I think that the real fascination comes from the “creation of something” from seeing in your hands something that was only an idea. I guess it’s coming from our very digital world. I love technology and have nothing against digital, but I did not have thousands of emails and hundreds of Powerpoints and documents during my career. With it, it’s difficult to have the feeling of a life’s work.

It’s also something creative, I don’t think a lot about it, but people visiting MotionLab for the first time find it an inspiring and creative place. I’m more focused on the industrial vision, but definitely, there is some creativity around.

And it’s also a kind of manual work. Of course, there’s a lot of work with the computer, but at the beginning and at the end of the process, you use your hands. I always start with some sketching on paper with a pencil, in an absolute classic style. At the end of the process, printing, cutting, selecting the material, and finishing are completely manual processes.

Something similar happens/I have a similar feeling with coding. It is only digital, but you also have the feeling of “creation”, Achieving a ready to use final product. And I have similar feelings while cooking. It is something creative, done with the hands, with a clear final product and not using a computer.

I find this fascination in other people. Makers are usually people that use to build things when they were kids. It’s not my case, I did few models or similar things, but I always had some interest in sketching or in tools and machines.

There is a common point in all these examples: to create something complete. In a complex world, every day more complex, we usually don’t see the results of our work. That’s a well-known frustration for the workers of big corporates. Often, we are only a link in a chain, and that’s not very satisfying.

In the end, creating things is engineering for me. It’s to find a solution with a new creation. Something very important for engineers, usually lost at University while studying. A place like Motionlab and a maker mentality is a perfect complement for technical studies and a big motivation for the students.

Maybe there is no real reason for this passion, and that’s what happens with vocations. Something is attractive for you, a curiosity starts, and when you learn and discover more, you find it fascinating.

Then the work or the hours you spend on it are not relevant, and what becomes important is not the final results. It’s the discovery process, then you have found a vocation.

Conclusions:

• Perhaps there cannot be a conclusion to explain a vocation. Something is attractive to you and that is all. Others may find the same thing complicated, unproductive, and a waste of time.
• Doing something from the beginning and seeing a real result is not common today. And that’s satisfying.
• If this product is made of real atoms, not bits, it’s even better.
• It is likely what engineers expect from the university, and we have learned a lot of theory and unfortunately used fewer machines. A combination of both can reduce frustration.
• There is a good balance between learning and doing something worthwhile with little effort, and that is a motivation to learn more.

La entrada Why do I love making so much? se publicó primero en Wilhelm Lappe.

Many companies are offering these services. I find it very interesting that you can select the material, the manufacturing method, the delivery time, upload your file, and you’ll obtain a price. Simple as that.

It’s a perfect option when we don’t have time or access to the required machines.

Projects like 3d-hubs, now hubs, have many manufacturing options and a competitive price. There are other options, like artisans, craftsmen, SMEs, or freelances; they offer different design or 3D printing services. The maker spaces normally offer them as well. But the question is: could I build a project (hardware-based) just using those services?  Without learning how to do it myself? I don’t think so.

First of all, because all the fun is there, ordering is effective, but it brings nothing to you. As mentioned, there is some fascination in doing something from scratch. And outsourcing everything, including the design, could be quite expensive. Maybe this is not the problem for a company.

Doing it yourself allows you to learn about constructive solutions, maybe something not new for very experimented designers, but I guess learning it’s always possible and positive, and that’s, for me, an important reason for doing it yourself.

When outsourcing is recommended

These services, including the industrial design, have a clear customer segment: inventors. People with one or many ideas but without the time or skills to build a product. To be honest, I’m pretty sceptical about investors. They are usually very focused on the idea, giving it much value. From the entrepreneurship experience, we learnt that execution is more important than ideas. Frequently, the inventors think that “ideas and patents” are everything, and that’s for sure not enough for a project.

I find these outsourcing services very interesting for using different materials, mainly steel or aluminium and other metals, maybe with powder 3D printers. If the needed technology is expensive or difficult to find, it makes sense to find these resources outside.

