Wohlers Talk

Many years ago, at least one person predicted the use of additive fabrication (AF) to “3D print” household items. If the bread toaster breaks, a new one—or part of one—would be created on the home 3D printer. The convenience and speed would make it compelling.

I disagreed then and I do now. If the toaster breaks, a new one is purchased for $15–20. Even if a person or family owns or has access to a 3D printer, the system would probably not accommodate the type of material needed for the replacement part(s). Also, 3D model data, needed to drive the system, would need to be created or downloaded. This would not be impossible, but few consumers would want to mess with it.

I do believe that home manufacturing will develop in the future and feel more strongly about it now than ever. People that manufacture at home, however, will serve as “providers” that sell to others, primarily on the web. Individuals will see it as a low-risk, low-overhead business opportunity to manufacture from their basement, spare room, garage, or dorm room. They will discover a niche market and serve this market from their home. A few are already doing it.

Case in point: Fabjectory is a one-person company that has been producing models from Second Life, Google SketchUp, and Nintendo Mii for some time. The price for a color model from Fabjectory is typically $50–200. The home-based operation has been written up in The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The New York Times, Wired, and other major publications. I am also aware of others here in the U.S. and abroad that are offering part-making services from the comfort of their homes.

The market opportunities are vast. Among them are the production of individualized video game characters, sculptures, corporate gifts, figurines, ornaments, lighting designs, custom furniture, wall hangings, and other home and personal accessories. Add it up and you’re looking at markets that total billions of dollars.

So, don’t be surprised when you begin to see small, specialized manufacturers popping up everywhere. At first, it may appear as though they are operating from a regular business or store front. Upon closer examination, you will find that they are small operations located in homes. And, they will be the manufacturer of the future.

Some of you may recognize his name. Cohen helped pioneer the additive fabrication (AF) industry. At 3D Systems, he was instrumental in the development of the SLA 250, once the most popular AF system in the world. Cohen subsequently co-founded Soligen, a Southern California company that used inkjet printing (3DP) technology from MIT to produce ceramic shells for metal castings. He served as vice president of R&D for years at Soligen.

Cohen is also remembered for launching the Rapid Prototyping Report newsletter, the first publication dedicated to AF technology. Cohen sold the newsletter to CAD/CAM Publishing, who published it for many years.

Cohen worked at the University of Southern California for four years where he invented and led the development of a microfabrication technology called EFAB. (EFAB originally stood for Electrochemical FABrication.) The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) supported Cohen’s work at USC. The effort led to the 1999 spinout of Microfabrica where Cohen currently serves as executive vice president of technology and chief technology officer.

EFAB produces micrometer- and millimeter-scale metal parts, subsystems, and devices with features measured in microns. It deposits two distinct metals—currently a nickel-cobalt alloy and copper—layer by layer onto ceramic wafers. The copper is used as sacrificial support material that is ultimately etched away. Microfabrica has produced fully assembled, functional mechanisms, such as devices with dozens of moving parts that are held together with tiny pin joints.

For 21 years, Cohen has been active in the AF industry and a significant contributor to its development. He and his company are expected to remain busy for some time to come. Microfabrica, Boston University, and Harvard Medical School/Children’s Hospital recently won a $5 million grant from the National Institutes of Health for the development of miniaturized tools for minimally invasive heart surgery.

In January 2008, Tata Motors of India unveiled its $2,500 automobile. It is believed to be the least expensive production car anywhere. The car is expected to reach Indian consumers in October. Click here to see the interior and exterior of this small, no-frills car. According to Wikipedia, the car has a 623 cc rear engine with fuel economy of 22 km per liter (52 mpg) in the city and 26 km per liter (61 mpg) on highways.

Tata Motors announced in March an agreement with Ford Motor Company for the purchase of Jaguar Land Rover. The transfer of ownership is supposed to occur by the end of Q2. At that point, Tata will offer the lowest and some of the highest-priced production cars on the market. The Jaguar XJ series list for $65,000 to $95,000. Click here to see the interior and exterior of this luxury automobile.

It will be interesting to see whether a car company, such as Tata, can handle such breadth in automotive products. The Jaguar Ford “marriage” did not work out, so maybe Tata can do better.

Last week I visited EOS GmbH (Krailling, Germany), a company that manufactures laser-sintering machines for plastics, metals, and foundry sand. By the end of my visit, it became clear to me that EOS is rewriting the rules for metal part fabrication. Conventional methods will not disappear, but a range of metal parts that would otherwise be machined or cast is now being produced using metal laser sintering. The company faces challenges, but it has made a lot of progress in the past few years.

The production of dental restorations using laser sintering is a good example of what is now possible. Dental crowns and bridges are traditionally produced as a custom product for individual patients. The process involves many steps, including the casting of a coping, which serves as the basis for the crown or bridge. Much of the expense is tied to skilled labor that occurs at the dental lab, so streamlining the process can dramatically impact time and cost.

