Problem with 3D printing is how slow it really is. I do see a path for better printing quality and overtime becoming indistinguishable from injection molding, but I do not see any path for beating a 15 second cycle time. Printing a coffee mug can take whopping 8 hours, depending on specifics of quality and the machine.
I feel like Injection Molding is far more amazing, interesting, intriguing and challenging process than 3D printing and yet, it gets zero media coverage. Before people respond to this - yes, I know the pros/cons of 3D printing and it certainly has place in manufacturing processes. Just pointing out the media hype around 3D printing which I thought would die down after 2015 or so... but it continues to overwhelm news sources.
Edit: Goddamn it HN, why are you all responding to the pros/cons of 3D printing? My complain is about media coverage and how click baity engagement metrics propelled 3D printing into this glorified do-all-world-changing-technology. It disproportionately gets attention, was just using injection-molding as a talking point. There are so many interesting manufacturing techniques. Every MBA exec wants their engineers to explore 3D-printing without knowing its downsides, thanks to the stupid media.
> Problem with 3D printing is how slow it really is.
Yeh, it's slow. But the article is talking about "The ability to build a one-off product such as a boat or small yacht, directly from CAD".
I dunno about you, but I've designed and paid for injection molds, and there is nothing cheap or fast about producing the first one. We were a small company, those molds cost us a substantial fraction of our capital. I would not describe the feelings engendered by unpacking and checking that first one as magical. Words that spring to mind are hope and dread, and eventually relief when we realised it would not be that expensive to move through holes in PCB's by 0.5mm, and adjust metal jigs, and resignation that the aesthetics of the thing were not quite as we expected, but would do.
Now a technology that allowed us to print something in 24 or 48 hours for a few thousand that was actually useable in the field - that would have looked absolutely magical. Being able to print something size of a boat hull that is strong enough to sail is almost unbelievable, even now.
More realistically you would one-off something like a boat out of fiberglass or carbon fiber and a non-metal mold (either shaped wood or foam, both of which can be large-scale milled easily). Yes, it would be more expensive than 3D printing, but a hell of a lot cheaper than an injection mold and with far better material properties than any thermoplastic. Or do it with vacuum forming. Injection molds are expensive because they are specifically designed and made for high-volume production with tight tolerances. If you don't need those things there are much cheaper options.
I'm personally bullish on 3D printing long-term, but FDM mostly still sucks and gets a lot more positive press than actual practical use in industry. It's just the easiest and cheapest of the printing technologies to expand on, so you see a lot of concept projects that sound good on paper.
The more interesting comparison point might be other CNC machining techniques which share the ability to create one off products directly from CAD with raw material, but seem to get a fraction of the attention of 'printing'. Leaving aside them being less suited to some use cases than 'printing' (and much more suited to others), is computer controlled manufacturing using an additive process really that much more magical than computer controlled manufacturing using a subtractive process?
You'd be throwing an awful lot of material away if you tried to machine a boat out of a solid block of plastic.
Subtractive manufacturing can give you a higher-quality result and can use a wider range of materials, but the machinery costs more because it needs to be stronger, and the materials cost more because you throw away everything that doesn't go into the final part.
Standard practice in CNC machining (at a certain scale) to deliver at least aluminum back to the distributor. Not all materials can be recycled as effectively though, or have a price point where it is worth doing.
Plastic has the problem of being incredibly cheap.
Is there anyone with a metallurgy background reading this? It's easy to melt aluminium at home, what are the properties of a billet cast with primitive tools vs in a factory? Like, is it more brittle, or does it have cavities etc? What circumstances does a factory control better for to get a better product?
It's relatively easy to re-cast aluminum at home at small scale. I think the biggest challenge for boat-sized would be the massive amount of energy needed to heat all that metal, plus the huge crucible and machinery to pour it.
Another issue with home-cast aluminum is alumina (oxidized aluminum) which will make small inclusion defects in your print. I've had several casts fail because I wasn't able to properly separate the alumina and the high-alumina areas were very brittle. I think most aluminum foundries have the electrolysis capabilities to convert all the alumina back to aluminum, but this is an extremely high voltage hot process that does not seem feasible for garage-scale.