It could be a good option for many entrepreneurs or SMEs if they don’t have a good local industry.  You will frequently find a Fablab or Makerspace in a large city, but it’s not that easy to find these resources or facilities in small towns. In these cases, the online outsourcing providers could be faster and cheaper than finding other providers.

In “self-making” we usually have a “set” for prototyping: 3D printers (at least filament, SLA could be outsourced), but they are becoming cheaper) laser cutting, and ideally CNC. We have many constructive options covered with this, and we can create realistic prototypes in plastic or wood.

From here, it’s possible to iterate and improve the design, and when it’s ready, pay for a better quality prototype or in different material like metal. Probably we will need 1-2 iterations more of these outsourced prototypes until having the final product.

This combination of doing something ourselves (now with affordable 3Dprinters), learning something in a Lab, and ordering some pieces or prototypes to external services, is in my opinion, a good strategy.

Many ideas or projects are blocked due to problems that hundreds of euros could solve.

In other situations, it could be interesting for experimented designers to outsource the production of everything. They don’t need to go through the iterations and learning process when they have a clear idea of what they want to produce. And it could also be a good solution for the short term. But in the long term, if you’re going to become a producer of physical products, you need to go and learn deeper about design, manufacturing, machines and materials. This core business knowledge should be in the team. Something similar happens in software with developers.

Available services

Here is a list of available partners for outsourcing the production:

• https://www.hubs.com/ recently acquired by https://www.protolabs.com/
• https://de.3dsystems.com/on-demand-manufacturing
• https://www.materialise.com/
• https://www.sculpteo.com/
• https://www.shapeways.com/
• https://www.stratasysdirect.com/
• https://www.pcbway.com/rapid-prototyping/
• https://www.xometry.com/
• https://www.roboze.com/en/

There are also web pages providing services for the complete cycle, including the design:

• https://lastbasic.com/ A young Spanish startup operating globally, totally focused on inventors.
• https://lafabricadeinventos.com/ Completely focused on inventors.

It’s also possible to find many designs, usually ready to print/cut. With them, we can skip the design process and go directly to production. It’s also possible to take them as a base for the design and to add modifications. Unfortunately, sometimes the format of the files doesn’t allow us to make big changes.

• https://www.thingiverse.com/ mainly 3d Printing models.
• https://3axis.co/ mainly models for laser cutting.

Conclusions:

• There are many available services to outsource our production and manufacturing. It’s giving attractive alternatives to creators and startups.
• To do something by yourself is better in terms of the associated learning.
• These services are beneficial when you don’t have access to a maker space, something usual in the small cities.
• They are useful for working with difficult and hard materials like metal or stone. Or when producing it “at home” means an investment of hundreds of thousands euro in machinery.

La entrada Manufacturing’s Outsourcing Production se publicó primero en Wilhelm Lappe.

The learning process was also interesting with the machines and the production. There is a needed short intro, and then you have to learn by trial and error. For the machines, I use to read the handbook, but many parameters and settings depend on each project and material, and they are not described there.

Designing with Fusion360 is different. It’s no ending complex and mainly practical. For me, it was very important starting with a 3-4 hour course. With this and a very patient teacher, I understood the basics of Fusion360 and, what it’s more important, the main concepts of parametric design. I tried alone one day before, and it was very frustrating.

The first impulse is: don’t learn, just use it and learn by doing. That’s partially a good idea. There are many videos, courses and information but how to use them is not easy/clear. What I found the best way is:

• First, start with example videos, where something is designed. Try to follow the steps doing yourself the same. Usually, there are doubts, and I pause and rewind the video many times. But it’s a good process to learn the basics of the software and understand different design strategies.
• Create your own design or project. With this, we will have many questions and problems. Frequently I do a design, and at the need, I have to repeat it with a new and better design strategy.
• Follow a course: with this, you have to be patient, sometimes learning things you don’t need now. But it’s needed for learning new tools. Without it, we limit ourselves to a range of basic choices we learnt and discovered at the beginning.

