ProMetal Advances Hardware, Glass, 3D Printers
You would be hard-pressed to find another company in the additive manufacturing business that has had as many advances in the past year or so than Pennsylvania-based ProMetal. First, it debuted a line of decorative metal-based hardware and art, as sold by their Metaltec Innovations division. Then, it optimized a pioneering glass-based process that is just a couple of weeks from commercial roll-out. Finally, it developed a new 3D printer that, due to its size and speed, instantly makes obsolete their existing line of printers.
Yet, due to newness of the technology and the confusing array of market opportunities it creates, ProMetal still seems to be groping its way down a dark hallway, trying doors, and finding some of them locked.
Consumer Hardware
When ProMetal debuted their Metaltec hardware division a year and a half ago, the market seemed promising. No one else was offering standard and custom metal 3D printed door pulls, knobs, and knockers for the consumer market.
However, a rotten economy combined with questionable channel choices (online & tradeshows mostly) led to a moribund business. "We had a false start," says ProMetal General Manager Bob Wood. "Without knowing the market, we thought we could sell directly. But the high end market is almost all sold through showrooms. People have to feel it, touch it, and handle it."
"We are accustomed to selling technology, not end consumer products," continues Wood. "We had to develop things like customer service and packaging."
Today, ProMetal is pressing the restart button. The company just recruited a manufacturers rep that will introduce their products to retailers on the U.S. southeastern seaboard over the next 2-3 months. If the strategy is successful, distribution will be expanded.
Beyond the tactile needs of consumers, ProMetal has also had to learn to meet other expectations. By way of explanation, Wood describes a scenario where a customer wants to add their initials to a custom door pull. Wood says this personalization takes just seconds in CAD, but that it is important to charge a "nominal fee" for it. "You can't give stuff like that away," he says. "It lessens the perceived value of the product."
Other lessons for ProMetal revolve around strategies for keeping its products affordable. Since many house hardware designers don't use 3D modeling tools, ProMetal often has to model a custom part before it can print it. "[With additive fabrication] you don't need special tooling [like you do in casting], but the 3D model is the special tooling," Wood says.
To cut costs, ProMetal uses lower-cost overseas engineering help, then utilizes 3-4 in-house designers to finalize it. "I've had experience with off-shoring so my expectations were lower than a lot of people's," remarks Wood. "I expected 70-80% of what I needed. It has met my expectations." Wood says the piecemeal design approach is worth it: offshore labor is $5-10/hr versus $50-100/hr stateside.
Still, product prices are premium level. Standard products run about $50 USD per cubic inch of material. Bigger items, like the 18" x 6" koi fish pond mural, cost over $3,000 USD.
Glass Printing
There are other organizations pioneering 3D glass printing, most notably the Open3DP project at the University of Washington's Solheim Rapid Prototyping Laboratory, but none appear to be as far along as ProMetal, which has been working on the process for over a year. "We are in the very very final stages of
|
|
To print glass, ProMetal is using the same MIT-licensed technology that it uses for metal printing. Ink jets squirt liquid binder onto a powder media to build one thin layer (.004-.007") on top of another.
The difference lies in the post build treatment. Both glass and metal 3D printed "green" parts are furnace sintered (about 1,000°C for metal, 1,200°C for glass) to remove the polymeric binder, but metal normally undergoes a second heat cycle to infiltrate the porous material with bronze. Glass isn't infiltrated, but instead receives a lower-melting-point glaze - also called a flux - that delivers a smooth shiny effect. "It's for strength and appearance, but mostly appearance," relates Wood. Un-infiltrated parts - glass or metal - have a shrinkage rate of about 10%.
The resultant glass is a translucent frosted white. "This process will never have true transparency," says Wood. ProMetal has never attempted any other color besides white.
Initially, Wood expects the additive fabrication glass products will all be for the art and decorative market. "This is one of the materials [rapid prototyping artist Bathsheba Grossman] has wanted for years," says Wood. "In [glass] testing we've produced about every one of her shapes."
Later, Wood hopes glass printing will have much wider application. An industrial application he has already identified is glass filters. "How much we sinter determines how much porosity the glass has," he says.
3D Printer Introduction
"First and foremost we are a machine manufacturer," states Wood, although until now ProMetal has had limited success, with just 40 installations. "Most all of these are in the research world because of the [low] speeds and [limited] volumes." (ProMetal also has 13 machines in-house, which it uses in a service bureau capacity.)