(As an aside, aluminum cans have a ton of oxide because of the high surface area, so you get a ton of dross that must be skimmed off to use the molten aluminum. We would do it in two steps: first melt cans and pour in a muffin tin to make small ingots, then use those higher-purity ingots to cast the desired piece. Probably better in most circumstances to just start with lower-surface-area aluminum materials: better to pay for quality bar stock or ingots rather than spend the same on more charcoal for multiple runs.)
Note: if anyone tries this, invest in safety! At minimum, you should have welding gloves, sturdy tongs and a face shield. You should understand what happens when molten aluminum comes in contact with moisture (wet concrete is extremely dangerous!), practice your pouring motion with a cold crucible, and keep a bucket of water and/or fire extinguisher nearby in case you start a fire.
But please research casting safety yourself, I'm no expert. 1200+F temperatures significantly more dangerous than the high temperatures we interact with in our daily lives.
Casting is a massive pain in the ass. It's one of those cases where the difference is in all the sum of all the little things and refinements that only make sense at scale.
Plastic of unknown provenance is worth nearly nothing.
Clean pure plastic chips that just got cut off of a block of new plastic can be made back into pellets and used for new stuff and is worth a little less than plastic pellets.
Indeed, I work for a company that manufactures high end technology, and we're in a comfortable position where we don't need the production volume of injection molding, and can use soft-tooling processes. It's a lot less nerve wracking. Also, paint hides a lot of sins. ;-)
The thing to be careful about: Don't assume you know what's cheaper: Injection molding or something else. I've had my own assumptions blown away so many times.
But 3d printing is still kind of at the phase that machine learning went through, where every meeting inspires at least one manager to blurt out: "Have you considered using 3d printing for this design?" with the other managers secretly wishing that they had been so clever.
As with nearly all capabilities in all fields, you're trading off flexibility, quality, throughput and speed to market. You're also trading off cost on the vectors of capex vs. opex.
Injection moulding gives high quality and throughput with low flexibility and relatively high capex. That makes it fit for use for some cases and not for others.
In my home 3d printer for instance, i can download and print a snowflake or some small toy my child wants to hang on the Christmas tree that she is missing in about 20 mins which otherwise would entail a trip to the store or ordering online and waiting. However, if i were to print all the decorations she wants to hang, it would take an inordinate amount of time and I'm better off making the trip to the store.
> Edit: Goddamn it HN, why are you all responding to the pros/cons of 3D printing?
Your complaint about media coverage was a whole sentence. Sentence and a half being generous. The complaint itself looks like a related comment at the end rather than the main point. Most of your post was pros/cons which was not clearly linked to media coverage. It really does look like a post about injection molding vs 3d printing.
> My complain is about media coverage and how click baity engagement metrics propelled 3D printing into this glorified do-all-world-changing-technology.
I do think this is a surprise, injection moulding is a technique as old as dirt (well really plastic). You wanna see crazy coverage for injection moulding go back to the 1910s when the technique was starting to take off.
At the end of the day there just aren’t any big innovations in injection moulding to talk about, it all minor process improvements, may of which are happening behind closed doors, hidden as company secret sauce.
3D printing on the other hand. Is such an comparatively underdeveloped and under-utilised technique that just sneezing next to a 3D printer is a form of news worth innovation.
For media coverage, does injection molding have flashy new use cases etc? My (non-expert) impression is that injection molding is the "boring default" for many use cases, and thus improvement in it won't see much coverage. (+ the specific submission is on a website specializing on 3D printing as a topic). If you show me an industrially made part and say "they injection molded that", the reaction is "sure, as you would", not "Oh? that's interesting, why did they do that?".
Similar to how news will rather report on unusual building materials rather than run stories to remind people that bricks are cool too. (and if a home buyer insists on using something fancy new over bricks or whatever default would be more appropriate, that's their fault)
That's not to say that defaults actually are boring if you deal with them directly, I find people explaining details of things like injection molding fascinating, but "we improved X in a standard industry process" just isn't as easy to make briefly interesting to mass audience and thus gets reported less.
