Disruptive Magazine Issue5

8/20/2019 Disruptive Magazine Issue5

1/28

DISRUPTIVEMAGAZINE.COM | Issue 5 | October 2015

The Perfect Luxury Engine?

Power to the people

3D PRINTINGTHE OPEN SOURCE MOVEMEN

MULTI-MATERIALPRINTING:Unlocking thetrue potentialof AM


2/28

DISRUPTIVEMAGAZINE.COM | Issue 4 | September 2015 | 3

Welcome to issue 5 of Disruptive Magazine - feel free to relax

and enjoy the most indulgent offerings that 3D printing canprovide.... First up, Kerry Stevenson posits the idea that 3D print-ing may be the single most apt technology we have for the cre-ation of luxury items. Providing a number of perspectives on just what a luxury item is, and a balanced argument for whyadditive technologies can use all of their inherent strengthsfor the production of such items, he certainly makes a com-pelling case. In this month's company profle, I explore how Cook -songold is working in partnership with EOS to bring jewelleryproduction into the 21st century. When visiting this jewellery

company I was able to get a handle on this powerful end-to-end solution for the productiono world-class creative jewellery pieces and where it fts within the landscape o the jewel -lery sector. In my own feature article, I also explore how the emergence and subsequentgrowth of multi-material 3D printing points to a future where additive technologies willcreate complex, multi-faceted functional items. Providing a historical perspective and alook toward the future, I've highlighted some of the key players in the development of thissub-sector of the 3D printing and additive manufacturing industry. Elsewhere in this issue, our resident desktop specialist , Richard Horne tacklesthe thorny issue of Open Source, bringing a calm, guiding hand and an elucidating air ofclarity to a topic which can be a minefeld o legal, social and community dangers or theimpassioned, but under-informed user. To round off this edition of Disruptive Magazine, Faith Robinson examines thecontemporary art scene, exploring the current attitudes toward 3D printed artworks andthe resulting challenges that digital artists face, whilst Dave Marks explores the fascinat-ing artwork of the unconventional boundary pusher Shane Hope.Onwards …

Rachel ParkEditor | Disruptive Magazine

[email protected] @DisruptiveMag | @RPES12

Facebook disruptive-magazineLinkedIn Disruptive Magazine

LET'S LUXURIATE..FROM THE EDITOR

Fabricantd’imprimantes


3/28

6 | FEATURE: INDUSTRY INSIDER3D Printing — ThePerfect Luxury Engine?By Kerry Stevenson

18 | COMPANY PROFILE& INSIGHTCooksongoldBy Rachel Park

20 | FEATURE ARTICLE:ON THE DESKTOP

Driven by Open SourceBy Richard Horne

34 | FEATURE ARTICLE A Paradigm Shift:Multi-Material Additivemanufacturing By Rachel Park

40 | FEATURE: 3D PRINTING &THE CREATIVE INDUSTRIES Additive Manufacturefor a Contemporary Art MarketBy Faith Robinson

46 | ARTIST PROFILEShane HopeBy Dave Marks

51 | NEWS ROUND-UP: A commentary round-up ofthe latest news from acrossthe 3D printing ecosystem.

DISRUPTIVEMAGAZINE.COM | Issue 5 | October 2015 | 5

Cover Image CreditJewellery Industry Innovation

Centre (BCU)

Publisher Disruptive Magazine is

published 10 times a yearby 3D Printshow.

Address21 Victoria Street,

St Albans, Herts Al1 3JJ

Contact Number[+44] 01727 866 516

Company Reg Number7910136

Annual Subscription RateDigital: £24.99

Print: £49.99For all Subscription offersand overseas prices, visitdisruptivemagazine.com/

subscriptions

For all advertisingenquiries, please contact

Jonathan Connelly+44 (0) 1727 891 035

[email protected]

All rights reserved. No part of thispublication may be reproduced

in any form, stored in a retrievalsystem or integrated into any

other publication, database orcommercial programme without

the express permission of thepublishers in writing. Under

no circumstances should thispublication and its contents besold, loaned out or used by way

of trade, or stored or transmittedas an electronic le without the

publishers written approval.

Graphic Design United Agency

www.unitedagency.co.uk

While 3D Printshow prides itselfon the quality of the information itspublications provide, the company

reserves the right not to be heldlegally responsible for any mistakes

or inaccuracies found within thetext of this publication. Disruptive

Magazine is an independentpublication and as such does not

necessarily reect the opinions ofmanufacturers or distributors of

the products contained within. Alltrademarks are acknowledged.

INDUSTRY LEADING3 D PRINTING

Ultimaker 3 D printers are the most reliable tool to bring

prototypes and functional models to life, in hours instead of

weeks. Coupled with industry-leading service they’re trusted

by professionals, educators and innovators worldwide.


4/28

3D PRINTING:

THE PERFECTLUXURY ENGINE?

INDUSTRY INSIDER

Kerry Stevenson

Additive technologies continue their slow and steady march into retail – bothin behind-the-scenes development and in some cases, 3D printing for direct

manufacture. Kerry Stevenson explores the ‘luxury’ retail market, asking: How do wedene ‘luxury’ and how viable is 3D printing in creating goods for this sector?

6 | Feature Article | Industry Insider | Kerry Stevenson

It’s time to talk about ‘luxury’ items and ‘3D print-ing’. I’d like to investigate how these two concepts fttogether - or don’t.

But frst, let’s look at a ew defnitions o “luxury”.

Dictionary.com A material object, service, etc, conducive to sumptu-ous living, usually a delicacy, elegance, or refnementof living rather than a necessity.

UrbanDictionary.com An indulgence, something that’s elegant, somethingthat’s very expensive and brings great ease andcomfort. Sumptuous living. Something rare and dif-fcult to obtain.

WikipediaIn economics, a luxury good is a good for whichdemand increases more than proportionally asincome rises, and is a contrast to a “necessity good”,for which demand increases proportionally less thanincome.

I think you’ll agree that a ter reading those defni -tions, there could indeed be a relationship between3D printing and the concept of ‘luxury items’. Let’stake a closer look: The Wikipedia defnition relates tothe price of an object, suggesting that higher priceditems might be considered ‘a luxury’ beyond the reachof most people. I think that while we might not agreeon the exact defnition, price is certainly a majorfactor in determining if an item is a luxury.



5/28


In the past, I’ve been involved in the analysis ofproduct pricing methodologies that may shed furtherlight on this question: When a product is produced, amanufacturer has to set a price for it. But how doesone do so? There are several approaches that could be considered:

Price by DemandThe price of the item could be set by customerdemand; raise the price progressively until thedemand matches the capacity for manufacturing it.The manufacturer gets the most revenue possible

from operating the factory. This doesn’t sound likea luxury item, as there will be plenty available, eventhough they might carry a higher-than-average price.

Price by CompetitionThe price of the item is set by comparing it to com-peting items from other manufacturers, typically ata slightly lower price to ensure there’s demand for it

rom discerning shoppers. This defnitely does notsound like a luxury item, as this approach almostguarantees a ‘race to the bottom’ scenario, turningthe item into a commodity-like product.

Price by ConvenienceThe price of the item is set by comparing it to thecost the customer would incur when producing itfor themselves. In other words, this is a ‘convenienceprice’, which provides the product for somewhat lessthan the customer could make it for him / herself. Thisis defnitely not a luxury item approach, because it’sapplicable only to items that can reasonably be made by most customers, like mowing a lawn, or fxing a broken doorknob - it’s a commodity pricing method.