Wood hopes his new machine - the Mprint - will change all that. It is running on the ProMetal shop floor, and is in the final stages of development. "We've been tweaking it for the last month - the first machine will be out the middle of this year," says Wood.
The M-print is a substantial upgrade from ProMetal's existing "R-1 R&D 3D printer" and "R-2 production 3D printer." "The target is 2.5 times to 3 times faster than an R-2 and 40 times the build size," says Wood. The speed is a minute-and-a-half per layer. The build size is 750X380X400mm. "It's very feasible to use it to manufacture with," he says.
Wood doesn't expect much direct competition for the new printer. Most other metal additive manufacturing equipment manufacturers have concentrated on high value materials (gold and titanium) and processes (electron beam melting, lasercusing, selective laser melting, direct metal laser sintering) for use in high margin industries like medical/dental and aerospace. (Another division of Ex One - imagen - is a resident of this space, concentrating on the freeform fabrication of high noble dental products.)
"They don't focus on the lower end materials like iron and bronze," says Wood. "Our process is much less expensive, although it's still in the high hundreds of thousands of dollars. Our biggest competitor is traditional foundries and investment casting."
Want to comment on this article? Visit our additive fabrication forum.
Want to read more? Visit our additive fabrication archive.
Posted by admin on Tuesday, 23-Feb-2010 05:51 AM
Will Lower 3D Printer Prices Aid Growth?
This guest article is written by A1 Technologies CEO Martin Stevens. London-based A1 sells the low-cost RapMan 3D printer, along with other low-cost 3D scanning and haptic touch modeling products.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of Martin Stevens. Also, factual content has not been independently verified. No payment has been made to or from Martin Stevens or A1 Technologies for the appearance of this guest article.
**********
Since the earliest origins of 3D Printing there have been many discussions, articles and reports generated about the ‘revolutionary potential' that this technology offers to the world at large, and more specifically, to the world of manufacturing. The technology emerged commercially more than 20 years ago when it was
|
|
However, in the last two decades, the technology, which encompasses numerous processes, has undergone significant developments that have seen the market itself grow extensively.
There can be no escaping the fact that the technology has been disruptive and offers many advantages to companies that employ it - reduced development time, reduced development costs, much faster time-to-market overall and greater design freedom are just some of the demonstrable benefits.
However, despite this, growth and widespread uptake has been relatively slow based on the perceptions that the technology itself has not fulfilled its potential and that it has remained financially prohibitive.
In reality, improvements to the technology have seen it exceed many of the original expectations, and the final frontier - that of cost - has been largely overcome, as competitive platforms can be bought for under £2000 ($3,250 USD).
All 3D Printing processes are based on the same principle - building parts additively, layer by layer, at the sub-millimetre scale. This is a very different approach to manufacturing parts and/or prototypes, when compared with the traditional methods of milling, moulding, casting or machining.
From the beginning, additive processes created a stir within product development circles, offering a revolutionary way to create prototypes that could be used for concept generation, reducing development times and offering a real competitive advantage.
Subsequent developments in the processes themselves and the materials that can be used have seen huge improvements in prototyping capability, allowing users to test the form, fit and function of their products as well as the emergence of a host of new applications such as rapid tooling, rapid casting, and the production of end use parts - additive manufacturing - eliminating costly tooling altogether.
As a result of the developments and growth of the additive manufacturing market, it has now fragmented somewhat, with two specific focus areas - processes that are dedicated to prototypes to radically improve product development and stimulate concept innovation, and processes dedicated to manufacturing and directly producing complex, repeatable components and products. This is reflected by some of the larger additive platform vendors that have restructured with separate divisions to focus on the different markets. Other vendors fit into one category or the other.
Today, the term 3D printing typically covers the prototyping market, but universally accepted terminology is still not in force.
Many of the original additive processes have become market leaders, namely stereolithography (SLA) from 3D Systems; laser sintering (LS) from EOS and 3D Systems; and fused deposition modeling (FDM) from Stratasys, with MTT, Arcam and Concept Laser contributing very competitive additive manufacturing systems more recently.
Needless to say, the competitive market landscape of 3D printing has changed dramatically over the last 20+ years - the success stories can be matched step for step by the demise of some of the other original vendors, together with a typical number of mergers and acquisitions.