Apple actually gets a decent amount of coverage for their very impressive injection moldings. Most advancements in IM today are not in the ability to make complex parts, but more in the ability to make them pretty.
Apple makes many parts with extremely tight tolerances with almost no visual defects, and within the industry it's understood that it's extremely hard to make your IM parts look like Apple's for that reason.
Yes, even mainstream media covers that every now and then (e.g. "Apple just bought an entire company making X to make even better macbooks/iPhones/..."), but as the parent poster complained 3D printing is getting more attention.
Whereas "within the industry" is exactly the thing I'm talking about: the threshold for getting into more mainstream media is not necessarily related to actual importance and different from what field-specific or even just enthusiast perception focuses on. E.g. the bits and pieces I know about injection molding mostly come from "maker-type" publications that, while of course also talking about 3D printing a lot, also cover entry-level discussions of what happens if you try taking something to larger-scale production - and "forget about your product looking like an Apple product" is high on that list ;)
Yeah I think it's just how news media works I guess. Especially since 3D printing is a cool technology that hasn't quite hit it's stride yet, people are want to see how it's going to change things.
IM has been the same old IM for the past 5 decades more or less.
Maybe this is too off topic, but I've always wondered why injection molding couldn't be done cheaper (albeit slower) by just milling aluminum to be used as molds.
Why is there such a large gap between 3d printing something and setting up an expensive ($50k+) and time consuming (months) injection molding station?
tl;dr: the molds aren't as durable, and can't do certain things as well as steel molds can. But for small volumes and simpler designs that doesn't matter, so they are quite commonly used.
Minutes is a stretch. It will likely take multiple tools and setups to make a mold, and even more if you're starting from a billet that needs facing etc.
I agree it is definitely a stretch for a full mold, but was thinking along the lines of an mold pocket insert, like those which can be 3D printed [1].
You could make this from reasonably sized stock with 2 setups. First you rough the shape and cut the mold cavity, then you remove the stock and face the backside. I'm used to an automatic tool changer, which would be needed if you want to go fast
One possible reason would be to allow geometry which isn't easily milled. Perhaps cooling jackets, for example, could be incorporated into the mold for example.
Beyond the cooling jackets there isn’t really going to be anything hard to mill. If the geometry is hard to mill, then it’s almost certainly inappropriate for injection moulding (assuming you actually want to extract your injection moulded object from the mould).
At one point aluminum tools were a good trade off in time vs quality, but these days they only save maybe 10-20% of the tooling schedule and cost over steel. Tool life and robustness isn’t great so they’re not so popular any more. Usually when someone says “soft tooling” these days, they just mean softer steel which is slightly cheaper and faster to machine, at some trade off in tool life.
There are already 3D printed steel core and cavity inserts for injection molds. They laser sinter powdered metal and then run a very tiny ball end mill around each layer to clean up the surface finish. Traditional CNC and EDM is still how most molds are made, but occasionally it makes sense to 3D print. You can get cooling lines in patterns that are impossible to machine and you can make tools faster sometimes. The costs for the machines are very high, and the size of the parts are limited.
You use the metal sintering printer to deposit the metal. Then you use an in-envelope milling head to polish it.
The cooling can be conformal since the shape isn't limited by milling technology. And, since molds have a lead time of at least 6 weeks (and generally worse because something always goes wrong), speed isn't the issue.
There was a good talk at Molding 2018 by the CEO of a Silicon Valley medical prototyping company about how his folks simply won't deal with conventional molds anymore and he has bought 3 of the 3D metal printers with in-envelope milling heads.
Unfortunately, the Molding conference website is a dumpster fire for useful technical information. If I can remember the name of the company, I'll reply.
Is there actual 3D printing of metals? Last time I checked there was a very difficult process of 3d printing resin-on-dust, then pre-baking the dust-resin form, then soaking it in molten metal. Also it wasn't aluminium.
It isn't that expensive for low volume molding. There are commercial vendors that provide molded parts from CAD in less 5 days for about $5,000. The molds are aluminum, so they have limited lifetime, but are great for volumes in the 10s of thousands.