Videos or books

Personally, I don’t like the videos so much. The advantage is that we need something visual, and they are, but it’s complicated for me to follow them, and I need to stop and rewind many times, and that’s slow and frustrating.

Sometimes I’ll prefer a book where you can see each of the steps, or at least the main concepts, and easily find and review them. But it’s not easy to find books. They used to be expensive and probably something ancient.

The main problem comes with the mistakes when you can’t do something. It’s tough to search in Google because you don’t know the precise terms or the name of the function you need. To find something visual or just describe it, it’s not easy.

It’s also very frustrating when something happens on a video, and you repeat exactly the same (in theory), but it doesn’t work because you didn’t do the same. Where you click, with millimetric precision, is very important in this kind of software.

Learning from a community

What we need here is the help of an expert. There are many forums and information, but we face the problem of describing with words our doubts again.

The best way is to have someone with you, watching your monitor and ask him. Usually not a super expert in needed, just someone with more experience than you, that had this issue in the past.

Organizing a small “learning group” is a great idea. We had something like that in the coworking, but now it’s not possible because of the Covid-19. Here the challenge is to find people with a similar level that could help each other, and ideally, a generous expert helping everyone. But it should be a real exchange, not just a free course, and that’s not easy to achieve.

As mentioned, you need curious people with interest and the right attitude and some free time for sharing.

Conclusions

• There are, fortunately, many free resources, videos, and good courses to learn about design and tools.
• Having the goal of creating something is really needed for real learning. Without it, there’s no motivation.
• To research alone and discover things, just by the use is ok. But the right balance between theory and practice is better.
• Everything that we learn is a job. Do not expect to master it in an evening.
• There are many disciples here. In the beginning, it is very confusing, and it’s like a fog that doesn’t let you see the next step correctly.
• Learning in a group, or having people to advise you, could help in many frustrating situations and make you learn faster.
• Videos are not an ideal solution for learning, at least for me. But they are appropriate for something very visual, where searching with words is not easy.

La entrada The learning process (II). Digital Manufacturing and Prototyping se publicó primero en Wilhelm Lappe.

There are many disciplines here: from software to machines, including adjustments and material properties.

We start with software, and we don’t use only one. At least there are three:

• Something for 3D design, usually Fusion 360.
• Something for the 2D files (in the laser cutting), frequently Inkscape, but also Corel Draw or Adobe Illustrator, or Freehand, whatever we use for vectorial files.
• And another software for each machine brand, for the last adjustments and settings

For a professional design process, we need to include product design and manufacturing design. That last one is mandatory in CNC and very recommended for laser cutting.

Zbrush and Photoshop (with Inkscape) instead of Illustrator is also a possible combination. Zbrush is perfect for organic design and for artists, but for me, it’s something incredibly complicated, just a new challenge.

And, of course, you have to learn how to use each machine, it’s not very complicated, but there is always a fear of breaking something. That’s adding pressure that doesn’t exist with software. The course is useful, but the first time you are in front of the machine, it’s confusing, and you have many new doubts and questions.

And something more, there is a world of materials, providers, qualities, prices and sizes, properties, tolerances, and behaviours. How someone said, Modulor (a shop in Berlin) is an excellent museum to see the products, maybe but some samples. Buying online a new material is complicated.

There is a reality. Each one of these learnings is a profession. In Germany, for learning it, you need training of two years. We want to learn it in a 2–3-hour course. Of course, many makers have an engineering background, which helps with the vocabulary to learn faster.

In the end, we can learn how to use a 3D printer, but without the main concepts of design, we can’t do anything.

It doesn’t mean that it’s impossible to learn or become a maker, but we have to adapt our expectations to the knowledge we have. With some basic concepts, it is possible to solve many problems, designing and producing products and pieces. And that’s more than enough for many people. And that’s the main goal of many makers, like me. With more time, it’s possible to improve and to achieve more ambitious projects.

La entrada The learning process (I). Digital Manufacturing and Prototyping se publicó primero en Wilhelm Lappe.

