A novel polymer should make 3D printing more effective
economist.com
economist.com
I would love to see automatic print failure detection (with a camera, even a micro camera at the nozzle).
Figuring out the correct settings for unknown plastic seems like it would be hard to solve, but perhaps there’s some base material properties that could be determined automatically which might help. I’ve noticed that the Prusa 3D printer software has a sizable database of filament brands in its material settings section. I’d be curious how foolproof those settings all are for each brand of filament. But of course a manufacturer could change formulation at any time...
I solve this problem by only buying one of two brands and keeping custom settings for them.
I started my career in CNC machining. People always thought that meant software did everything for me, but no I had to choose tool sizes, spindle RPM, feed rates, depth of cut, etc. The CNC is not a magic machine that makes parts for you, it’s a tool. So I guess I’m a bit biased for thinking that current 3D printers are super useful tools that require a certain amount of operator competency. You cannot put any random filament in and expect good results, and actually that might be a hard problem to solve on the back end. Much easier to pay attention to what brand you order and feed in good quality stuff.
But idk. You’re right that they’re fiddly AF and I’m just used to it. If they could solve those problems it would surely help adoption.
Other factors that affect print quality are: filament diameter consistency (must be very precise), absolute filament diameter (must be known), nozzle wear (changes over time), environmental humidity and air temperature, and air flow. Michigan, Florida, and Arizona might require different settings. And then part geometry matters a lot. Someone up the comment thread mentioned curling. This can happen even with perfect temperature settings if part geometry is not ideal. Once I was totally unable to print a large rectangular part without curling until I replaced the 0.4mm nozzle with a 0.8mm nozzle. The thicker layers eliminated layer delamination that allowed the curling.
It really takes a bit of learning and experimentation to get things working sometimes. It’s not a perfect process by any means.
You probably already know about it, but Spaghetti Detective is pretty decent at detecting print failures - although as you say it'd be great to have this built in (and more reliable...)
But yes, a cheap undeniably safe resin (there’s no MSDS on cheap resins) would be a boon! The sticky toxic mess my SLA printer leaves behind is a real issue.
its still several orders of magnitude faster and cheaper than sending a schematic out to a traditional manufacturing prototyping shop, at least for parts that are appropriate for this particular method of manufacturing
IMO it is a stunning success if your biggest pain point is around the delivery time of the parts.
(Not necessarily disagreeing with you - it would be better if the parts were made faster - just lending my perspective).
Even faster would be better, but print speed often isn't the bottleneck, solving engineering problems often is.
That said, of course faster would be better.
My main gripe is with the weakness along layer lines.
Most consumer FDM printers are using 0.4mm nozzles. I've found that 0.6mm is more suitable for general use, and that cuts print time by ~50% - it lays down 50% more material, which accounts for a 33% reduction, but the fact that it results in fewer discrete motions accounts for the rest.
When I'm printing something bigger than, say, 100mm^3, I switch out to a 1.0mm nozzle. Larger objects generally don't require such fine detail in all dimensions.
As for noise, my primary printer is a modified Creative3D Elf CoreXY, and it sits about 5' from my computer. It's quiet enough that it doesn't interrupt my flow. TMC2209 drivers and StealthChop go a long way.
For many plastics, pelletizing them again to use in injection molding is anywhere from challenging to impossible. If this polymer is the cement, then recycled plastic could be the aggregate in a sort of plastic concrete. Granted, it probably wouldn't be useful for small diameter injectors, but we have a lot of larger plastic items too.
Otherwise, mixing filaments to combine them in real-time is already a reality in desktop 3D printing[1].
And I really don't like the plastics used by them, it sounds like a new source of waste that is bad for the environment.
I don't want to shame anyone for buying a 3D printer, but I wish we stop inventing new products that just creates a new source of pollution (failed prints).
As the technology matures I personally believe it will be a net positive effect. We will save on shipping, new materials will be more environmentally friendly, new printing methods will allow better control over colors, resolution, texture and multi-material printing. Plastic is not necessarily the only material - composites, ceramics, metal will become more available. 3D printing can likely also increase the reuse of products by increasing reparability.
Perhaps it will not be in the current form of 3D-printing. I imagine specialty or high end printing will be from local printing shops, like high end printing products are today.
Plastics is certainly not the only material, but most people do use them. They are the cheapest.
I would like to see actual numbers (easy for me to ask, I know) to become less sceptical.
It's awesome tech, but I feel that at no point is the environmental friendliness really, genuinely part of the equation.
Just driving 20km round trip for any other hobby you care to name uses a litre of petrol. That's 5-10 medium-large toys, or a hundred trinkets.
Recent example -- I got a Husky work table with a router plate insert (to make it a router table). I have an old Craftsman router. No one makes router table plates that have holes drilled for this model router. So I modeled and printed an adapter plate to screw onto the router, with threaded holes matching holes on the table's insert plate.
A previous example, I needed a plastic ring to hold magnets for a cadence sensor for my E-Bike kit. The kit came with a magnet ring for a mountain bike, but I have a road bike. Couldn't find anything suitable online for this particular bicycle. A couple hours of modeling, and 3 hours of printing later, I had the part that I needed.
As for plastic waste -- it isn't as much as you think. The slicing software (which converts a model file into gcode) lets you put in a fill percentage. Default is 15%, and upping it to 35% makes a fairly strong part. It uses a honeycomb fill pattern, which is strong yet uses minimal material. I'm still on my first two 1kg spools of material (and the slow speed of creating something means that you don't go through that much filament that fast).
Another project was making small clips that I used to mount a piece of plexiglass (from a big box store) over the TV, as protection from the grandkid that we are raising (it is surprising how delicate modern TVs are).
So in short, 3D printers are really good for making small parts that you need for various household projects or hobbies, and a $20 spool of filament lasts a long time. And they get really useful when you design your own "things" to print.
It's also worth noting that none of the things you mentioned actually require a 3d printer. Your router mounting bracket could have been made the same way I made mine - a piece of acrylic (or wood), 2 minutes of sawing, and 5 minutes of drilling & tapping for a smoother surface and better strength than what you printed. Your bike bracket could have been made with some aluminum, a band saw, and some files (or just "good enough" formed with some epoxy putty or hot water moldable plastic). Etc.
What I'm trying to say is that 3d printing enthusiasts tend to be overly positive about the technology and fall into the "when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail" trap. It's a great technology, but it's not for everyone (or even most people) and it's got a lot of limitations. I always urge people who are considering buying a printer to strongly consider their actual use cases and needs beyond the cool factor.
It's just really fun to model a part and then use a slicer and print it in real plastic, at least for me. It has motivated me to learn about CAD, and has been an opportunity to solve some interesting mechanical problems.
Using the 3d printer is not usually practical for me, but it is a lot of fun, and I've learned a lot along the way.
That may have to do more with my inexperience with industrial design -- having to iterate with physical objects vs in virtual space.
* an adapter to let me my old vacuum cleaner attachments on my new vacuum
* a number of irreplaceable little plastic gewgaws whose breakage would have destroyed the utility of various products
* custom hooks for use with 3M Command strips
* mounting brackets that let me use some spare casters I had lying around with an Ikea Lack coffee table
In the past year, I estimate I have had at most 1kg of failed prints. I've had another 2 or 3 kg of prints that were novelties or that failed to perform the desired function.
On the other hand, last week I printed a replacement keyboard case for my portable keyboard, which saved me buying another one (I use it constantly). A couple of months ago I designed and printed a new fan duct for my fridge. Had I not been able to do that, I would have had to buy a $300 part and thrown the old one out. The impact of manufacturing and shipping that one part likely outweighs the lifetime waste of my printer, and that's just one example.