When I want high tolerance parts, or hundreds of parts, I find it is faster and cheaper to go with contract molding despite having 50k of 3D printing equipment in my lab
Molds can be really complex tools, with moving parts and coolant ducts.
Designing one isn't easy, and machining definitely also isn't.
Probably the material cost isn't the problem.
In addition, injection molding machines are huge and complex. They need to melt the plastic and move it into the mold without clogging up and with a repeatable high pressure.
Here's[1] a video with some discussion around the process of designing a mold for a firearm part, from someone who's trying to bring an injection molded product to the market. Here's[2] a video from the actual molding process.
This is obviously for mass production, so I guess you can cut some corners for low-volume production, but I imagine designing a fairly proper mold is still required.
I'm not into firearms but it was interesting to hear the complexities involved, was a lot of things I hadn't thought about.
Early in my career I ran one of these machines to mold parts for implantable medical devices. I've also designed tools for them which can be easily machined yourself for a few hundred dollars.
Thermoforming (aka. vacuum / pressure forming) is the faster way to achieve large format shapes. You begin with the skin which can arrive either pre-cut or in rolls. You then heat it in a large scale oven usually based on ceramic heating modules. Once pliable at a polymer-specific temperature use your aluminium mould to obtain a desired shape in combination with positive and/or negative air pressure. The alumnium's conductivity assists with cooling the part to set the new shape. Then withdraw the mould.
For super high speed boat building, you could use a combination of this and maybe ultrasonic welding to rapidly fuse multiple sheets and build up a higher body. The challenge would be fusing to a superstructure while maintaining integrity.
Currently, this process is only used for dinghy-scale vessels.
I have read an article on using 3d printing in metal for the inner mould (plug) for alpine ski boots. I think this was just an experiment that the manufacturer was doing with some of their top athletes.
I've been really interested for a while now in titanium, and while I think laser sintering is a really cool application, something caught my eye when trying to find videos about the material: some of the titanium-alloy hammers you can buy at the hardware store are made by molten metal casting in ceramic molds. For some reason it really fascinates me to see titanium being used that way, because it's not the way most places use it (it is a notoriously hard metal to work with). I wonder, are laser sintering and other techniques fundamentally slow or can they be improved to be more competitive?
They are pretty fundamentally slow because of the constraints from the melt pool. Because you are trying to locally melt the material (lots of energy) and then immediately solidify it, you pretty much have to use a melt pool under a certain size and go under a certain speed to avoid making a total mess of the part.
Also a significant amount of energy goes to waste as it gets dissipated by the material, and the powder feedstock is extremely expensive as it needs to be a certain size of round powder which is hard to manufacture.
The revolution will be when we can use 1000's of printheads in parallel. I don't think that's SF, more of an engineering problem. A bit like a 'dot matrix' printer for PLA.
You nailed it. The problem now is that every exec wants their engineers to investigate 3D printing even if it makes zero sense because of all the media hype in last decade.
All these boats getting 3D printed (also those mentioned in the article) are made from composites, primarily carbon fiber or fiberglass based composites.
Injection molding for plastic parts is easy and fast, however the current process it takes to make carbon fiber composites is highly energy intensive (one needs huge ovens), time consuming, expensive, and some approaches can even be highly labor intensive. This is also the reason why only the more expensive cars in the market have carbon fiber bodies as opposed to all cars/vehicles in the market.
I wonder if you had put your paragraphs in the other order, you might have had better luck. I was absolutely about to reply with some discussion on 3D printing, until I noticed the edit keyword and so read that first.
I know it should be on the reader to fully read a comment, but it's the internet, so I adjust my comments sometimes to make sure my point is across before people jump ship.
In some applications the turnaround time either doesn't matter or can be overcome. (i.e. with FDM printing it's pretty trivial to use 2..N print heads to get an increase of 2..N in part production)
Also, this happens with virtually every new technology. See AI, blockchain etc. In every company that a given technology potentially impacts/applies to, at some point there is an Executive asking 'what is our strategy for X?' which results in one or more projects related to X being spun up. Eventually most of these efforts will fizzle/fade but there will be a subset of use cases where there will be a (possibly surprising) benefit that offsets the slow speed / limited resolution / whatever that makes 3D printing worth using in real production environments. There are also some instances where 3D printing (whether FDM, SLA, SLS etc) can produce a better result than existing alternatives like injection molding. It's just another tool in the toolbox.