The Price Sets The Price

What? Yes, the price itself sets the price. Imagine thefollowing scenario: an item of at least reasonable oreven high quality is produced, but the price is set veryhigh - unreasonably high. So high, that almost no onecan afford to purchase it.

The world is a very, very large place howeverand some people for whom money is not an issue will buy the item in spite of the high price. Why do theydo that? The reason is quite simple: it’s because theyare almost guaranteed that no one else they encoun-ter will also have one of these items. This is especiallytrue in fashion, where the goal is to be unique.


The price itself sets the price. The high price ensuresthat the item is rare. This is an EXCLUSIVE, luxurypricing approach.

In some cases, ‘luxury’ products are conjuredfrom almost nothing by vendors, the best example being airlines who make their standard product sohorrible that the decent service ‘becomes’ a luxuryitem by default.

Keep making the folks sitting in the back suffer,and at least a few of them will buy the more expensiveseats in the front. The airlines further make the ‘frontexperience’ as exclusive as possible, with special club

memberships, and minor benefts that actually costvery little for them to produce.So, my theory is that a high-priced item is a

luxury, not so much because of the price, but rather because of the exclusivity of ownership created by thehigh price.

Now let’s consider this theory against thetechnology of 3D printing. As I’ve written manytimes before, 3D printing has a number of severe con-straints, most often causing issues with typical man-ufacturing situations, but in the case of luxury items,they may actually turn into positives.

I’d say the relevant constraints of 3D printingtechnology are:

High Costs of ProductionThe cost of 3D printed objects is quite high, mainlydue to the cost of the underlying print material, but ifyou’re producing a luxury object, this factor is irrele-vant. You can easily price the fnal object ar higherthan the actual cost of producing it using 3D printingtechniques.

Long Print DurationsThe time required to produce a 3D printed objectis often quite long. In fact, it usually takes hours to3D print almost anything, particularly when fnedetail is required, which would likely be a necessityfor luxury items. While a very expensive produc-tion 3D printer could crank out perhaps a few thou-sand identical fst-sized objects per week, a typicalmass-production facility using injection molding, forexample, could produce literally millions of units inthe same time period. In other words, 3D printing hasa limited capacity to produce objects - but in the case

of a luxury item, that is NOT a constraint because youdon’t have to produce so many units. In fact, you wantto produce FEW units!

We must also consider the advantages of 3Dprinting as well. In the case of the mass-manufactur-ing example above, each item would be identical, atleast batch-by-batch. On the other hand, the few thou-sand items produced by the production 3D printercould easily be a series of entirely unique items. Theycould even be personalised to a specifc customer’sneeds or identity - this capability defnitely alls in theluxury zone.

Let’s talk a bit more about the customisationangle. If you happened to 3D print an object for aspecifc person (as I have quite o ten done) there is aparticular magic that occurs. It’s that moment whenthey frst see a physical object made exclusively orthem; they are always completely amazed and at -tered. Be it a 3D print of their face, body, a ring thatfts per ectly, a pendant with their dog on it, or even aplain old box with their name on it, it doesn’t matter, because all of those items are personal.

They are exclusive. They are luxury.

Even if produced on a basic 3D printer in a rathercrappy manner, the same reaction always occurs. It’san item of great value to the person, and only to thatperson (would you want to own a plain old box withsomeone else’s name on it? I didn’t think so!) Theability to customise the object is vital to producing aluxury item.

"...my theory is that a high-priced item is a luxury, notso much because of theprice, but rather because ofthe exclusivity of ownershipcreated by the high price."


6/28


(Top) 3D Printed Earrings in Geometric Clusters made of Stainless Steel: Formoddity

(Bottom) Fractal 3D printed model by nic022

Remember, there are only two ways to make money:1. Make a little from each of a huge number of sales2. Make a lot from a small number of sales.

Luxury items clearly fall in the latter category, andthat is precisely what the 3D printers of today can do.One manufacturer, 3D Systems, has explicitlyattempted to link their 3D printer, the Cube, to aluxury ashion brand, EKOCYCLE. Here, you can seea display of the printer and its accessories at Harrod’s

agship store in London. While the printer may nottruly be a luxury item itself, the idea is that it canPRODUCE luxury items. That’s true, but only i youhave an appropriate 3D design.

Certainly the design o the item is o criticalimportance in this scenario. You must have an objectthat is ultimately desirable beyond the fact that it iscustomised and personalised. A luxury item is notgoing to be a mere box with your name on it, unless


Blablabla par Eric Van Straaten

...And that is precisely what 3D printers were designedto do.

Imagine designing an attractive item thatincludes a customisable feature, perhaps the size,shape, ft or an identity can be adapted into it.Imagine then 3D printing it in fne detail on the mostexpensive 3D printer available, incurring the inevita- ble horrifc high cost o the 3D print materials used toproduce it.

Could you sell this item? Certainly, to theperson targeted for customisation. They’d pay a pricefor this item far, far higher than you would consider,simply because it is for them, and only for them. Notfor you! The price can be set far higher than the cost ofproduction, so each sale can be potentially proftable.The number of units produced does not have to belarge, because su fcient proft can be made on eachunit, unlike the mass production approach.


7/28


it is made of a very unique material like Moon Dustor something similar, and I’m not aware of any 3Dprinter vendor offering those types of materials, atleast recently, anyway.

However, it is quite possible to design very beauti ul items using today’s 3D CAD so tware tools, which are as powerful a s they have ever been inhistory. The capabilities of 3D design software, partic-ularly with automatic and programmatic generationof 3D features, are ready for a designer to tackle thecreative problem of developing luxury designs. All ittakes is imagination to transform an idea for an object

into a design, and from there it’s a simple matter of 3Dprinting the result.The idea of a luxury item is, in my opinion,

directly compatible with the technology of 3D print-ing and the production o luxury items fts quiteneatly into the envelope of 3D printing’s constraintsand capabilities, making it what I might call, the‘Perfect luxury engine’.

Please start making luxury designs!

Kerry Stevenson

A key focus for Kerry is the previouslyimpossible idea of replicating physicalobjects directly from digital data. In 2007Kerry created Fabbaloo now one of theinternet's oldest blogs exclusively dedicated3D printing, which follows developmentsand implications of replicationtechnology. @fabbaloo

will.i.am + Coca Cola = The Ekocycle 3D printer

Laser Lines LtdBeaumont Close, Banbury,Oxon OX16 1THTel: 01295 672500Email: [email protected]: www.3dprinting.co.uk

“You are in safe hands

”.

Laser Lines Ltd has been supplying 3D printing and production systems to the UK market for over 20 years .

Whether you need to build parts in plastic or metal we offer an impressive portfolio of 3D Printers and 3DProduction systems. The team at Laser Lines has amassed over 100 years of experience selling and

supporting the Stratasys range of systems and compliment this by offering the SLM Solutions selective lasermelting systems for metal parts.

“From Entry Level to Production Systems,we understand how difcult it is to

make a decision when buying a3D Printer. Perhaps

we can help you withthat rst step?”

01295 672500


8/28

COOKSONGOLDBUSINESS PROFILE

Rachel Park

Disruptive’s Rachel Park visited internationally renowned jewellery companyCooksongold to discover how additive technologies are bolstering tradition, and in some

cases providing an entirely new method for the creation of precious things…

14 | Feature Article | Cooksongold: Business Prole | Rachel Park

I’ll be honest, trips to Birmingham (England’s secondlargest city) do not o ten get me excited. Usually, the battle I have to do with the M6 and spaghetti junctionactually fll me with dread. However, i you do fndyourself in Birmingham, the jewellery quarter is, inmy opinion, the best part of the city to visit. Historyand all manner of jewellery outlets make it so.

In the heart of Birmingham’s jewellery sectorlies the production centre o Cooksongold. Part oa much larger group of companies, the Heimerle +Meule Group, (itsel part o the POSSEHL group),Cooksongold has evolved over its 100+ year historyinto a dominant force within the global jewellerysector, with a UK presence in both Birmingham andHatton Garden in London.

The central premise or all o Cooksongold’sactivities is the full spectrum of precious metals, which sees the company produce and supply preciousmetal products in every conceivable shape and size,together with equipment and services. I confess, whileI understood Cookson had a signifcant presence inthe jewellery sector prior to getting involved with 3Dprinting, I had no real idea of the scope, capacity andsheer scale of their operations.

My visit, therefore, was extremely valuableand contributed to a much greater understandingof the long history of the company and the contextthat saw it enter the 3D printing industry some fouryears ago.


Hosted by David Fletcher and Jill Murray, I was ableto garner insight into the breadth and depth of thisimpressive company… and it’s not every day that anexcess of £1million worth of precious metals passthrough your hands! It was an honour to be grantedaccess to their vault and to handle a wide range ofmaterials in di erent orms (sheet, wire, tubular) as we toured the facility.

I passed through numerous departmentshousing a variety o casting, stamping, die, CNC andatomization machines run by almost 200 staff on-site,many of whom took the time to speak with me abouttheir work and the processes they were executing.

Their machines ranged from new and old —the latter performing, according to David, as well asthey did 40/50/60 years ago. That’s the thing aboutthe jewellery sector — it’s as old as the hills. Some ofthe machines looked like they were too, but as Davidsaid, when they do the job they’re meant to do, are well serviced and safe to operate, why change them?These were a stark contrast to the main focus of myvisit — the Precious M 080, an additive manufactur-ing machine that is truly a product o the 21st Century.

Cooksongold’s partnership with EOS (theGerman manufacturer of plastic and metal lasersintering machines for many different industrialapplications) was initiated our years ago. At thistime, EOS was experiencing signifcant growth (thatcontinues today) and was looking to partner with an

Gold: Handle with care.


9/28

3D printed Jewellery by Lionel T Dean


tive manu acturing machine are the sur ace fnishand the minimal post processing now required.

The dramatically improved sur ace fnishcapabilities are courtesy of the material developmentthat Cooksongold has executed, which has resultedin a super-fne powdered material that is subjected tocontinuous and stringent quality procedures, together with a smaller spot laser. All of the powdered materialis produced in-house in Birmingham. The operating so twa re has also been refnedfor the M 080, which, combined with the platformand the materials development, allows David to

genuinely state that Cooksongold is not selling “amachine” rather, “we are selling a jewellery solutionthat includes the machine, the process and the mate-rials. It can be adopted with minimum fuss, because we sell a parameter that just works.”

However David was not reticent in talkingabout barriers to adoption that still exist, one ofthe most notable being ‘design for process.’ Davidcited receiving digital designs, submitted by poten-tial clients for the M 080 that have obviously beendesigned to be cast. “This misses the point com -pletely,” he said, “because, i it can be cast, thencast it!”

The primary beneft o AM or jewellery is the com -plexity it offers, but even here it’s not all straightfor- ward, because some complex parts cannot be fn -ished, or even polished if the geometry is unforgiving.Furthermore, just because you can print a part in onepiece, it doesn’t necessarily mean that you should.David cited the example of optional settings for a ringshaft. Any supports used on the M 080 have to be in18 carat gold, so, while the support structure materialcan be scrapped and refned, it adds signifcant overallcosts to the process to do so. Having seen frsthand what is involved in the scrap process (and the result -

ing bullion bar!) it’s not something to be taken lightly!Thus, Cooksongold is currently working onextensive Design Guidelines for producing parts onthe M 080 platform. This is largely about educatingclients to enable them to maximise the potential of theM 080, and to create parts that cannot be producedin any other way. For this endeavour, the companyhas engaged the talents of renowned designer JosephJackson.

Another application where the M 080 shinesis sophisticated watch housings. Traditionally, watch

rames have been CNC’d - so or a gold watch, this would be from a block of gold bullion. Thus about

organisation that o ered specifc metallurgy skillsand was able to supply precious metals. The starti ng point of this contractual relation-ship was with EOS’ existing direct metal laser sinter-ing (DMLS) process in the orm o the M280 system.The goal was always to produce in precious metals, but it became clear early on that this machine neededsome serious adaptation to function effectively andeconomically with precious metals.

One o the primary issues identifed wasaccountability of the materials. The M280 DMLSsystem was losing too much material, a factor thatcan possibly be overlooked with alumide or steel,depending on the application, but not with refnedgold, due to the economics involved. It was apparentthat a tailor-made system that wholly addressed thisissue would be required and the R&D process began.

The result is the Precious M 080 machine. Thissystem was frst introduced to the market a couple oyears back, however, a ter some delays, ( airly typicalfor standard machines in this industry, let alone thespecifcations o the M 080), the commercial releasetook place earlier this year.

This commercial release took place at BaselWorld in Switzerland in March, where a workingmachine was available or viewing on the show oor.

3D Printed ring by Lionel T Dean


The fully working machine, which has a price tag of220,000 / £160,000 has since returned to Switzerland(where all the biggest jewellery shows take place, itseems) or the EPHJ event in Geneva (with a spe -cifc ocus on watchmaking) and since then travelled

urther afeld to Hong Kong or the province’s huge jewellery and gem fair. The response, according to David, has beenphenomenal. He reported a higher-than-expectednumber of serious enquiries from the Swiss showsalone, with some big names among them, (which are,o course, completely o the record) and these arecurrently going through sample test phases. A coupleof M 080’s have also been purchased outright and arealready producing 18 carat gold parts in situ.

The frst client to take delivery o an M 080(wishing to remain anonymous) is based in Turkey, while the frst machine in the UK outside o Cook -songold itself is at Knights Fine Jewellery, a company based in Stratford-upon-Avon, that specialises in bespoke jewellery design & manufacture to createoriginal one-off pieces for clients. The signifcant improvement in materialaccountability on this platform is not the only featurethat makes it stand out, however. Two other key areas where the M 080 differentiates itself as a metal addi-


10/28


20-30% o the block would be used or the fnalproduct, and the greater proportion of the bullion would be scrapped. With the M 080, the economics

or gold watch production are ar superior (


11/28

I'm going to focus more on the electronics, hardware and physical design aspects of Open-Source, while using the history of our more-establishedOpen-Source software as a reference guide, to aidunderstanding.

