Subnostr

The Reality of 3-D Printing in Manufacturing and Repair

3-D printing, often hailed as a revolutionary technology, has stirred up high hopes in manufacturing over the past several years. But are these expectations being met? Let's dive in.

The truth is, 3-D printing has been oversold to the manufacturing and repair communities.

High Expectations, But Limited Results:

In the beginning, 3-D printing was touted as the future of part creation. The US Air Force and other industries invested heavily in this technology, hoping for groundbreaking advancements.

However, over the years, many of these promises have gone unfulfilled. While some progress has been made in the maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) world in aviation, especially with plastic interior aircraft panels, the production of complex metal parts remains a challenge.

The grand visions of widespread use in manufacturing haven't been realized.

A Few Bright Spots:

3-D printing has not been a complete letdown. It has shown promise in certain areas, such as sand casting. 3-D printed sand molds have proven to be incredibly useful, saving significant production time, especially for one-off cast parts.

Additionally, it has excelled in creating custom fixtures for machining and custom tooling.

Future Potential:

While 3-D printing may not have lived up to the initial hype, it's essential to acknowledge that it has the potential to evolve and become a valuable tool in manufacturing and repair in the future.

As technology advances and we overcome current limitations, we may yet see the promises fulfilled.

It's important to recognize that 3-D printing has its place and can bring significant benefits, but its widespread application in manufacturing and repair has been overstated, leading to disappointment for many.

In summary, the 3-D printing revolution has faced some setbacks in meeting the high expectations set for it in manufacturing and repair. While there have been promising developments in certain areas, the technology has fallen short of becoming the ultimate solution it was once thought to be.

However, the future still holds the potential for 3-D printing to become a valuable asset in these industries, but it's essential to approach it with realistic expectations.

Let me know your experience with 3-D printing in the comments.

#grownostr #engeneernostr #3Dprinting

Dr. Hax 2y ago

Wow, I have a very different experience with 3D printing! I've had mechanical 3D printed parts in daily use for over 5 years without any issues.

First, I have not attempted to make anything out of metal (directly, casting or any other method). The machines I deal with print in plastics and that's really where the home 3D printing has always been and is expected to stay. I feel the complaint of "it can't print metal parts" to be moving the goalposts at best, and a dishonest criticism at worst. It also doesn't make toast or give you a neck massage, but that wasn't the expectation.

Now, focusing on plastic printers, there has been a tremendous amount of progress between the original Makerbot that really made these machines accessible to the ones that are on the market today.

The old ones lacked the resolution and were very tempermental. Today, they operate smoothly and have very nice quality prints most of the time.

The only real problem that still seems to persist is "heat creep", which is the heat getting from the hot end, past the heat break and into the upper section where it solidifies in place, clogging up the machine. It happens less frequently, but it still happens and it's still difficult to recover from (aka it requires a lot of disassembly).

That aside, the machines are very reliable and accurate. They can self level the bed, which was really a killer feature.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Dr. Hax 2y ago

The challenges are primarially with CAD modeling and compatibility. The culture now is to share an STL file, which is fine as long as you don't want anyone to be able to easily make changes. If people start sharing the original files in addition to the exported .stl files, we'd be in a much better place without any advances in software or hardware!

The other lack of sharing is with the printer settings. Maybe a part should be printed with 0% infill, or 100% or some number in between for a specific model. Or perhaps dupports are needed, should be omitted, or are only needed in certain pages.

None of this information is contained in the STL files nor the original model formats. These are printer settings. Unfortunately each slicer has its own format. So while people can share CURA settings, it won't help people using the Prussa slicer. Having a standard that can be easily imported would go a long way to simplifying printing and allowing easier collaboration.

If using the same slicing software as the creator, and if the creator shares the exported settings, this doesn't require any further advances in technology either. It's just a matter of culture. However, technical changes could make it easier for people.

The real problem is modeling. There are many options for CAD modeling software, but they all have a learning curve. It's difficult for most people to accurately describe a 3D object. We are used to dealing with humans where they usually know what we meant even if it's not what we said.

Dr. Hax 2y ago

Having said that, if people were willing to hire a CAD modeler to make a part for them, it could potentially work around this issue. The problem is it can be difficult to get the tolerances just right on the first attempt. So unless the modeler has the exact make and model of thr thing the part is going to fit into (dishwasher, vacuum, or whatever), it's unlikely to work out well for anyone. Changing THAT would require major changes in the way things are made and, honestly, probably the entire way our #economy functions.

We would want open designs and published CAD models for entire products. This would allow anyone to manufacture the open product. Right now, the only way the product designer is going to be able to get paid is by intellectual property laws. Nobody can legally manufacture the product without paying a royalty. But the law isn't enough, which is why the licensed models are not released.

If someone devised a mechanism for designers to get paid for their work, or some other mechanism to ensure designers have what they need to do this work (food, water, shelter, electricity, internet, etc.), it would truely change the world.

Open designs would take over. Consumers would prefer them because they can have the product made by a manufacturer of their choice. Maybe it's their makerspace, a library, a machine shop, or their own home. They could hire a designer to make add-ons for things they already own. Not being able to get replacement parts, or being price gouged for them, would be a thing of the past.

The fight for the right to repair would be won forever.

Consumers could decide how durable of matetials things should be made from.

This could be achieved by a sufficient Universal Basic Income, a market incentive to design open parts, or just some rich person who decided that they were going to pay people to initially do this work and once everyone is hooked on open products, they can cut off the funding. Once the demand is there, designers can croudsource things they want to make and publish to the world. Consumers could offer bounties on things they want. It would be a far greater revolution than anyone promoting 3D printing has suggested. That's because it would not be a revolution of 3D printing, it'd be a revolution of manufacturing.

#3DPrinting #Manufacturing #Capitalism #AntiCapitalism #OpenSource #OpenDesign

Jeremiah Baker 2y ago

Thank you very much for your thoughtful responses. Plastic is where 3D Printing really excels. Metals are definitely the harder nut to crack.

Cheers!