> In some applications the turnaround time either doesn't matter or can be overcome. (i.e. with FDM printing it's pretty trivial to use 2..N print heads to get an increase of 2..N in part production)
Not if you only need one, which is true for the vast majority of prints.
Give me a $399 Chinese injection molding gear copied from an open source design by a guy in Europe -- I mean, that's how 3D printing culture started, but the FDM printer technology itself did exist and were used, albeit at small scales in professional contexts, just like how industrial injection molding exists right now.
>I feel like Injection Molding is far more amazing, interesting, intriguing and challenging process than 3D printing and yet, it gets zero media coverage.
The cheapest desktop injection molding machine [0] I have seen costs $12500 and it's not very capable. Yeah sure it is intriguing and interesting and challenging just like a $200k CNC machine is interesting but how can you be surprised that there is no community of "home gamers" with these machines? The real injection molding machines are huge, bloody expensive and most of them have been moved to China.
There are also lots of quality problems because injection molding is a process where you have to mess around with the settings and do multiple production runs before you figure out how to get optimal results. Your 3D printer is slow but reliable in comparison. You have very high confidence that once you tune the printer itself (not the specific injection molding production run) the vast majority of your prints will succeed on first print without you having to do anything. This means you can easily produce one off parts at low cost. It's easy to see why 3D printing is popular. It's cheap and just works both in terms of reliability and the size of the objects you can make.
Meanwhile with injection molding that $12500 machine is barely capable of anything a hobbyist would want and that's without considering that you need to design your own molds and then machine them yourself because if you are going to outsource the mold you might as well outsource everything and who wants to make an article about "hey you can contact these companies to produce injection molded parts"? Everyone already knows that this is something companies do.
1) Injection Molding is far more amazing, interesting, intriguing and challenging
2) There is wider market for home 3D printing than injection molding
It really comes down to what you are trying to do and what you need your parts for. Also, there absolute is a community of home machinists. I have met a couple people with home CNCs, and many more with very capable machine shops.
This is an excellent point. 3D printing will likely never replace injection molding for plastic parts above a volume of a few thousand. This is well known in the industry but largely unexamined by the media.
High-strength 3D printing however, of composites / metal, has a much higher market ceiling. Can certainly be cost-competitive with CNC and probably also expendable mold casting in the short-term.
Problem with 3D printing is how slow it really is.
I think you need to start thinking about manufacturing as more than just the mass production of identical products. 3D printing isn't at all suitable if you want to make 10,000 identical items. That doesn't make it useless.
We do get 3D printed parts from time to time at work: They usually need to have brass inserts put in them, which mean milling the printed holes to size too.
Since the part is fairly complex, milling the part wouldn't be that much of a time saver. I'd say 5~7 hours print-job on each, depending on the printer, milling it could be done in half that easily, but a qualified operator's time cost a fair bit more than someone keeping an eye on two (or more) printers while doing paperwork.
(As long as they don't need more than the ten pieces we get (at most) at a time at least.)
> Problem with 3D printing is how slow it really is.
I think 3D printing is a really scalable approach. You can have a large 3D printer with tens or maybe much more printing heads, all working in parallel on the same large part or the whole product.
The benefit of 3D printing is flexibility. If you’re going to print at scale to make up for time, you’ve left the realm of flexibility and are now in the world of mass production.
Nevermind energy consumption, floor space, maintenance, inconsistency in quality, loading-unloading times, postprocessing / cleaning, etc.
3D printing is not really scalable.
Folks that suggest we can just buy 10,000 3D printers to replace 8 injection molding machines haven't really stepped into a high volume factory, much less operate one.
Energy consumption of other manufacturing methods is also quite high, for instance, injection molding is super energy intensive, as are most forms of casting and machining.
It's clear that 3D printing is no substitute for injection molding, stamping or or other such mass fabrication methods. But, like with every other manufacturing method: it is complementary, there are applications for all of these.
And yes, I've stepped into factories, and worked with/for them, beside that I had a metal workshop and was partner in an early CAD/CAM company. So FWIW I think I understand the limitations of the tech quite well, and I think that if 3D printing could be sped up by a factor of 100 or so (which is definitely in the realm of the possible) that the other disadvantages would matter a lot less than they do today.
Injection molding can't work with many geometries; for example, complex enough boat has a lot of places where the material has to go along a non-convex paths. 3D printers can print anything, say DMLS, including closed volumes (how to remove material from those volumes is another question). Having many heads the process can be sped up - but with DMLS it's mostly moving mirrors which needs to be parallelized, as laser beams have little inertia.
Comparing with injection molding it seems IM is a good shortcut for many - not all - cases, while 3D printing is a fundamentally generic technology.
Print on the inside of a spinning drum. That way, you don't have to reverse direction. Print from a whole row of nozzles or lasers or whatever. That way, yet another dimension doesn't require reversing movement. That leaves just one axis if laying something down like an inkjet printer. If curing with a laser, the final axis can be handled by the laser simply crossing the needed distance.
I think you make an excellent meta point. I would love to know why this happens. Why are some technology super hyped and others aren't? Maybe it is a stochastic process and somehow one term gets amplified and gets the attention of the MBAs and consultants. Dunno. Love to hear some theories
It's usually a function of how much time/energy/money companies in a space put into generating the hype. There are teams of people at the better funded companies working to arrange interviews, plant stories, have influencers promote things and so on... all in an attempt to build awareness and eventually help them increase sales. It's basically an early stage marketing strategy until it's known how big the market is and how big a piece of it a given company is able to get and then more traditional marketing approaches take over. Worst case: the company runs out of money which will also turn off the hype machine.
I don't think it's just a random process. The coolest-sounding technologies are the ones where you can describe to a layman how it works, but they've still rarely or never seen something that works that way.
3d-printing is perfect tech for this: the principle is graspable by anyone, it makes for cool stop motion videos, yet it's still rare in practice. Injection moulding is too commonplace: we've cast metal in moulds for thousands of years.
A cool name helps as well, of course. 3D printing is definitely sexier than "additive manufacturing".
In this case I think it’s obvious if you know the pros and cons of 3D printing. 3D printing has a major pro: It may be slow to make 1 thing, but I can make anything I want change it quickly.
I got a 3D printer a couple years ago. It’s pretty amazing. I can recreate broken parts, design improvements to existing things and prototype them without any help. These days with so much emphasis on reducing our environmental footprint, why would be interested in mass production?
This kinda misses the point of the core. 3D printing transfers power inward vs outward. When this happens innovation explodes as the average individual has much more ability to produce on their own. Localized manufacturing is a subtle huge boom similar to computation.
"A string of projects" (only 4 examples in last 2 years are provided) covering a global industry sets a pretty low bar for "becoming standard practice".
> ...the usual thing that is done in a particular situation. [1]
This reminds me that there was a link to an interview about a dramatic shift in funding models for content creators. The person being interviewed was really in it for... 1.5 months. The "veterans" were in it for less than a year. Yeah... come back in another year before we can call this some kind of long-term trend.
For boat building - apart from small dinghies/run-arounds its hard to see 3d printing will beat using a mold with sheets of carbon fibre or fibreglass.
1. The sheets will make the structure stronger in more directions
2. The mold will result in a 'shiny smooth' surface.
3. Delamination of glass fibre sheets is already a worry/problem with older boats. How well will strands of 3d printed material cope with decades of exposure to salt water and UV light? (ABS has poor UV resilience)
I'm sure CNC/Robotics could be used in creating molds, cutting sheets of carbon fibre, and possibly laying them in molds.
For scale prototypes, it's great. I have a 3D printed 1/100 scale sailboat hull on my desk right now. However, you aren't going to beat building hulls out of fiberglass. With a large CNC, foam/starboard/coosa, and a roll of fiberglass you can prototype a full scale boat in a weekend.
Maybe printing a hull buck would be a good move? But you just as easily could CNC foam blocks for that too...
Seems like the sweet spot would be printing sub million dollar catamarans. Something that is unsinkable maybe with trapped air compartments.
If you have a million to spare, the current fiber glass designs, are awesome. But the amount of trouble and maintenance required makes me question if its worth it even owning a new boat. When sailing around the world on cruise ship is so much more luxurious and cheaper.
From watching youtube, the sealants around windows are a constant problem. Algae and barnacles growth on the hull, requires repainting the boat every few years. Its basically a part time job to maintain these things.
The easiest way to test printing at an angle is to rotate the object 45 degrees before printing; you'll need a lot more supports, but it can be done.
The results depend on the forces your object will see. The tensile strength is lower perpendicular to the printing direction, as the adhesion between layers is lower than the continuous filament adhesion. So printing at an angle is better if you need more tensile strength on the Z axis (but then you can rotate it to have that axis flat), but it also reduces the strength on that angled direction.
And I thought this was going to be an article on the obsession with printing the 3d "benchy". People print them over and over and over to evaluate how "tuned" in they've gotten their printers and then they show them off on 3d printing facebook groups.
The object is designed to test out various aspects like bridging, overhangs, holes, etc.
Some time around 2009 I met Enrique, the author of Skeinforge, a popular and extremely feature-rich software suite for slicing 3D models into 3D printer G-code. He said his dream wanted to someday 3D print a boat. I thought that was far-fetched.
A black plastic boat? I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume they chose black for a reason; many plastics degrade in sunlight; adding carbon black is an effective way to make plastic more resilient to UV. Probably this boat would degrade if left out in the sun for too long, particularly if it wasn't black. But a black boat is going to be pretty damn unpleasant to be on in sunny warm weather anyway; it would be like a solar cooker.
This doesn't seem like the future of boat building to me.
I wonder how water tight these are in practice. Small scale FDM prints aren't airtight, and are questionably watertight. For something like a sailboat that floats in the water it's whole life, even a small leak can be a problem.
I wonder if they do any post processing on the prints. Some wooden boats are coated with glass fiber & epoxy resin to protect the wood. You could do the same thing with a 3D printed part -- that would make it watertight and would also increase stiffness.
If they do that, it's essentially identical to how you do a cedar strip plank boat. The 3D-print/wood is only used for its compressive strength across the ~1 cm hull thickness, which is really high, and the glass (or carbon) fibre translates bending of the hull into tension of the fibres plus compression of the separating material - loading each material in the way where it's strongest.
The technical word for this is a torsion box, and you find it everywhere, from doors in your house to aircraft wings.
Does anybody have any read as to why FDM is only receiving this kind of attention now? It seems that the technology has been there for quite a while (and I mean decades at least). Is it just riding the hype from home 3D printers?
A lot of 20 year patents on FDM have expired within the last 5-10 years. Technology that was only affordable to R&D labs and university have made it to the end user and experimenters. More hands in the pot means more diverse ideas. Expertise isn't cloaked in NDAs but published in wikis.
Fiberglass is really fast and cheap, and you can throw together a simple mold with wood. Hard to see 3d printing competing in the space of just making useful boats.
Fiberglass is incredibly useful for prototyping and repairs. I watched a shipwright rebuild a bow by creating a mold from sheets of melamine. Then epoxy it to the cut open hull. And this was an age old technique using little more than hand tools and common sense.
The wood that is processed to be harder than steel that was mentioned the other day seems like a better fit for boats. But who knows how far this tech will carry us? Boats are great and i welcome new processes to build them.
Not to be harsh, or dis-respectful, but there's an unfortunate amount of incorrect, or obsolete, information in the comments on this article. Let me see if I can do better...
-- Full disclosure: I used to (relatively recently) work for a vendor of 3D-printing technology.
It is important to consider the full 'volume' range of manufacturing, when evaluating a particular process or technology. Some will be good for making ONE part; and some for a million+ parts, and some in the middle. It's also important to consider the intended usage: for example, prototypes and military and medical parts may not be cost-sensitive, but, say toys, or consumer electronics are the opposite. Speed of manufacture is a key cost driver, especially in high labor-cost countries. Raw material wastage, and cost of energy can also be key cost drivers in manufacturing.
With regards to 3D-printing (more formally known as: additive manufacturing), I have to admit that I _used to_ be a skeptic, too. I can't tell you the number of: toys, action figures, souveniers, etc. that I saw printed from low-end, plastic 3D printers--and they just struck me as 'junk'. And even a lot of the industrial parts that I saw from middle-tier, plastic 3D printers were...unimpressive. I few years ago, I even thought that I was detecting a 'backlash' against 3D printing, at least at the hobbyiest level. And it is true that there has been some consolidation of vendors of low-end/hobbiest 3D printers.
But, there's also been a gradual, and now accelerating maturity in AM, and also an increasing diversity in approaches, and in uses. In particular, most people only think about 3D printing in plastic. But metal AM, and also directional-composite (e.g., oriented carbon-fiber) printing is really coming along.
In particular, AM lets us create parts that have voids (of controlled size/shape) throughout the part. That may not sound like a big deal, until you think about weight-sensitive transportation usage. If you can get 20-30% of the normal weight out of a part, that's huge for cars; and game-changing for aerospace. Here's one case-study, where they're claiming a savings of 3,180 kg of fuel, per-year, PER-PLANE: https://www.autodesk.com/customer-stories/airbus
I noticed that lots of commentors are discussing how much 'better' injection molding is than 3D printing in plastic. Sure, for anything above prototyping quantities, that's probably true. But, also think about the manufacture of the _molds_ for those machines. What if you could cut your mold production time by 30%, and your mold production cost by 90%? Here's a case study on that: https://www.desktopmetal.com/resources/builtrite-3d-printed-...
What if 3D printing--including in METAL--wasn't a S-L-O-W process. Here's some folks that can do metal AM at very high speed: https://www.digitalalloys.com/
The caveat there is that the resulting part has pretty crude tolerances, so a finish pass (with conventional CNC machining) may be needed. But there's some higher-quality, and pretty high-volume, metal AM processes coming along, for example: https://www.desktopmetal.com/products/production and: https://www.exone.com/
Lastly, AM opens up some design space possibilities, that previously were either wickedly cost-prohibite, or were completely impossible to do. For example, the previously mentioned _molds_ for injection molding machines. Being able to carefully control the mold temperature is a key process parameter. With 3D printing, 'conformable' cooling channels can be designed-in to the mold. And these channels can basically be any geometry that is needed--looking like animal veins, for example, to give optimal cooling.
It's probably going to take a new generation of designers and mechanical engineers, before the full--and I use this word deliberately: disruptive--effects of AM are 'internalized', and used to their best potential. For example, here's a (software) CAD tool that produces 'organic' designs, and ones that would only be practical to manufacture with 3D printing: https://www.desktopmetal.com/products/software/live-parts/
AM seems great and all, but ABS still seems like a trash material to make a boat out of. Picking ABS sends strong "when all you have is a hammer..." vibes.
I wonder if anyone will make boats out the steel that the cybertruck will use? It Should be at lot cheaper than aluminum, though might not be corrosion resistent enough.
There is an interesting paper on bouyancy optimization in 3d printing. You could define a waterline and orientation on any 3d shape and print it so that it stays afloat.
Almost certainly; look at the rough plastic surface of it. Sea water and UV will almost certainly degrade this boat and have it shedding loads of plastic. The only upside is they didn't choose to cover it in glitter, but such coatings are certainly optional for traditional boats...
I feel like Injection Molding is far more amazing, interesting, intriguing and challenging process than 3D printing and yet, it gets zero media coverage. Before people respond to this - yes, I know the pros/cons of 3D printing and it certainly has place in manufacturing processes. Just pointing out the media hype around 3D printing which I thought would die down after 2015 or so... but it continues to overwhelm news sources.
Edit: Goddamn it HN, why are you all responding to the pros/cons of 3D printing? My complain is about media coverage and how click baity engagement metrics propelled 3D printing into this glorified do-all-world-changing-technology. It disproportionately gets attention, was just using injection-molding as a talking point. There are so many interesting manufacturing techniques. Every MBA exec wants their engineers to explore 3D-printing without knowing its downsides, thanks to the stupid media.