"it does open new opportunities for the unscrupulous to copy legitimate products such as car parts, aircraft parts, guns and other items that are copyrighted or controlled" ... I don't understand, i can reverse engineer any part for my own use copyrighted or controlled ... as along as i don't sell it
Scott, building something in place is already happening: it's what's behind both the attempts to make stuff on the moon from moon dust, which we've covered here http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1392&doc_id=250614 and also to make huge multi-unit buildings in place on earth: http://www.ubmfuturecities.com/author.asp?section_id=262&doc_id=523906
It's feeling pretty "Brave New World-ish" out there in 3D on-demand manufacturing. My guess is that this will work it's way into all sorts of areas that we can't even think of right now. Imagine everything from geological structure models, animation characters, non-human biological structures. It might even be cheaper to make something "in place" instead of shipping it for certain parts. Definitely a game-changer.
Funny you should ask :) I cover high end AM and 3D printing, but not the prototypes or software. That's the CAD/CAM Corner blog. My ex-colleague Beth Stackpole, who used to have that beat, covered the pre-Iris paper Mcor technology here http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1394&doc_id=238107 and my current colleague Cabe Atwell, who has that beat now, covered the Iris in a post that ran today http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1394&doc_id=257141&itc=dn_analysis_element&
Hi Ann--that makes sense. Any chance you will do more coverage on the mcor's IRIS printer which makes 3D models out of paper layers? I think with some development that technology could also be used to make sand molds--I beleive that some molds used to be made by burning the form out of the sand mold then casting. It would be easy to burn or digest the paper form and have a good quality sand mold.
I think it's more important to point out what accomplishments are being achieved by 3D printing. It's been used for so long for prototypes only--or by hobbyists--that that's what most people think of when they hear the term. Consequently, many don't think that printing big production parts in metal is possible--but it is. As is often the case in a technology area, the high end is where the bleeding edge occurs, and where the dollars are concentrated, and therefore that's where the next big breakthroughs in what's possible occur. Of course it's expensive and addresses small markets--that's the nature of the territory. Eventually, those technologies get proved out and become available to larger markets.
Ann--you are correct, but the article was not written well and headlined in a more sensational manner than necessary. Lots of progress is being made, but the over-hype is already creating ripples in the investment communities and could actually serve to slow progress if funding is pulled back from innovative start ups.
It seems most of the fully functional metal parts made are done in very, very expensive machines, for very unique problems, and while faster and lower cost than, say, machining and welding titanium, are quite a ways from more mundane applications.
I think it would have been better to serve the audience by highlighting what Ford is actually accomplishing by commiting to an approach thereby making it available to their teams. Over the years since 3D "printing" began appearing in engineering shops, it often was championed only by engineers, and management didn't have a long view. The cost of in-house printing a decade ago scared off most bean counters. What Ford is doing is changing the game from a contentious discussion on the value of a technology to one of resource availbility and "what can we do with this to be more competitive". That is the key take-away for me.
I am very enthusiastic about the new technology and the lower costs associated with the application. It has great appeal to the small business with little time and resources to devote to prototyping. As with all new technologies, it does open new opportunities for the unscrupulous to copy legitimate products such as car parts, aircraft parts, guns and other items that are copyrighted or controlled. I wonder when the time will come that all of small machine shops will have regular visits from all the alphabet soup agencies. Oh well, progress is the game.
What are called "direct manufactured" metal parts, not just molds for casting, ARE being built by 3D printing methods, primarily SLS (selective laser sintering). The machines that do this are in a very different class from the machines that make prototypes or use plastic as a material. Concept Laser, mentioned in this article http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1392&doc_id=256731&dfpPParams=ind_183,industry_auto,bid_27,aid_256731&dfpLayout=blog makes machines (not the one featured in that article) that make both molds and parts. NASA is making rocket engine parts, not molds: http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1392&doc_id=254513 ExOne makes both sand casting molds and near-net metal parts with their machines: http://www.designnews.com/document.asp?doc_id=252293 And 3D printing has been used to directly manufacture titanium parts for medical applications including implants.
Based on the text of the article, it seems like the headline could be considered a little misleading and that might explain some of the disparate directions of the discussion.
The article describes a conventional casting process for the metal prototype parts arrived at more quickly by using a rapid prototype created model to form the sand around.
The headline on the other hand, infers the direct creation of a metal part by the rapid prototyping machine. This would be a pretty incredible accomplishment, improving on the multi-step process currently used, nicely described by Shadetree.
Regardless, it was a great article from a product design standpoint. We were taught to model our concepts during the brainstorming, development and finalization stages. This serves multiple purposes, the two most important being 1) overlooked elements, like interference, fit, ergonomic factors show up when you have a 3D part to manipulate and assemble; and 2) the process of creating it in 3D and then studying it in 3D can inspire new directions or improvements.
While 3D CAD systems like Creo and Solidworks have improved the "on paper" phase of design, 3-D prototypes still can't be beat. As rapid prototyping methods explode and evolve, the technology will only help the design process steps described above.
And it will certainly eliminate a lot of X-acto blade cuts and burned fingers from hot melt glue while making foam core or blue foam models.
The problem with a four-, five-, or six-year degree is that they don’t teach engineers the soft skills required to have a successful career. Here are seven skills that every engineering graduate needs to be successful.
Design teams are operating in a business environment that increasingly requires them to collaborate and share data across extended teams, multiple organizations, and widespread locations. Autodesk’s customers are looking for a solution that eliminates project bottlenecks, such as the time-consuming and error-ridden process of shuttling design reviews and revisions back and forth among team members.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.