Roy A. Ackerman

When we first began using additive manufacturing (3D printing), it was exclusively for prototyping. The capabilities were limited, there was a limitation in the size of the parts we could make, and, to be honest, we didn’t know how to refine the parts to have them look and feel the way we wanted. No more.

But, the process is still not cheap. Oh, yes, I’ve written about a whole bunch of reasonably priced 3D printers. But, those devices have the same capabilities as the first 3D printers we used- with the same limitations- small size products, slow manufacturing times, and lack of sophisticated design features.

But, there are other costs. The 3D printer of choice, which cost just upward of $ 20K, can meet the needs of many a small to medium business. But, that’s only the initial cost. With the space one needs for the printer, post-refining costs, compressed air, some chemical baths, and the like- you are really talking about $ 35 to $ 40 K for a reasonable system. That’s why Fujifilm is testing the kiosk concept– to cut out the capital costs for smaller firms- who would pay a higher per-product cost, instead.

Then, of course, there’s the other big sticking point…data. Most smaller firms lack the ability to develop 3-dimensional data for the print job. (I did discuss the Kinect-based design system– which lets you mimic a part. That’s not the same as developing a brand new design, without a prototype to mimic.) To us, this the major impediment to adopting 3D printers- because developing the design requires high skills (no “ease of use” here), high costs, low feature capabilities, and insuring the part’s “printability”. (Remember way back when- when laser printers first came out and we all searched high and low for the best ‘drivers’- so our print quality would be what we thought we were getting? Well, 3D printers are no different, right now.)

(Of course, if you want to print “chocolate” or “candy” designs, the lower priced printers are perfect. Because the sizes are small, the designs- while intricate for food- are fairly facile, and there is not a lot of post finishing needed.)

There are also material considerations. The most common substrates are ABS (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene) or PLA (polylactic acid) plastics. These are not exactly very strong materials, so they are limited in usefulness for functional products. This means instead of choosing materials to suit the applications, we need to choose the application to match the available substrates. And, while we can use metal to enhance the plastics that work, the costs for that option are rather steep.

Moreover, if we decide to make highly accurate, fine-line products, they tend to be too fragile for use. In other words, we can use them for mockups, but not for real applications. Unless we build strength into the part- which means our product surfaces suffer from appearance issues and post-printing finishing is required (with man-hours, skills, and costs galore). (This is why many of the parts you see manufactured at trade shows are clunky objects like figures, gear chains, and the like. The finer objects with structural integrity or outstanding surface finishes can be done- but only with those post-printing processes.)

Given all these limitations, I’m still pumped about 3D printing. But, we’ve been employing CAD/CAM (computer aided design/manufacturing) technology for nigh 20 years. Most smaller firms won’t jump on the bandwagon until easy-to-use, cheap (free?) 3D modeling software is here. (Sorry, Autodesk and TinkerCAD aren’t quite there yet.) We need to have design software that is like Word 2010- which is a long ways from the first version offered back in 1983- powerful, capable of many things, but perfectly usable by most users, without one knowing all its refinements.

Share this: