What is your biggest frustration with 3D printing?

Despite the media hype that 3D printers can be used to make literally anything, and that they will disrupt all kinds of present day processes and systems, professional users have a number of frustrations with this technology. These frustrations can be overcome with further R&D, assuming the media hype doesn’t inflate expectations to a point that frustrates the most enthusiastic users. But here are some of the frustrations shared by experienced users on various sites:

Material limitations, including:

• The 3D printing process and how fast a previous layer of material cools before you can deposit the next layer.

• Temperature. Many 3D printers experience considerable temperature variation in the build chamber throughout the build process. For some materials, these temperature changes affect the grain structure of the material, affecting the part’s final properties. A number of engineers are calling for better control of the temperature, perhaps through the use of a closed-loop control system.

• The famous “razor blade” business model, where you give away the razor, or in this case the 3D printer, for minimal cost and make your profits through the supplies, which for 3D printers is materials. A number of people are frustrated by the cost of materials, and even more by the fact that they can only purchase the manufacturer’s material offerings. While there are some technical reasons for restricting materials to specific 3D printing machines (better control over part tolerances, resolutions, and accuracies), could it be possible to open this up? Larger industries, such as aerospace and automotive, may help here, as they tend to insist on multiple sources of critical material, components, and so on.

Print speed:

• Which is affected by materials and the temperature of the printer itself. But a number of users would like faster builds.

Material database:

• A data base on mechanical information on parts printed in various materials with various 3D printing processes. Manufacturers will resist full acceptance of this technology for manufacturing without data confirming that parts hold up to their designed function.

Better CAD programs:

Many novice users are finding that you must have a good CAD program to move to the next steps of printing your 3D part. The designed part must be built in the CAD program properly, often referred to as “water tight.” Novices are finding out that downloadable programs are often missing critical data needed for a good printable part. And just scanning data into a CAD program is often not quite enough to deliver a good part. Some tweaking and massaging of the scan data is often necessary, although several companies are developing enhancements to their programs that shorten the time for this.

Post processing:

• The time it takes, and the need for more, easier options to finish a part.

These are just the most popular frustrations. If your favorite frustration is not mentioned here, drop me a note!

Leslie Langnau

Views: 909


You need to be a member of The Engineering Exchange to add comments!

Join The Engineering Exchange

Comment by Terence J NEWELL on May 21, 2013 at 2:40am

I dissagree I think combinations of some harder polymers and the fact that it can be used as a one off unit will make your last remark redundant, metal is only used because traditionaly  you wanted a repetative function, likewise cartridges and bullets are made in traditional ways for the same purpose and the military wanted standard parts. This changes the dynamic

Comment by Donald Murray on May 20, 2013 at 2:34pm

Actually, it will not fire without metal in the firing pin and bullets contain metal. However, in that movie (with John Malcovich) he was able to smuggle 2 bullets inside a rabbit's foot keyring. We just need to be more careful about small metal objects and bullets are detectible using the latest smelling technology (including dogs).

Comment by Leslie Langnau on May 20, 2013 at 2:22pm

Thanks for your comments Terence.  I find the range of materials is a frustration for a lot of users. 

Comment by Terence J NEWELL on May 20, 2013 at 12:40pm

My bigest frustration is the lack of metal and combined materials

Comment by Terence J NEWELL on May 20, 2013 at 12:37pm

I am just waiting for some poor fool to blow their hand off or be blinded because the "GUN" they made is not designed correctly. In the UK we have strict testing to make sure that will not happen. We have no information about the calibre of the bullet  the cartridge the propellant  I saw no target , no distance  etc just a pop.Leslie is correct. Some days after a newspaper reporter in the UK  smuggled one through the checks on Eurostar  to prove it could be done. Crass stupidity.

Comment by Leslie Langnau on May 20, 2013 at 12:11pm

Agreed.  The gun issue is simply media sensationalism, since many who write about it don't really understand the technology.  While the potential is a concern, i.e., plastic guns that go undetected, these "guns" have not shifted from potential to reality yet.  

Comment by Donald Murray on May 20, 2013 at 11:32am

3D printing has been around for 20 years and all this commotion over the 3D gun which doesn't even fire well, is mute. 3D printing is responsible for our rapid prototyping today and vital for medical on-demand instruments for surgury. So, just do it better and forget about this gun stuff. It's not a big enough problem to be too worried about it yet.



© 2021   Created by Marshall Matheson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service