Documenting is a really important process. With many parameters and a trial and error process, writing everything is the key to understand what’s happening. But that’s not easy. We have many spontaneous ideas, and when they are successful, we have to write them down. Usually, we just celebrate the success, and we start thinking about the next step instead of taking 10min to write things down. With many trials and errors and a lack of notes, in the end, we don’t know what worked best.

We have this documentation need in two processes: design and manufacturing.

In design, the need comes from Fusion360. We have many steps for the parametric design concept, and it’s always possible to go back and change things. And we have to do it frequently to solve mistakes or to add improvements.

But a simple design could have easily 40-50 or more steps. So without a name for everything, we need to understand the design sequence again, losing time on it. That’s needed for each of the operations done and, more importantly, for each of the created components. Without it, all the changes are slow and confusing.

It’s true that during the design process, we are very focused on a sequence of operations and stop it for adding names interrupts this flow. So, we can work in groups: designing a component and then giving a name to all the associated issues.

For manufacturing, I find it easier to write everything. When I use the machines, I start doing a small test with different settings (in the laser cutting that’s mandatory) and writing down everything. What’s difficult is to consider all the parameters from the material, the machine, the tool (in CNC). But it’s not difficult to pay attention to the most important ones.

Organization

It’s also needed to organize the chaos with the files. In all the process, there are 3d, 2d versions, files in the format of the design software and the machine… and usually it’s not clear what we are using, or which one is the right one. If you don’t have all the notes and procedures, then producing a new copy two months later becomes complicated. It’s like starting again.

I discovered these problems in my own projects, and there are many that I have never completed. I need to find a long time slot to print or cut a small project near a whole day. And that’s mainly coming from the lack of documentation. I have to do all the steps in a row, or I’ll forget something, and the next day is like starting all over again from scratch.

It’s also related to my own schedule, I employ around one day per week on this topic, and that’s probably not enough. When I go back to a project two weeks later, I have forgotten everything.

I guess another mistake I’m making is not to keep many notes. So far, I don’t have a perfect method for documenting the files. I frequently use the file’s name to add information, something like “box_A5_02_laser_colors_3mm_0.1kerf”, but that’s not very elegant. Maybe, it’s better to add a TXT with the same name and all the information inside. This problem is very similar to what happens in software development, and I find many analogies here. I also have a small notebook where I write all the parameters, but I need a digital Excel version.

Conclusions

• There is not a unique truth. I have to accept some uncertainty and trial and error, so mistakes.
• We need procedures and to document everything. By doing it, we save time.
• Sharing with the community is excellent, but even better to document the processes and sharing procedures.
• Each one should find his workflow. How to go from the idea to the product, and ideally, how to repeat the production of pieces easily. Documenting is the key.
• Depending on the mindset, more than on the professionality, we will try to do everything perfectly at first or follow a trial and error process.
• Discoverers or amateurs with some free time has an interesting profile for the community. We are more focused on learning and documenting because we are not in a hurry to producing something.

La entrada Working styles and methods (II). Digital Manufacturing and Prototyping se publicó primero en Wilhelm Lappe.

Expectations and doubts

I was expecting some engineering. To me, it means learning a process, using tables, books, and fix parameters for each of the works, always obtaining the same results, accurate and reliable. This is something that is not happening at all. In the beginning, I thought, “It’s my problem, I don’t know enough”, but it was only partially true.

Of course, the more I know, the better results I have, and everything turns out to be easier. But there are always small variations and adjustments, and maybe this is the hardest lesson I learnt. The second lesson was: the first time you produce something, it is not a product it’s just a prototype, and so the second and third ones may be too. I was hoping to have a ready product for the first time because I’m doing smalls products for myself more than prototyping.

And that’s not wrong, that’s the concept of prototyping. It doesn’t matter how many times I review the design, the first time making the product, I always find mistakes and some improvements to make. That’s exactly what we are looking for using these machines and processes: to create several prototypes before manufacturing.

For creating only one product, the time and the cost of the wasted materials make no sense. Well, you could do very customized products and sometimes that makes sense to the investment. Anyway, having a specific product to create is the perfect motivation for learning. Without this goal in mind, it’s complicated for me to learn. Everything is right, everything works and everything is forgotten very fast.

Knowledge and experience.

When I didn’t have the information that I needed, I asked questions to the people around me. Usually, the answer is “there is a lot of knowledge in the community”, and that’s true and nice. It’s one of the advantages of being in a coworking. But that’s not always perfect. I always answer: “Yes, but at the beginning of the times there was knowledge in the tribe, and later we invented the books, and later on we founded the Universities”. Well, I’m still looking for the truth.

What I’m really missing are procedures in design, but mainly using the machines. With some experience, not so much, they are not highly complicated, but the first time in front of them, it’s chaotic. In the end, there are many software, file formats and parameters, and a list could help. I’m now working on a small user’s guide for 3d-printing and laser cutting. Till now, I only have a checklist in my notebook.

These documents with procedures are also handy when it’s a long time that you didn’t use a machine. There are many settings that you only need the first time you use a program or machine, and then they are fixed forever. For this reason, people with experience forget these steps, which are critical for beginners, and they don’t reflect them in documents or courses. These are the important things at the beginning that we forget very fast in daily practice.

From tribe knowledge to absolute truth and science, it should be a middle point. I think a good solution is to have: checklists, tables with parameters and documented examples and specific cases.

I have the feeling that every new person in Motionlab faces the same problems and we all waste time because of it. It’s true, also, that this time is part of the learning process.

Engineers and makers.

I found two different profiles: more engineers and more makers. As mentioned, I’m in the first group. I would like to understand everything to make the first perfect design model and achieve a perfect product. Now I know that it’s probably not possible because I’ll find some mistakes and many improvements in the first model.

I need a long process to have something ready: check everything two times, draw schemes, measure everything… and at the end, there are always mistakes. For example, with moving pieces. I don’t do a simulation on the computer (next thing to learn in Fusion 360), and I always have surprises, sometimes embarrassing ones.

Makers (or sloppy makers, for me) have a different approach. They do the first design, they find mistakes in the first prototype, they make corrections, and they repeat the process one, two times or more until they have something right. It sounds faster, but in the end, I think the time from the beginning to the ned is similar, and here less learning and knowledge is generated.

Both systems have pros and cons, and the decision is coming to the mindset of each one, and also from how you feel wasting some material, that is a pity for me. As an amateur, it’s not nice, but from a business perspective, time is more important than 20€ of material.

There are also two profiles: discoverers and doers. I’m in the “explorers” group: we want to learn from design to manufacturing and to discover all the possibilities. To build something is the motivation and the pretext for learning.

These profiles are usually people with free time, in a career pause or change. Let’s say that they (we) take it more as a hobby, but we are more motivated to create some knowledge or procedures.

And that’s quite contradictory, we are looking for the perfect quality, for us it is proof of a good job, and it shows that we learnt something rightly.

The other group are people with a clear goal. They need a product, frequently a prototype for a startup, and need it as soon as possible. They usually are interested in being in Motionlab because of the access to the machines.

It’s strange, a pity, but normal, more professionality means less time for the community and less time for sharing. I expected this startup profile to get more knowledge and learn from them, but it’s not easy. Anyway, what they do is impressive and an inspiration.

La entrada Working styles and methods (I). Digital Manufacturing and Prototyping se publicó primero en Wilhelm Lappe.

With a CNC, we can do geometrics that is not able to achieve with other technologies. There is a limit of around 20mm thickness for cutting in laser cutting, and here we don’t have these limits. Many pieces are not feasible with laser cutting, and here they are not complicated. Other times, it’s also possible to achieve similar results using different layers of laser cut pieces.

Here I only did a course, and I have a couple of pending projects, but I was a little bit disappointed. I expected a new world, full of new ideas, and I only found some cases or designs where this technology is better. I also have the feeling, and small experience, that the learning curve is difficult. This is my next challenge, but I didn’t find a real need or appropriate project until now.

Operations and materials

There is so much to learn, with materials, different drills, tolerances… and it’s also dangerous if you break one of the drills while spinning. Here is the limit between the professionals and the amateurs. They are industrial machines, and some knowledge about manufacturing is need.

In this Lab, what I used is the CNC with wood and plastic, making the options similar to the ones we have in laser cutting. The big difference comes using metals, stone… so working with hard materials. Here the CNC opens the door to new constructive properties, creating ready to use products with good mechanical properties. Of course, you need different drills bits for each of these materials and know the right settings. As harder is the material, the more difficult it is to work with it.

Alternatives

I never used a lathe, but I know there are digital versions of them. They are limited to pieces done by rotation but very useful and easy to use in these cases. It’s a classic tool in the workshops, something similar to the milling machine. Sometimes we try to do with CNC what it’s easier with these machines. Many times, they are included as a “CNC tool”.

Conclusions

• With this technology, many new pieces are possible to be done, from geometries to materials available. It only depends on the number of axes of the machine
• The limit is related to the needed space for the tools. We can mechanize a surface, but not create intricated designs inside a sphere, for example, they are not a 3D printer, they do not add material, there remove it, and we need place enough to let the drill work.
• They are less flexible than a 3d printer, but they can work with a wider range of materials.
• It is a tool for professionals. It means some training and experience, with a good knowledge of the tools and the materials. In the beginning, it is better to use them supervised by someone with experience.
• It is something not extremely easy to find in a maker space, few of them have these machines because of the price, the required space, and the maintenance.
• There are simpler tools, like lathes or milling machines, that represent a good alternative and that could easily solve many problems.

La entrada CNC. Digital Manufacturing and Prototyping se publicó primero en Wilhelm Lappe.

These machines are fast and accurate, but the challenges are in the adjustments. There are only two parameters: power and speed. The concept is easy: as laser-beam check burns the material. The longer it’s doing it, the more material will be burnt. The more power you apply, the more of it you burn. But the combination of these two parameters added to the machine’s features (the power of the laser) and the characteristics of the materials are not evident.

The standard materials are plastic, acrylics, wood, rubber, or foam. There is a theoretical 20mm thickness limit for wood, but I didn’t see working with more than 10mm, and I didn’t try with more than 5mm. That’s, of course, a limitation. Sometimes it’s possible to avoid it, cutting two times over the same path, but that’s not a good solution for fine finishing.

Challenges in Design

Another interesting concept, sometimes a nightmare, is “kerf“. This is the part of the material that is burnt by the laser and disappears. It creates a problem with tolerance and accuracy.

Here the design is more complex. Usually, we want to build 3D objects with 2D pieces. So, we have to consider the construction carefully, and that’s also a new concept in Fusion 360. Now we are not purely building in 3D but creating 2D pieces.

And for the design, we have to create joints between the pieces. Some of these techniques are ancient, but frequently we don’t know them. But be careful because not everything could be done here; for example, dovetails are near impossible. These joints and how to make them strong and durable are a challenge for beginners.

There are new concepts and areas like manufacturing, where we can give parameters for the machines: really adapting our model to export to the machine.

Operating and results

The machines are not very complex, there is a calibration process, and there is a combination between the machine’s software, the settings… plus, they are big and burn things. With all these facts and many doubts initially, there is some uncertainty or fear that represents a small barrier for beginners.

We talked about accuracy and kerf. It’s important because it’s not about a minor problem in the finishing, it is affecting joints, and a slight difference creates a construction problem, making the object useless. Something so easy like a box could “not work” (fails in the joints) just for some tenths mistake.

It’s curious, the machines are accurate, one-tenth or less, but the final quality of our products comes more from our materials and settings.

Usually, we could get consistent results, but we should check our parameters every day and make small changes. The main problem comes from the dirtiness of the lens, reducing its final power.

When everything is ok, we can produce a small batch with not many bad surprises. The machines are fast, and we can prepare pieces inside a 2m x 1.50m board in minutes.

