What can be done to reduce the problem? One idea is to offer more opportunities for hands-on activities that engage students. Some kids do not take well to textbooks and lectures. A number of these same students excel with the right conditions. In the May 22 issue of Machine Design, editor Leland Teschler explained that a kid with a 1.9 GPA became a 4.0 student when he began to apply concepts in hands-on courses.

Teschler went on to discuss Project Lead the Way (PLTW), a program that introduces middle and high school students to applied engineering concepts. One PLTW instructor explained that kids have fun because they don’t know they are learning physics, Teschler said. The hands-on, project and problem-based approach adds rigor to technical programs and relevance to traditional academics, the PLTW website states. The Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME) Education Foundation has partnered with PLTW.

PLTW educators are typically former industrial arts/education instructors and many of them now teach CAD. Some of them are beginning to bring additive fabrication (AF) and 3D printing into their courses, which is a perfect fit. The kids develop skills in conceptual design, modeling, and experimentation and then “print” their work in 3D, giving them a chance to touch, evaluate, and test their designs.

I hope that schools throughout the U.S. adopt AF. It will allow kids that are academically challenged a chance to shine in an area that has a bright future. If it does not lead to an engineering degree, that’s okay. Rewarding careers in AF do not require a four-year engineering degree. Examples are operating AF equipment or finishing parts, selling or servicing AF machines, CAD software, or laser scanning systems, or serving as a sales agent for a service provider. What’s more, these are financially and professionally gratifying positions that are important to the future of the U.S.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Leland Teschler, editor of Machine Design, said, “There is no shortage of scientists or engineers. In fact, there are ‘substantially more’ scientists and engineers graduating in the U.S. than there are jobs.” His comments were published in the December 13, 2007 edition of the magazine. He went on to say that kids graduating from U.S. high schools do not lag far behind in science and math, compared to economically competitive countries. The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Rand Corp., Harvard University, the National Bureau of Economic Research, and Stanford University have all come to the same conclusion, according to Teschler.

Clearly, there is interest in increasing the number of engineers in the U.S. I’m in full support of strong engineering education and producing many good engineers across the country. Yet, the best way to increase the supply of engineers is to boost the demand for them. However, as more and more product development and engineering is outsourced to India and other countries, it becomes increasingly difficult to grow demand within U.S. borders. And, I don’t see this trend disappearing any time soon.

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?

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.

Many excellent colleges are active in rapid technologies across the country, so why did NSF select Saddleback for the Center? Saddleback’s Advanced Technology Center is at the forefront of offering hands-on experiences in additive fabrication (AF) technologies. The Center currently operates large-format stereolithography from Sony, two 3D printers from Z Corp., a Dimension machine from Stratasys, two 3D printers from 3D Systems, a laser cutting system, a CNC router, a vacuum forming machine, three laser scanners, and several CAD systems. What’s more, Saddleback is planning to acquire additional equipment.

For several years, Saddleback has offered weeklong National Teacher Training Workshops for colleges across the U.S. Over the past few years, 50-60 instructors and administrators have attended each year. This important activity has led to the adoption of AF technology by more than 80 institutions of higher education into their instructional programs.

Saddleback College also works extensively with private industry. It processes 2–3 industrial projects per week (an estimated 120 annually), which provide financial support to the institution. The projects involve new product development and prototyping across many industries, including consumer products, aerospace, motor vehicles, medical, architecture, and entertainment. After introducing new methods and technologies to companies, Saddleback refers them to those who offer commercial services, thus reducing the likelihood of competing with service providers.

Indeed, Saddleback is a community college that stands out. Having attended the first RapidTech Industry Advisory Board meeting last month and last week’s NSF National Visiting Committee meeting, both at Saddleback College, I can say without reservation that the Center is on track. I found that these two volunteer groups from industry and education have offered RapidTech nothing but support and excitement. Stay tuned because I expect that you’ll be hearing more about Saddleback College and RapidTech in the future.