Furthermore, the last two decades have also seen the emergence of other competitive 3D printing platform vendors, including Z Corporation, Objet Geometries, EnvisionTec, Sintermask, Solidscape, Solido and MCor Technologies.
The Holy Grail for the 3D Printing vendors is to develop a ‘one solution fits all' process, but as yet this does not exist, and in reality is unlikely to. To date, all of these processes each have advantages and disadvantages in terms of their working parameters for specific 3D printing applications based on accuracy, surface finish, speed, etc. For any (potential) user, comparing and contrasting is the best way to select the right process for a given application.
However, there is one disadvantage that all of these processes share - they all require a fairly hefty capital investment. Mid-range 3D printers cost in the region of £30,000 ($48,775 USD) - a price that would make any company think twice. Entry level 3D printers have generally been around the £10,000-15,000 ($16,260 - 24,390 USD) mark, still enough to warrant considerable budgetary debate.
Throughout 2008 and much of 2009 there was a great deal of talk about the emergence of a sub-£5000 ($8,130 USD) printer - with two primary contenders: one from Desktop Factory and also the V-Flash from 3D Systems.
Unfortunately, neither of these materialized on spec. Desktop Factory was unable to fulfill the considerable research and development it invested, and the company was bought by 3D Systems last year. 3D Systems did eventually launch its V-Flash platform, but it is currently retailing around £9000 ($14,630 USD).
But this is where it gets interesting. Early in 2009, A1 Technologies launched the RapMan 3D printer, a competitive, entry-level platform that is available in kit form for £750 ($1,220 USD) and a ready-built, sturdier platform for £2000 ($3,250 USD).
The reaction to the RapMan has been mixed - until people actually see it working, at which point they are impressed by its ability. Prior to seeing a RapMan, ironically, it is the price that seems to generate skepticism from a high proportion of people.
Another misperception is that the RapMan has been confused, both in the press and in general debate, with some of the (excellent) open source channels for developing accessible 3D printers, namely the RepRap and Fab@Home projects.
An easy-to-use, economical 3D printer is what this market has been waiting for, and we at A1 are pleased to offer it. History is likely to show that this is the key to unlocking the widespread commercial uptake of 3D printing.
Want to comment on this guest article? Visit our 3D Printer Forum.
Want to read more? Visit our 3D Printer Archive.
Posted by admin on Tuesday, 26-Jan-2010 13:56 PM
Interview: Objet Continues to Grow, Innovate
If you were to source the 3D printer that has the best combination of material selection, office compatibility, and part accuracy, performance and finish, you'd probably pick an Objet Geometries printer. The Israeli company is an innovation leader - owning over 50 patents and patents pending - and is the only company that offers a 3D printer that will perform multiple-material part building.
This month RapidToday interviewed Gilad Gans, Objet's executive vice president of marketing, sales and business development. Following is an edited transcript.
RapidToday: How much has Objet been growing in recent years?
Gans: Objet Geometries Ltd is a privately held company and as such we aren't at liberty to disclose our financials. We are proud to report that despite the difficult economic situation worldwide, we continue to be very strong financially. Our customers are spending their money differently in 2009 but overall we have seen an
 The Objet Connex500 uses a patented PolyJet Matrix technology to print multiple materials simultaneously |
RapidToday: Did Objet suffer much from the recent recession?
Gans: 2009 was a very challenging year for the 3D printing and rapid prototyping industry, and for Objet as well. Maintaining sales volumes and convincing our customers to focus on technologies and capabilities that would help them to position themselves better when the crises ends were major tasks.
In comparison to many others, Objet has suffered less as it has maintained a strong revenue stream from consumables, primarily from resins. While some segments have been using less resin, others have increased their resin consumption - ironically as a result of recessionary pressures - as they are using our solutions to save money. Doing more in-house prototyping decreases their ‘cost-of-error' and enables faster time to market - the two things that really matter during a recession.
RapidToday: How big is the company today?
Gans: Objet Geometries employs three hundred people across our seven locations worldwide.
RapidToday: What is the top ambition of Objet? Be the 3D printer unit volume leader? Transform product development and manufacturing? Introduce more 3D printer innovations than any of your competitors?
Gans: Objet's aim is to be recognized and respected as the premier provider of 3D printing solutions. We believe that the way to achieve this is to continue to leverage the high standard of quality that Objet is known for due to our PolyJet and PolyJet Matrix Technologies and to continue to develop new materials for use on all our platforms, across the board.
