company supplies a range of quality but low-cost hardware for product development — specifically 3D printers, a 3D scanner and 3D interactive software (http://www.rap-man.com/index.asp). And when I say low-cost, I mean very easily affordable for ANY budget. And just to clarify, when I say quality, I mean extremely competitive with comparable products that cost up to 10x as much. This is the key to unlocking the potential of these technologies, providing high calibre products at a price that virtually any company is able to consider. The hard part is convincing people that it is for real and that the products themselves are not inferior just because they do have such a low price tag. Overcoming the skepticism is a major mission for me this year!

The other angle that A1 Technologies is approaching increased uptake from is that of education and getting the technologies into the hands of students — tomorrow's engineers — and not just those at university. By increasing awareness from primary school age upwards, the availability of these technologies will infiltrate the consciousness of a whole new generation of designers and engineers, engaging minds that may not have considered engineering as a career path. The pay-off from this approach will take some time to achieve, but there is no doubt that the pay-off for the product development industry and manufacturing in general, will be huge.

2010 is going to be a really interesting year and I am very much looking forward to it.