The Open-Source Hardware Association(www.oshwa.org) has recently begun the process oestablishing a ormal Open-Source Hardware certif -cation process. This certifcation will help to defnethose products and companies that are contributingto Open-Source hardware innovation. In the currentscene, some clarity is defnitely required (as you mayhave discovered if you’ve previously explored Open-Source culture). The Internet and 3D printing have helped tomake hardware more like software. Physical designsand objects can be changed electronically, uploadedand distributed all around the world as easily as asoftware update. It may take a little longer to printout a design and upgrade your device, 3D printer, orappliance, but it's possible, it’s already happening andthe lines are become more blurred as time goes on. In simple terms, just because something isOpen-Source or being shared willingly and often without payment, it is still almost always not beingprovided as 'free for any use you wish'. This is a vitaldistinction to make with Open-Source designs andprojects. Almost all fles, designs, models and in or -mation will be provided with a license. This license

will defne what you (the user) can and can't do withthe information you have downloaded. Whenever you create or design anything, youare automatically protected by copyright. Whetherit's a photographic image, electronics design, artis-tic work or anything else, copyright usually has youcovered. You don't even need to display a CopyrightLogo © to be protected, but doing so normally indi-cates that you wish to specifcally highlight thisaspect.

Unfortunately, there isn’t a universal inter-national copyright law. Although copyright is nowmore commonly understood and globally respected,it's not something that will defnitely stop someonefrom taking your idea or product and just makingsomething similar. Determining whether some-thing breaks / infringes copyright is still an issue forlawyers to battle out, so while it's not always possible to protect yourself from misuse, you can apply alicense to better explain how you want to share thedesign, idea or body of work. Of course, if you want to keep the idea or designfor yourself, a patent can provide some extra protec-tion. Only certain things can be patented, and I wouldpersonally only recommend going down that route ifyou have the funds to defend a patent infringement(which usually costs several million dollars), so domake sure you actually have something worth pat-enting in the frst place.

DRIVEN BY

OPEN SOURCE

ON THE DESKTOP

Richard Horne

Open-Source hardware and software has driven both the development and successof the desktop 3D printing market in recent years. Along with a desire for making,

investigation, education and development, the entire Open-Source ecosystem supportsan ever-expanding skill set that people can use as a springboard for Open-Innovation.

DISRUPTIVEMAGAZINE.COM | Issue 5 | October 2015 | 2120 | Feature Article | On the Desktop | Richard Horne

The Open-Source hardware

association logo

In this feature, I will look in greater depth at some of the Open-Source hardware, technologies and software that continue tofuel the expanding desktop 3D printing sector... and before youmake a snap decision that it’s not for you, I would encouragereading further - I'm also going to explain Open-Source licensingterms so that you’ll know exactly what you can and can't do with the great wealth of models, designs and even 3D printingsystems being shared globally by thousands of users.

If you’re not familiar wi th Open-Source, or you’re unclear as to what you canor can't do with a model you have downloaded (or even a 3D printer you wantto build and sell!), this should provide plenty of background information andwill help to build your condence in what can be a slightly daunting eld.


12/28

The Open-Source Linux-based Raspberry Picomputer platform is another great example of asel -supporting and ourishing Open-Hardwarecontrol system used by millions around the world.The low-cost Raspberry Pi is often combined with a

great Open-Source software package, OctoPrint - aprogram created and supported by Gina Häußge.OctoPrint (www.octoprint.org) can be used as a hubfor connecting 3D printers across a network or via theinternet and allows remote control / monitoring of3D printers, along with a variety of other useful func-tions – many of which originated as suggestions fromthe 3D printing community.

Licensing 101Let’s look deeper into how licenses are applied andused for hardware projects and physical designs:

The RepRap Project (www.reprap.org)Originally created by Dr Adrian Bowyer at the Uni-versity of Bath in the UK, the RepRap project kickedoff a new wave of desktop 3D printing. Born from

Lego is a fne product example, a patented inven -tion that had a good 20+ years to exploit and build aglobal empire. They’re now the biggest toy companyin the world and yet anyone can make compatibleLego bricks. They just can't call them Lego. TheLego company is confdent enough in it's own brandidentity to survive and thrive even without the (nowexpired) original patents. 3D printing however is at an interesting point.It too has had 20+ years of patented 3D printingmethods. One could argue that due to the explosiono Open-Source innovation (which happened in 3D

printing directly a ter those early patents expired) it was nowhere near as well exploited as it could have been.

Nevertheless, some very large and well-es-tablished companies like Stratasys and 3DSystemsmanaged to grow, selling more than enough prod-ucts to industrial customers to make businessesall around the world curious about this wonderfultechnology. It seems that they just managed to keepit well enough under-the-radar to maximise marginsand continue expanding their vast patent portfolios, while not attracting the attentions o signifcantlylarger companies that could have gobbled it up all forthemselves. It'll be interesting to see where giants likeHP, with their MultiJet Fusion, will take the indus-trial 3D Printing sector and indeed which companies will survive for the next 20+ years, with or withoutpatents. Other well-establi shed companies looking to3D printing are starting to see the benefts o collab -orating with a community in an open way. In recentyears, Autodesk has been promoting the Spark software plat orm and Ember (a hardware re erence 3Dprinting plat orm) to help develop the next generationof stereo lithography. Although Autodesk is a software company, this is a very clever approach - by pro-moting a standard reference printing platform, theycan refne and develop more e ective 3D printingsoftware tools for users. For those of you who fancypeeking under the hood, Ember has been released asOpen-Source under the Creative Commons Attribu -tion-ShareAlike license.


The Autodesk Ember 3D printer - Open-Sourcehardware reference platform for Spark

Autodesk have continued to patent ideas and 3DPrinting hardware - most recently fling a patent or amany-channel multi-material mixing extruder designfor FDM based desktop machines. It's unclear what Autodesk w ill do with these sorts of patents - theycould be opened up to the development communitiesas another reference platform like Ember, or kept by Autodesk as IP to call upon in the future. Ember iscurrently like a Trojan Horse for Autodesk – madeavailable to further promote and develop the Sparksoftware platform, but who knows, maybe like Googleand many others, at some point in the future theycould become a hardware company too... In the hardware world, it's becoming easierto design and develop hardware devices, for bothindividuals and small teams and so in one way oranother, Open-Source hardware will continue to leadan alternative way forward, as it has for Open-Sourcesoftware in recent years.

Electronic component manufacturers haveseen how assisting with Open-Source can lead toa boom in sales (and the volume o parts beingshipped), while becoming the standard or peopleto use in years to come. Open-Source resources can be accessed to build anything rom a ying drone ormobile phone to a 3D printer and soon…. electric cars.

A recent hardware patent by Autodesk detailing a multi-channelextruder design for FDM based 3D printing technology

The highly popular and Open-Source 3D Printing web interface,OctoPrint by Gina Häußge. (www.octoprint.org)

"It'll be interestingto see where giantslike HP, with theirMultiJet Fusion, willtake the industrial3D Printing sector."


13/28

Most people are going to select a license with somelevel o rights reserved, rather than PD. CreativeCommons has six main licenses: they are easy to visu -ally understand once you’re familiar with the terms,

and their aim is to make identifcation easy or boththe author and user, doing away with the needs forlots of small print. Many creative people like to have a starti ngpoint or reference - it's the reason why Open-Source works so well. Broadly speaking, you will not fnd alarge collection of people all working on the samesingle project. More often, a project is released earlyor as a basic framework - usually just about working but not perfected.