EOS employs an experienced dental lab technician that has helped the company develop a start-to-finish process using its cobalt-chrome material for the copings. Using laser scanning and software products from 3Shape (Copenhagen, Denmark), the process guides the lab technician through the steps of preparing the copings for production on the EOSINT M 270 (metal laser sintering) machine. The data preparation is fast, thanks to the DentalDesigner software from 3Shape. And, the metal copings—380 of them—can be manufactured in 20 hours with little human intervention.

Many dental labs are small “mom ‘n pop” shops with a lot of experience and know-how, but are slow to change. Even so, some labs can see the potential of using laser scanning, good software, and additive fabrication as a competitive weapon. As they adopt the technology, the less progressive companies will have little choice but to also accept it if they want to remain competitive. As they do, the rules of making dental crowns and bridges will change forever.

Can you believe it? Ninety-one percent of our nation’s manufacturing companies were involved in one or more new lawsuits in 2007, according to Fulbright & Jaworski LLP, a law firm in Houston, Texas. The report, published in the January 2008 issue of Manufacturing Engineering, went on to say that 56% of these companies encountered more than 20 new lawsuits in 2007. A depressing 70% of them spend $1 million or more per year on business disputes.

I am in full support of protecting intellectual property and upholding legal contracts. However, many companies have developed a culture of litigation. Rather than considering every possible alternative, companies are quick to throw a team of lawyers at the problem. Once that happens, costs skyrocket and there’s often no end in sight.

What’s it going to take to ease this problem? The money and other company resources that are spent on litigation could be used to design and manufacture better products and improve customer support. If you have ideas, I’d like to hear from you.

The Washington-based Cato Institute, a non-profit public policy research foundation, claims that U.S. manufacturing is doing very well. In fact, it maintains that the manufacturing sector is experiencing record growth, record profits, record output, record exports, and record return on investment. A summary of the organization’s findings was published in the December 2007 issue of Manufacturing Engineering.

If you were to randomly ask a dozen manufacturers in the U.S. how they are doing, I would be surprised if their comments support the report from the Cato Institute. My sense is that some manufacturers are doing fine—and a few are doing very well—but many are struggling. However, I do not have any quantitative data to support this belief.

The Cato Institute goes on to say that Michigan’s economic growth from 2005 to 2006 was dead last among the 50 states, although manufacturing outside of Michigan has been strong. What’s more, the U.S. produces 2.5 times more goods than China, despite the loss of 3 million jobs since 2000, according to the report.

What do you think? Is manufacturing in the U.S. not only strong, but at an all-time high?

The results of a recent MoldMaking Technology magazine survey (January 2008) show “foreign competition” as the #1 challenge for the moldmaking industry. (Most readers of the magazine are from the U.S.) To many, this is not surprising, given what has been published on the subject over the past few years. Moldmakers, like many in the product development and manufacturing business, are afraid that the “bleeding” will continue.

What can be done to preserve and even grow manufacturing in the U.S.? One idea is to concentrate on the strengths of our nation and one of them is innovation. People in the U.S. have a wealth of ideas for new products. However, the risk of introducing a new product, or convincing investors to support it, can be daunting. Launching a new product can cost a staggering amount, so companies are usually very cautious when conceiving and rolling out something new.

New methods of manufacturing, such as additive fabrication (AF), provide the opportunity to introduce a new product—or parts that go into one—at a surprisingly low cost. AF does not require any tooling, so this removes one of the biggest costs, both in time and money. This does not help moldmakers, but it sure presents some interesting possibilities for those in the product development business. An example is Janne Kyttanen of Freedom of Creation. He and his company are able to design some consumer products in a day or two and begin to manufacture them by plastic laser sintering the following day.

With innovation as a strength, I predict that many designers, engineers, students, and others will use modern software tools to create products that before were too difficult, expensive, and risky to manufacture. They will create small quantities to test the market to determine whether a demand exists for what they’ve developed. And, they can make changes and improvements along the way without much additional cost. As the custom manufacturing megatrend comes into full swing, those embracing AF for part production will be poised to ride this potentially large and lucrative wave.

Self-replicating machines have been a topic of futurists and science fiction writers. Nanotechnology shows some promise for nanoscale assembly, although practical applications of this may be many years into the future, if ever. A professor at the University of Bath in England launched an ambitious open source project a few years ago that aims to produce a macroscale self-replicating machine by additive fabrication (AF), although little evidence of actual self-replication has been demonstrated thus far.