Conclusions

• The machines are not complicated to use, but there are some barriers to use them at the beginning, related to some fears and uncertainty.
• The accuracy is good, but an accurate final product is not easy to achieve because of the kerf.
• The design needs new concepts. We have to think not only about the final product, also on the 2D to the 3D construction process.
• They are fast, achieving consistent results. We could also create small manufacturing batches, starting a small, ready to sell and use production.
• The materials are usually not expensive. A little for hobby users, because we buy in places like Modulor-Berlin, but for larger quantities, there are more providers, like the DIY shops and more professional ones.
• The challenges in design are interesting, and it brings a good chance to learn about the potential of Fusion360 as CAM Software. It is good training for the upcoming CNC processes.
• The machines are big and not cheap (15-20.000€ check). So, they are not quite easy to find in a makerspace

La entrada Laser cutting. Digital Manufacturing and Prototyping se publicó primero en Wilhelm Lappe.

Using SLA 3d printers, frequently Formlabs, the quality is absolutely different and better than with FDM. The result is good enough for ready to use and sell products, also when they have tiny details. But the process is significantly longer (maybe more than one day), the materials could be rigid or flexible, with a limited colour selection and a high cost (1-litre costs around 250€). The cost of the entry-level machines is around 3.500-4.000€ depending on the size and accessories.

But these machines are really reliable, and they can work unattended with not many sad surprises. They need maintenance and careful use, especially with the resin tank, to do not contaminate it.

With the SLA printers, there is an exciting option to create moulds. It’s possible to print a silicon mould and use it to cast resin, polymer… this technic is not easy. It used to be a problem with bubbles. It is a perfect option for a short production series, better than 3d-printing each of the pieces. Many of the advertisement from Formlabs is focused on this use.

Very recently, Formlabs has a new system with a base colour and a mix of colours to mix. It is a considerable change, adding many new options to the creation of final products.

For getting the proper resistance and the adequate properties to the material, it’s usually required an extra process: curate the pieces. You have to clean it and use other machines that complete this creation process. It’s easy, but it’s adding more time and investment to achieve the results.

There are more and more choices from other producers and for about ten times less price for machines and resin. Sometimes they are smaller and from not so famous brands, but it’s a process of simplifying the access to technology that we have seen before with the filament ones.

More 3d printing technologies:

There are many more technologies. Maybe the 3D printers for metal are the most significant innovation, giving a good alternative for production in the industry. They are perfect for unique parts or replacements and short production batches.

Powder Bed Fusion: Just a volume of “dust” of the material solidified by a laser beam (or electron-beam for some of the metal ones where they melt the metal). It’s probably the most powerful system, but very expensive. The best production workflow is to wait until you have enough pieces to complete “a mould”. Suitable for final production and high quality and accuracy. But accessible only for industry players. And for Metals. Same here, but increasing the cost, but perfect for unique or rare functional pieces.

Material Jetting: similar to an inkjet printer, but with the material instead of the ink. The support is printed at the same time as the object. I use resins, quite expensive, around 300-1000€ per kilo. The products have a good finishing and many options in colours. They are good for the creation of models as well as for creating moulds (itself of just a model for casting around).

Binder Jetting: similar to powder bed, but instead of consolidating the material by energy, it’s done by a binding agent. It could be with sand, or what’s very interesting with metal as well. The final quality is relevant, and they are frequently used to create large sand-casting patterns and functional metal parts.

Here you can find a complete guide about how to select the most appropriate technology for your project.

We can see that they are not limited to design and prototypes. I think it’s what many people believe still about 3D printing. They are today an alternative and a reality in the industry.

With all these options, we can create ready to use products, with the expected limitation of finishing and quality of the surface. It’s usual, as well, to sand and to paint the printed pieces to achieve a better looking.