People will then take that idea and fork it off.The term ‘forking’ is normally used with software, but it's just as applicable to models or hardware proj-ects. In recent years, the terms ‘derivative’ or ‘remix’are now generally used. If the new project and sub-sequent changes are also shared, the cycle can con-tinue, improving or evolving the idea or design, oftenspawning many more projects along similar lines.

The chain back to the original author isvery important though, and that's why all CreativeCommons Licenses have an attribution requirement.Ensuring that your work is displayed or passed on with the correct attribution is the reason that manypeople choose a license over just releasing as PD. Ifyou take one thing away from this article, please let it be the importance of attribution. The most accommodating and open licenseCreative Commons o ers is the CC-BY. This allowsanyone to distribute, remix or build upon your work,even commercially, in any way. The only requirementis that they credit you for the original creation 'BY' -attribution. This license provides the best chance forgetting your work into the hands of users all aroundthe world, making it the most likely to start a newproject 'standard' or go viral on the internet due to it'slow limits of restriction.


now-expired early FDM Patents, the project wasconceived from the very start to self-replicate. It wasacknowledged early on that controlling, protectingor restricting the source o the design fles would becounter-productive if the experiment of an evolvingpersonal fabrication machine was to succeed. The core of the RepRap project was original lyreleased under the Gnu General Public License.On the whole, this means that the fles are ree andanyone can use them, so long as they too release thesource for any changes / improvements they make /adapt for others to also reuse under the same license.

The Gnu Public License was designed aroundOpen-Source software, and although it can be usedfor hardware projects, it's not ideal. This is becausehardware projects have a physical presence that can be shown out of context from the original projector re-used without obvious acknowledgement to theoriginal author.

What is still a very new concept to many is the use ofa license agreement for physical models, designs andproducts. Almost everyone has at some point clicked‘Yes, I accept the license terms….’ for a downloadedsoftware package or new operating system, but thatsort o license is usually defning the terms o use,not the terms of re-use, manipulation, adaptation, orattribution.

Creative commonsMany people now choose to use the CreativeCommons License. This can cover many aspects o both hardware and software projects and also extendsto creative works. Full details about the licenses can be found at www.creativecommons.org/licenses/

GNU General Public License V3 - www.gnu.org

Creative Commons logo - www.creativecommons.org

You’ll probably run into Creative Commons Licenseoptions i you share a fle or download a 3D designfrom a model-sharing site. It's well worth understand-ing what these different licenses allow, so that you canmake an informed decision, knowing how you or yourcompany is allowed to use a printed object or designfles.

Levels of controlThe most sel ess way to release anything you design,make, or invent into the world is by releasing the work as Public Domain (PD). This e ectively waives

all your rights to copyright ownership, attribution asthe author or originator and allows anyone to use the work for anything they wish without any connectionto you.

As you can imagine, not everything put up onthe Internet is given so freely. We can see projects,software, books or artworks enter into the PublicDomain classifcation when copyright expires, whichcan be 70 years after the author dies. More often, wesee educational material, old software, games anddesigns submitted as Public Domain, usually whenthere is little further commercial gain to be had fromthem. There are a number of Public Domain iconsthat you can use, and Creative Commons also pro -vides a way to show that you intend the work to haveno rights reserved.

Other Public Domain logos are used to illustrate thatsomething has no known copyright - although thesetend to be very old works.

Creative Commons Public Domain logo

General Public Domain logo

P ub li c D om ai n l ic en se wi th no kn ow n c op yr ig ht lo go Ev en wh en yo u p ri nt ou t a 3D pr in te d o bj ec t a nd pu t i t o n d is pl ay,you must display attribution for the model, and if that work has an NC(non commercial) license, you cannot display it for any sort of promotionor activity that may be considered commercial without permissionfrom the original author.

The most open CC license after PD is the - CC-BY


14/28

When I see the No Derivative license being used for amachine upgrade, 3D printing extruder, or any otherusable 3D printable model, I sometimes fail to under-stand what the designer had in mind when selectingthat option. They are basically saying that this designis perfect and no one should change it. Or in other words, the design is already obsolete.

I say this, because someone will take the sameidea, design their own variant, release it under a lessrestrictive license and that design will become themore popular and talked-about version for peoplearound the world to build on. I have seen inventors and

designers get very upset about this, where someoneelse gets the 'credit' for distributing something theyhad already released under a No Derivative license.The beneft o allowing derivatives o your idea ordesign is that it grows, evolves and can even becomethe standard everyone uses, rather than ignores.

Timing The greyer aspects of competitive business and Open-Source include decisions like: When to release thesource? Many companies choose to design behindclosed doors, going dark for a while before releasing aproduct and then at some point after initial sales have been made, they release the hardware source fles,usually around the time the design starts to become'standard' for the community.

It's not always an ideal situation, but it can work, and allows users to eventually upgrade parts,improve the design or just see how things are puttogether. It’s worth bearing in mind – Open Sourceis not necessarily about every user wanting to view orchange the source fles, but more about the act thatthey’re available for the community to work on. A usermay not have the skills to improve the design them-selves, but will have signifcant confdence in the actthat a groundswell of several thousand more peoplemay improve on it or them, and they can beneft.

If however you improve on those designs, releasethem or submit your own designs back into the com-munity then, congratulations are in order - you haveprobably started on a collaborative effort with yourusers and the greater Open-Innovation community.Bear in mind it's not all black and white either - morelike f ty shades o grey, as many companies start-up by selling a 'standard' Open-Source design (i thelicense allows) to earn some initial capital to invest back into better designs or expanding the business.People get that - just be sure to give back if you arefeeding from a community in any way, either with

products or knowledge. No one likes to feel used.

No Derivatives is the most restricting of any license,making the object or design useless for anyone who wants to improve or build on the idea. In fairness, theNo Derivative license is often ideal for artists, sculp-tural modellers or anyone who is doing work that they want to be recognised for and is pleasing enough forpeople to enjoy or use.

An elegant vase or complicated sculpture canstill be shared with the world, but by using the NoDerivative license, the creator can ensure that thedesign is not modifed or altered and then re-uploadedas a derivative work. You can think of this as the artisthaving the ultimate say - they allow it to be sharedfor people to enjoy and in the case of 3D printing, forpersonal use, but they want the object to remain asthey designed it.

it into their product without releasing the design asOpen-Source, then the entire circle-of-trust breaksdown and the community will most likely no longer buy from, promote, or support that manufacturer.The license terms and Open-Source intellectual prop-erty aspect is more important than the actual idea ordesign. This is not just about personal principles, it's afundamental aspect of Open-Source. This is really the point where you need todecide if you are going to be happy sharing designsand ideas. If not, just keep them to yourself. Often theargument occurs when the original designer wants to

sell the object, and so they don't want people makingcopies. In that case, you can use a Non Commercial(NC) license. Allowing derivatives designs to bemade and shared by your own users can greatly buildyour brand value and the community of people whoactively want to engage with you and even help youto improve your own products. That's a win-win situ-ation and hopefully many people will start to see thatthey can even drop the Non Commercial aspect o thelicense. Community support or a product, supplieror manufacturer can create such a strong bond thateven when a lower cost alternative, copy or clone isreleased, enough people will continue to appreciatethe original source of innovation. You just need tostay on top of your relationships and work with thecommunity that you have built and who respect you. After all, if someone is going to copy you, they onlyneed to change a few minor things and they can getaround your NC aspect.