Today, two companies offer machines that are beginning to build themselves. One year ago, EOS announced that laser sintering was used to produce 23 parts on its Formiga P 100 laser sintering system. Among the parts being produced are the filler hopper for the plastic powder, a switch cover, and pieces for a pyrometer. Last month at EuroMold 2007, Stratasys announced that fused deposition modeling (FDM) was used to manufacture 32 parts for its new FDM 900mc system. Some of the parts include the touch screen bezel, door latch filler, pull handles, status tower base, and cable strain relief bracket.

As the capabilities and materials for these machines improve, expect the number of parts that they build for themselves to increase. Will they ever be capable of producing themselves entirely? Maybe someday, but not until systems can process a very wide range of materials, including plastics, composites, and metals. Today’s machines can process plastics/composites or metals, but not both. For a long time into the future, standard parts, such as motors, gears, bearings, belts, wires, printed circuit boards, switches, fasteners, and sheet metal, will be purchased and assembled the way they have in the past.

Historically, additive fabrication (AF) has been used for applications such as modeling, prototyping, and making patterns for silicone rubber molds. In recent years, a growing number of companies have used it for custom and replacement part manufacturing, short-run production, and even series production. Research by Wohlers Associates shows that “rapid manufacturing” using AF has grown from 3.9% in 2003 to 11.7% in 2007.

As this trend continues, we can expect to see a much wider range of audiences embrace AF for the manufacture of almost everything imaginable. This activity will be supported by AF systems that dip down to $5,000 in price. When this occurs next year, these compact manufacturing machines will show up in unexpected places. Individuals operating from a spare room in their homes will manufacture one-off parts and finished products for a broad spectrum of customers.

Growing interest in AF could lead to anyone designing anything and then having it manufactured in an affordable way for the first time. Of course, there will be limitations in size, dimensional accuracy, and material options, especially with the inexpensive systems. The biggest limitation of all will be the abilities of the people doing the design. Most consumers do not have the basic knowledge and skills to create an interesting or useful product. What’s more, the average consumer has little interest in creating new designs, let alone the desire to learn how to use design software.

Even so, entrepreneurs will capitalize on a wealth of opportunities presented by low-cost AF. As they better understand the design deficiencies among the population, they will develop approaches to personalized design and manufacturing with specific limits built into the process. Nike’s nikeid.com provides a glimpse of how this might be possible. This beautifully created website permits you to create a custom pair of shoes quickly and affordably. Within a few minutes, you can personalize shoes using a range of interesting colors and you can add a school mascot and two-digit initials to the shoes.

In the future, many websites will appear that offer libraries of objects. An individual might select a vintage car, for example, from a library of automobiles. This person will be given the opportunity to select the style of wheels, headlights, front grill, hood ornament, and color, and indicate whether it is a convertible or hardtop. The site will allow you to make other design changes, such as altering the curve of a fender, but within preset limits. Making these kinds of changes would make the model car truly custom. A few clicks later, your collectable will be in the queue for production and shipment.

Indeed, AF will be used to produce custom products by a wide range of consumers. As the price of these “personal factories” drop, the idea will expand into new businesses that may be difficult to fathom. Most consumers cannot design, so tools will become available to assist them with the process of creating one-of-a-kind products.

Note: The international conference titled The Custom Manufacturing MegaTrend: Where China and the West Fit In will be held on December 7 at EuroMold 2007 in Frankfurt, Germany.

Next week, four design/prototyping/manufacturing events are being held simultaneously in Europe and the USA. VRAP 2007 is September 24–29 in Leiria, Portugal. (VRAP stands for Advanced Research in Virtual and Rapid Prototyping.) This every-other-year event, being offered for the third time, draws some of the best academic researchers, as well as a few presentations from private industry. The Portuguese are excellent hosts and do a fine job with this international conference.

TCT 2007 is September 26–27 in Coventry, England and has been running as an annual event for many years. (TCT stands for Time-Compression Technologies.) It is an industrial conference focused exclusively on rapid manufacturing, with a relatively strong exhibition associated with it. The people at Rapid News Publications—the publisher of the European TCT magazine and organizer of the TCT event—are excellent at bringing together a good group of people from the UK and many other countries.

The other two events are in the USA. NDES (also known as National Manufacturing Week) is September 25–27 in Rosemont, Illinois. NDES stands for “National Design Engineering Show” and is organized annually by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). The event is not like it once was and has been on “life support” in the recent past. I’ve attended several times, but not over the last few years.

3D Systems World Conference is September 25–27 in Rock Hill, South Carolina. It is a first-year event sponsored and organized by 3D Systems. The event competes with the 3DS Users Group Conference, an annual event organized and conducted by 3D Systems’ customers.

I’m attending the VRAP and TCT events. I’ve been to them in the past and know that they deliver a wide spectrum of views and opinions from top industry and academic leaders. TCT struggled for a few years when it became affiliated with another event organizer, but it is back on track. I’m looking forward to attending both, but wish they were not the same week.