Conclusions

• 3d-printers are not difficult to use, maybe the SLAs a little, but achieving a good and consistent quality is not easy.
• The final quality is, in many cases, good enough.
• They are perfect for prototyping. The best situation is doing fast tests with small pieces, something that could be done in 30min.
• They are not fast enough for manufacturing, also for small batches. Some companies solve it using a farm of machines.
• There are more and more materials available
• There are a lot of trial-error processes. It is not exactly a science. It is always possible to learn more, and it helps, but it is not possible to achieve 100% security on the results.
• In the end, we know the relationships between our machines and the materials we use frequently, but in a new situation, the results could be different.
• The design concepts are not extremely complicated. You must think about what you want, and maybe about how to divide it into several pieces to position them properly on the printer. But in the end, it is thinking in 3D to create in 3D, and there is no big difference.
• Creating something from scratch is amazing, magic. I am still fascinated, and I see them for near ten years.

More posts from this series:

• Digital Manufacturing and Prototyping for Industrial Startups
• 3d-Printing (I). Digital Manufacturing and Prototyping

La entrada 3d-Printing (II). Digital Manufacturing and Prototyping se publicó primero en Wilhelm Lappe.

A typical problem with the 3D printers is the size. The usual printers are relatively small, around 30x20x20cm, and sometimes that’s not enough. In MotionLab we have access to different big machines, but I never used these. The working principles are the same that in the small ones. Of course, with big pieces, the problems with speed are more important. I had no problems with the size issue because I was focused on producing small pieces and replacements. My problems are more related to precision and detailed endings.

FDM 3D printers Filament printers:

The partners using filament are a standard. There are many different models and brands with different characteristics in the market, such as precision, size, layer’s height, and the materials being used.

For me, they were not something new, but I made a couple of interesting discoveries:

• they are more precise than I expected, and the final quality is enough for many applications. The size of the extruder is 0.2-0.4mmm in diameter, and with this, the quality is acceptable.
• the speed is a problem, a big one. To build something requires much time, even though the movement of the machine is quite fast. It’s only possible to create something in a short time if they are small pieces (mm-size). A box of 12x8x5cm could need 5-7 hours to be completed. It’s normal, the extruder is extremely thin, and a piece of only a few grams requires a certain amount of time. But I was quite frustrated when I could create just one to two pieces per day.

Anyway, it’s incredible to create something from absolutely scratch. And it’s the perfect method to test the functionality, size and design of pieces and products.

There is another world with the slicer programs. There is some generic software, plugins for Windows and design software, but frequently we use the proprietary software from the machine’s manufacturer. There is an easy mode, where you can’t control hardly anything and a professional one where you could find around 100 parameters. For me, it’s still today difficult to know why do I have mistakes, and which one of the parameters could solve it, or what to change to achieve a different result.

The main problem with the machines I used (Craftbot)), is that they aren’t reliable. Usually is a problem with the adherence of the first layer and the plate. This is a very old and well-known problem with different solutions like hairspray or tape. Still, it is creating many inconveniences: you cannot leave the printer unattended at the beginning. And other mistakes could appear later. But because of the long duration of the printing process, you cannot be there all the time or check it every 5min. I have better references about Prusa, but I have never used one of them.

There are also some design limits. “Bridges” are, in principle, not possible, but there are some design technics to avoid this problem, mainly the construction of a support structure: a scaffolding. So, in the end, it represents not a total limitation. Some printers allow you to use a supporting material that is easy to remove, and more often, it’s done with a second extruder, making the process easy.

It’s possible, in these filament machines, to use an extensive offer of materials. The most frequent ones are PLC and ABS, with many available colours and endings, like silver or gold, to choose from. I found one particularly interesting, named “Willow-flex”, that it’s quite flexible. It’s not as elastic and soft as rubber but flexible enough to create a case inside a box, avoiding scratches to the objects inside it.

The price of the filament is around  20-30€/kilo, to 40 or 80€ for the special ones. For the machines, you can find small ones from around 100€, but not very reliable, something for not industrial use, but more professional is around 700-1000€.

More posts from this series:

• Digital Manufacturing and Prototyping for Industrial Startups

La entrada 3d-Printing (I). Digital Manufacturing and Prototyping se publicó primero en Wilhelm Lappe.