On that note, another aspect of Open-Source is toimprove or give back to the open community. If you(or your company) are only interested in taking Open-Source designs as-is, selling them on to make a proftfrom an individual or an entire community’s work,don't be surprised if that doesn’t go down too well with the very users you hope to connect with.


The one downside to this license is that people canrelease remixed work under a more restrictive license,and the original author may not like that their work is being built on, but then limited in subsequent release.For this reason, one o the most popular CreativeCommons licenses is the CC-BY-SA.

CC-BY-SA still requires attribution to the originalauthor, but it also requests that any remixed work based on the work is shared under the same license. Itcan still be used for commercial purposes. Wikipediauses this license to share all it's content.

Share and Share AlikeImagine if you will, a 3D printer manufacturer whosells machines and also provides upgrades of partdesigns (e.g. the extruder) to the community. A pro -portion o users (a signifcantly higher proportion incommunities like desktop 3D printing, drones, Rasp- berry Pi and other tech markets) will almost alwaystake these products and model upgrades to resolve

aws or issues they fnd when using the machines.They will then propose updates, redesign and releasethem or everyone else to beneft.

Years ago this became established as the norm with Open-Source software packages, where thecommunity was helping to build the ‘better’ softwarepackage they wanted from a baseline of what theyalready had. Now, as Open-Source hardware and 3Dprinting allows the adaptation of physical things, thesame is true. If the 3D printer manufacturer spottedthese design changes and started shipping upgradesto all their customers, that would be fne, creating agood symbiotic relationship: Open-Source fles have been provided by the manufacturer, adapted by thecommunity and the upgrades have been released back out, still being Open-Source. However, if that manufactur er decided to takethose modifcations (or even a completely di erent but compatible design) rom the community andeither attempted to patent the idea, or incorporate

CC-BY-SA License

CC-BY-NC License

The CC-BY-NC-ND License is the most restrictive. Work published underthis license is really for general reference, as you can't do all that muchelse with it aside from completely personal use.

CC-BY-ND License

The CC-BY-NC-SA License is often used by companies to releasework, not really wanting competitors to clone their designs. It doesstill allow derivatives, as long as you Share-Alike.


15/28

That starts to be a key decision point for users whendeciding which products (3D printers or example)they wish to buy. As we can see, community support becomes a powerful sales tool and in many fast-evolv-ing technical industries, a signifcant reason to chooseone product over another. Some companies release their source right atthe start, even during the development of the newproduct and even more engage with their customersand the wider community during the development. An ultimate extension to this is Open-Innovation with and for the very community they support. This

doesn’t have to be for free either – Open-Source com-panies pay for innovation, design work and advice just like any other. The beneft is a customer base whoactively sticks with and supports that manufactureror designer because they believe in the product andthe beneft it brings them.

Lulzbot and RepRap Pro Ltd. are two highlyOpen-Source 3D Printing companies who releaseeverything during the design stages. You can oftenfnd ideas and source fles up on GitHub or develop -ment sections of their websites before the product has been fnished, tested or released.

Arduino

The very heart of almost all desktop and RepRap 3Dprinters use an Arduino electronics control board.These fantastic modular control electronics are usedfor all sorts of hobby and educational projects - theyeven get used for industrial applications around the world. Arduino controllers are released as Open-Source hardware and software, licensed for use with the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alikelicense. This allows for both personal and commer-cial use, but you must share the fles in the same way Arduino does and also give credit attribution to Arduino with your designs or changes. The Arduino brand has a registered trademark.This does not o er any signifcant protection or theproduct IP. Instead, it's a very good way to identifyand build a brand for the original work or products. Arduino controllers do get cloned, and that's allowed within the terms of the license, even for commercialuse. But the one thing a cloned board can't do is callitself an Arduino or display the same marks on theelectronics printed circuit board. They can howeverclaim to be ‘Arduino Compatible’ and run the same Arduino software. Since 2005, Arduino has been the world'smost popular electronics control board. It's always been produced as Open-Source Hardware and hasa thriving community that supports the project andits creators. When the Arduino LLC company was setup, the development team continued to produce newhardware designs, while an agreement with a manu-facturing company called Smart Projects resulted inthe production of the different Arduino controllers.

Smart Projects would pay a royalty for eachcontrol board sold so that the Arduino LLC team couldprovide support via www.arduino.cc and run thedesign company, while also continuing development


Arduino control electronics are the most well knownand used in the electronics world.

The Open-Source Smoothie control board for 3D Printers and CNC machinery

of new hardware for Smart Projects to build. Thisrelationship worked perfectly for over ten years andthe Arduino name has become globally renowned.

Unfortunately, the last few years have seen theoriginal founders fall out with Smart Projects becausethey had secretly registered the Arduino trade mark inItaly without the knowledge of the Arduino company.Furthermore, Smart Projects changed their name to Arduino SRL and have produced a new website www.arduino.org, promoting themselves as the original Arduino.

They still manufacture in Italy, while the

Arduino LLC company, led by the co- ounderMassimo Banzi now uses Seedstudio based in Chinato manufacture for markets outside of the USA and Adafruit to manufacture for the US. It's all a bit of a

mess, splitting users who can buy the same or similar Arduino branded products rom two di erent (butoriginal) sources. How this will impact the world oOpen-Source Hardware has been a topic of heateddebate recently. Desktop 3D Printers continue to use basiclow-powered 8bit Arduino-based control electronics, but they are now fnally being superseded by muchmore powerful 32bit ARM-based platforms, capableof faster and smoother control of the more advanced3D printing systems heading to the market. One ofthe most signifcant o these new Open Source ARM-

based control systems has been the Smoothieboardhardware platform and Smoothieware softwaredesigned by Arthur Wol , Tri fd_Hunter, EneiouLogxen and many others in the RepRap community. www.smoothieware.org

"communitysupport becomes apowerful sales tooland in many fast-evolving technicalindustries, asignificant reason tochoose one productover another."


16/28


The Smoothie platform is highly capable of providing enough performance for even the mostdemanding 3D Printers and CNC machining systems. Although it's o ten di fcult to see what will become the next default platform, Smoothie is looking like the premier contender in the Open-Source arena for developers and manufacturers looking for machine and capability upgrades.

Smoothieware encourages you to use, adapt and even sell both hardware and control systemsto allow this plat orm to grow and to encourage worldwide adoption. I you make a signifcantupgrade or remix of the hardware design or software platform, Smoothieware.org will even eval-uate manu acturing it or you. It now has signifcantly higher chances o success than many o thecompeting Closed-Source plat orms.

The Open-Source Smoothie control board for 3D Printers and CNC machinery

Caption for this image to appaer here

The CreateitREAL electronics platform for 3D Printing

One such alternative plat orm choice or 3D printer manu acturers is by Create it REAL www.createitreal.com This is another next generation ARM-based 3D printing control system, but it'sdesigned to be integrated and confgured by Create it REAL or the specifc 3D printing manu ac -turers who wish to use it. The hardware, frmware and desktop so tware application are all propri -etary IP that's not shared as Open-Source. A small level of customisation with re-skinning the looko the user inter ace can be done by the end manu acturer, but that's as ar as Create it REAL godown the Open-Source route.


17/28

32 | Feature Article | On the Desktop | Richard Horne

Create it REAL are promoting a power ul plat orm standard,and wish to become the control system supplier of choice fordesktop 3D Printers. It is a single-sourced option - support andcontrol of the platform and future development is only going tohappen via the Create it REAL team. This has some risks, butalso has numerous benefts or any manu acturer that does not want to support the hardware running their 3D printer. Createit REAL have picked up various customers for their platform,and continue to show that there is room in the market for analternative 3D printing hardware control system.

Time will tell i closed plat orms (without the reedom toself-support and expand the platform via the established Open-

Source 3D Printing community) become the next worldwidestandard, or if Open-Source Hardware projects like Smoothiecan take over from the Arduino-based controllers that poweralmost all of the desktop 3D Printers in use today. This willprobably depend on just how ‘mainstream’ desktop 3D printing becomes, and also on how much the competition for features between 3D printing manufacturers heats up in the comingyears. It's still early days for Open-Source hardware, as every-one is trying to work out how best to build up companies, com-munities, standards and foster a healthy level of innovation andadoption with users and industry. Cash ow, growing pains andthe rapid changes in electronics both help and hinder the com-petitive landscape of companies that choose an Open-Source business model.

Many will fnd their own path, making decisions thatsome will be happy with and others not. Having an open natureand a circle-o -trust relationship with (and or) the communityare the more important aspects of a well-intentioned Open-Source business model. Indeed, it’s probably more importantthan how much you charge for your products and services.If you bring value, people will respond to that and in turn,innovate with you and for you, openly, and with passion andgreat gusto.

Richard Horne

Richard Horne is well known in the 3Dprinting community as RichRap. Rich is ahighly passionate advocate of 3D printingfor all uses in industry, education and thedesktop. Since joining the open-sourcemaker movement and then the RepRapproject in 2009, Rich has been blogging,developing and sharing ideas for the greaterglobal interest in 3D printing.

DISRUPTIVEMAGAZINE.COM

SUBSCRIBE &#GETDISRUPTIVE

• Industry Insight • Expert Market Analysis • Exclusive 3D Printing Feature Articles

Disruptive Magazine@DisruptiveMag

Disruptive Magazine#getdisruptive

disruptivemagazine.com/[email protected]


18/28

FEATURE ARTICLE

Rachel Park

MULTI-MATERIAL ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING

34 | Feature Article | A Paradigm Shift | Rachel Park

Many experts assert that the materials we print with hold the key to unlockingthe immense potential of additive technologies. Exploring one of the greatest leapsthat has occurred in this ecosystem, Rachel Park charts the emergence ofMulti-material printing and looks toward it’s exciting future...

A prosthetic arm concept made specially for the exhibition by RichardHague, Director of Research, with students Mary Amos, Matt Cardell-Williamsand Scott Wimhurst at the Additive Manufacturing & 3D Printing ResearchGroup, The University of Nottingham. Image credit: Science Museum

Introduction Materials have long been identifed as one o theprimary limitations o additive manu acturing (AM).From the very outset, when only very specifc photo -polymers could be ‘printed’, right up to the present,this complaint still stands. Today, the range of AMprocesses (and the spectrum o materials that eachcan process) provide ar more options than couldhave been imagined by the frst inventors o additivetechnologies. However, compare that choice againstthe material pallet that can be used with injectionmoulding and it still seems very limited indeed.

One o the more recent (and exciting) devel -opments on the materials front for AM is the emer-gence of ‘multi-material’ processes, which involveusing more than one material to print a part duringa single build. It’s worth noting - multi-material 3Dprinting is often misconstrued as a generic processthat can utilise any materials in any combination.This is far from the current state of play, wherein thenumber and types of materials that can be utilised formulti-material 3D printing is still very restricted.

Indeed, very few of the established 3D print-ing / additive manufacturing processes can producemulti-material parts. Only the jetting-type processesand, arguably, the flament deposition processesare capable o utilising multiple (i.e. more than one)

materials. There is of course a great deal of researchunderway that points to future developments, butthese options are still far from commercialisation. Within currently available technologies, it’simportant to differentiate between the multi-material / multi-colour 3D printing achieved through deposi-tion processes and the functionality achieved whencombining different materials during the jettingprocess, as frst developed by Objet (now Stratasys).

Multi-material deposition can be achieved byftting additional extruders to a desktop flament 3Dprinter. Although it’s a simple yet effective way of

combining different materials within a single print,it does not mix the materials, which is an import-ant differentiator. Utilising inkjet technology, the jetting process mixes liquid resins during the print-ing process to produce multiple materials within thespectrum of the base materials.

Historical Perspective The frst emergence o multi-material 3D printingcame in 2007 when Objet, (then independent o Strata -sys), introduced its Connex technology, together withthe concept o ‘Digital Materials.’ The Connex plat -form utilises the company’s PolyJet process, which is based on inkjet techniques. This was key to the uniqueo ering o the Connex500 back in 2007, specifcally


A PARADIGM SHIFT:


19/28


that the platform was able to jet two of its proprietary base materials at the same time and mix them ‘on the

y’ to compose up to 14 di erent composite materials with a range of properties and characteristics — all within one 3D printed part. Thus, it became possible to jet a rigid and rubber-like material together to produce a part composedof different materials with variable properties. Thisnew premise o ered unprecedented exibility thatallowed the production of prototypes with the look,

eel and unction o the end products (even complexassembled products) with a single process. The

primary aim was to offer a serious and competitivealternative to the overmolding process, where twoor more materials are seamlessly combined within asingle part via an expensive and lengthy multi-stepprocess.

Since the original Connex plat orm waslaunched in 2007, and post Objet’s merger withStratasys in 2013, the company has afforded a greatdeal of research and development in this area. Today,improved Connex plat orms and so tware (that canprint rom three base materials) accommodate inexcess of 100 digital materials, which include opaque,clear transparent, biocompatible, rubber-like and ABS-like materials.

It should also be noted that Stratasys is not theonly company that offers this process today. Since2013, 3D Systems also offers a MultiJet Printing(MJP) plat orm that uses together exible and rigidmaterial composites.

Without doubt, these jetting options for3D printing are extraordinary and have extendedthe applications of the technology tremendously.However, the range of materials still falls short of what is achievable with other prototyping and man-ufacturing methods.

On the HorizonThere is a great deal of research and developmenttaking place today to further the discipline of 3Dprinting multiple materials. The visibility on thesedevelopments is hazy, to say the least, but some of themost notable are coming from both academic institu-tions and new commercial operations and are startingto lift the lid on what will be possible.

MultiFabJust a ew weeks ago, researchers rom MIT’s Com -puter Science and Artifcial Intelligence Laboratory

(CSAIL) unveiled a new experimental 3D printer, which, they claim, can print with 10 different materi-als at the same time. Dubbed ‘MultiFab’ the premiseof this platform is the development of a more accu-rate, economic and user-friendly multi-materialmachine — with signifcantly more material optionsthan commercially available platforms.

According to the CSAIL team, they builtthe MultiFab platform using low-cost components,including the inkjet technology, which can print ata resolution o 40 microns (compared with the Con -nex’s 16 microns), with the ability to directly embedcomponents such as circuits and sensors during theprinting process. Another interesting proposition ofthe MultiFab machine is the inclusion of 3D scanningtechniques that enable the hardware to self-calibrateand also to detect and feed back errors for each layeras it is laid down. To date, the team reports that theMulitFab plat orm has produced some specifc prod -ucts, including LED lenses, but the vision is for newapplications with electronics, micro-sensing, medicalimaging and robotics.