RapidToday: Who do you see as your biggest competitor? Z Corp? 3D Systems? Roland CNC? Someone else?
Gans: Every one of our competitors has a solution for niche segments of the broad market that we cover. However, we don't believe any of their offerings are as inclusive as our range of 3D printing solutions. We see the biggest challenge, not just for Objet but for all the players in our space, is to increase market awareness. As more and more businesses see the advantages that 3D printing can bring, all of us will be able to grow. There is ample room for all of us.
RapidToday: What 3D printer capability does your average customer most value? Multiple material printing? Model quality? Material selection? Something else?
Gans: PolyJet and PolyJet Matrix technologies offers value in different ways for many different segments. For example, while one industry may place a premium on model quality, another may be more focused on overmolding capabilities, and for another high accuracy might be the most important capability. The most important point here is that Objet provides value to all of these segments, from automotive, toys, equipment, sporting goods, education, and medical, to industrial, defense and jewelry and many more.
RapidToday: Does Objet have much luck selling 3D printers in low-labor-cost countries like China and India?
Gans: The value of Objet 3D printing solutions is in their high quality and advanced capabilities that other technologies can not provide, rather than in a low price offering. While we do have a number of high end solutions, it is important to note that we also have affordable smaller size printers, such as the Alaris30 Desktop 3D Printer and the Eden250 3D printer.
It is noteworthy that in countries traditionally considered to very cost-sensitive, like China and India, our solutions are valued precisely because of their quality and capabilities and our unit sales are high. In fact, China is our third largest customer in terms of units sold.
RapidToday: If a company employs a full-time model maker, how quickly would you anticipate they would get payback by replacing him and buying an Objet machine?
Gans: We are proud that in almost every instance the return-on-investment for using an Objet 3D printing system is quick. We hear back from customers who report that after approximately three months the cost of the machine has been fully recouped by savings and/or increased business.
RapidToday: Do some customers use Objet 3D printers for low volume manufacturing?
Gans: Yes, companies who do low volume manufacturing also benefit from Objet 3D printers. The range of applications is very wide, including silicone molding and rapid tooling. In fact, one of our strongest competitive advantages is the post-processing capabilities our models offer, which enable sanding, painting, metal coating and more. The wide variety of materials within the FullCure® family enables low-volume manufacturing of parts that would use different types of rigid and flexible elastomers, with varied hardness values.
RapidToday: Does Objet use a similar business model as 2D printer manufacturers - sell the machine at cost or near cost, and earn the profit on the sale of resin?
Gans: This model is not being used in the 3D printing industry and most, if not all, companies depend on their machine sales for profit generation.
RapidToday: Does being headquartered in Israel give Objet an advantage over other 3D printer manufacturers?
Gans: Being headquartered in Israel enables us to take advantage of the special skill sets in a wide array of engineering and science fields that are available here. Israel has a huge pool of professionals with experience in inkjet technology, algorithms, chemistry, mechanics and software who work at a very high level. So yes, I believe our location gives us an advantage.
RapidToday: Do you plan to open a South America or Australia office?
Gans: We are continuing opening local offices where we see the need and the benefit. Recently we opened offices in Mexico, Japan and increased our presence in China.
RapidToday: What do customers want Objet to work on next? Lower cost of printers or material? More capability? Better usability? More materials? Something else?
Gans: All these things are wanted by different segments. We believe that our customers would like to see us work on all of the above and we are even recruiting people with experience in varied markets to better understand and tailor solutions for specific segments.
RapidToday: What percent of sales goes back into R&D? What R&D is Objet currently working on?
Gans: We plan to continue investing heavily in infrastructure and R&D to help drive our ongoing growth. Over the next year or so we will be developing new products in our Eden and Connex families of 3D printers, as well as new model materials -- all designed to meet our customer's changing needs and take advantage of emerging opportunities.
RapidToday: Where does the name Objet come from?
Gans: combination of "object" and "jet". The "jet" part of the name refers to the jetting of the Objet materials, similar to the way inks are jetted in an inkjet document printer.
Want to comment on this interview? Visit our 3D printing forum.
Want to read more? Visit our 3D printing archive.
Posted by admin on Monday, 30-Nov-2009 20:36 PM
> STL 2.0 May Replace Old, Limited File Format
> GIS 3D Printing Made Easier With Software
> New Online Marketplace for RP & RM Debuts
> Advances Made in Mega Freeform Construction