Voxel8Founded by Dr. Jenni er A. Lewis, (Wyss Pro essoro Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard),Voxel8 is a commercial operation which is a spin out

rom Harvard University. At CES in January 2015, thecompany introduced its multi-material electronics 3Dprinter and subsequently secured funding for tech-nology development rom In-Q-Tel (IQT), a not- or-proft, strategic investment frm.

The initial Voxel8 plat orm, which utilises thedeposition process, purports to allow users to printcircuits and electronic devices with conductive silverink on a desktop machine concurrently with typicalThe Voxel8 Multi-Material 3D Printer


thermoplastic 3D printing materials. More recently,however, the lady behind Voxel8 has revealed urtherdevelopments with her research team - namely theproduction of a different kind of printhead for thedeposition process that allows for the active mixingof materials during extrusion.

The key word here is ‘active’ and is very dif-ferent to the use of multiple extruders for ‘passive’mixing during the printing process. This new devel-opment permits concentrated viscoelastic inks to bemixed prior to deposition by virtue of a rotationalimpeller that sits within the nozzle of the extruder, where the materials are combined. The researcherspoint to a wide range of new applications that would beneft rom this development, including exible elec -tronics, wearable devices, soft robotics, and embed-ded electrical circuitry.

It’s important to note that this is still in theexperimental stages, but it’s an exciting developmentand is indicative of many other research initiativesthat are considering new ‘inks’ for 3D printing andadditive manufacturing.

Indeed, this year ‘ink’ has emerged as a notice-able epithet within the vernacular of the research fra-ternity in this sector. While ‘materials’ obviously still

eatures heavily, the advent o inks (specifcally as thekey to unlocking multi-material unctionality) pointsto a change in emphasis for future developments.

Further Down the LineThere is a great deal of funded research taking placearound the world regarding multi-materials for AM.In the UK, the Additive Manufacturing and 3DPrinting Research Group at Nottingham University,led by Professor Richard Hague has a strong team ofresearchers focused on new materials. This group, both standalone and in collaborative efforts withother institutions, is certainly making headway inthis area with a number of live projects that seek toprove, and indeed improve, multi-material jettingtechniques with engineering and functional materials

by way of reactive inks for in-situ polymerization. There is also a great deal going on withresearch into metallic inks in the UK, specifcallyinvestigating how to optimise them in terms ofconductivity and printability for electronics. Theresearch of Dr Kate Black at the University of Liv-erpool places a notable emphasis on inkjet printingR&D, where she is working with Reactive Organome-tallic (ROM) inks and producing results that point toa future where printed electronics will extend beyondcircuits and two dimensions. Similarly, Wayne Hayes(University o Reading) is leading a research projectthat is considering self-assembling hybrid jetting inksfor regenerative medicine.

Also of note is the work of James Dowden(University o Nottingham) and Ezra Feilden-Irving(Imperial College London), ocused on smart photore -active materials or AM. Having identifed a commonproblem with automated deposition (which requiresink particles to be uid or printing, but also havethe ability to stick in order to retain printed shapethrough processing) the proposal o this research is todevelop ink particle coatings that are initially repul-sive (charged) but become adherent upon photolysis.I.e: to create ‘smart photoreactive inks.’

Moving away from the UK and inks, toGermany, another hotbed o AM research, the Collab -orative Research Centre 814 – Additive manu actur -ing (SFB 814) at FAU is exploring multi-material addi -tive manufacturing with powdered materials. Theproject, which was initiated back in 2011, has recently just been granted a further 10 million Euros fromthe German Research Foundation (DFG) to continuethis research until 2019. The FAU research group isled by Pro . Dr. Dietmar Drummer, Chair o PolymerTechnology, heading up a 35-strong team drawn from

The CSAIL Multifab - a platform created using low-cost components thatpromises game-changing capabilities, including the ability to embedcomponents and hardware self-calibration.

'...the advent of inks

(specifically as the key tounlocking multi-materialfunctionality) points to achange in emphasis forfuture developments...'


20/28

a range of disciplines including mechanical engineer-ing, materials science, chemical and biological engi-neering and mathematics.

Herein lies the key to successful progress withmutli-material AM - it’s not just about the materialsthemselves. Simultaneous developments have to takeplace within hardware and software to drive theprocesses. This holistic approach is neither a quick,simple or cheap endeavour and while some people bemoan the lengthy activities of academic research,they are the established foundation of progress.Furthermore, the transition from laboratory to pro-

duction line will likely take years rather than monthsduring the prove-out.Indeed, while developments within materials

and hardware have been heralded as bringing themajor breakthroughs to date, the limiting factor hasproved to be… software. Fabbaloo’s Kerry Stevenson,in particular, has made this timely observation: “Consider the case o Stratasys’ Connex so t - ware: to use different materials, you must - in yourmonomaterial CAD so tware - segment your objectinto several pieces. Then, in the Connex driver so t - ware you painstakingly a ssign a material to eachsegment. While this works, it’s practically restrictedto relatively simple uses of multiple materials. In thecase of dual or triple plastic extruder technologies,the options are similarly awkward.” Kerry attributes this scenario to the lownumber of multi-material machines and cites lack


o (commercial) motivation to develop the highlycomplex modelling software required to designmulti-material objects. The solution posed is a stan-dard fle ormat, which remains an elusive goal. Evendespite the emergence of the new 3MF format, whichdoes propose options or defning materials, very

ew CAD programs and even ewer 3D printers arealigned with this format to date.

The next stepThe ability to additively manufacture parts with mul-tiple materials does exist today (thanks, in large partto the process commercialised by Stratasys) and assuch, is providing unprecedented opportunities. Thecurrent state of play sees an extended, but still limitedspectrum of plastics and metals available for AM plat-forms, with ceramics just starting to make a break-through. In many cases, these material options stillneed to be optimised, and, more critically, increasedthrough the ability to combine them.

Looking to the future, this is just a baby steptowards what will be possible. We are just starting toglimpse embryonic evidence that points to the truepotential of additively manufacturing multiple mate-rials. As ever, ideas (as well as many opinions) come well ahead of real research and development and inturn, commercial reality.

Be in no doubt though, it is happening, and as with any nascent technology it does not happen over-night, no matter how much we wish it would.

Rachel is a passionate advocateof 3D printing technologies and theindustry that has sprung up aroundit. However, as the hype and hyperbolehas gathered momentum, her aim isalways to offer a reasoned voice inthe midst of inated expectationsand to cut through the noise in orderto provide a realistic outlookof how things are.

Rachel Park

The 3MF format - a strong proposition that needs more adoption in orderto full it's full potential.

Disruptive Offer: Order your Pro now and get spools of lament for free

Go to www felixprinters com⁄disruptive to order now

Professional D printing easier than ever


21/28

40 | Feature Article | 3D Printing & The Creative Industries | Faith Robinson

T h e

W h i t e R a b

b i t b y

D a n n y v a n

R y s w y k : 3

D P r i n

t e d a r

t t h a t r e t a i n s

s t r o n g e l e m e n

t s o f

t r a d

i t i o n a l s c u

l p t u r e

. B u t w

h a t v a l u e a r e w e p l a c

i n g

o n c o n t e m p o r a r y

d i g i

t a l c r e a t

i o n s ?

ADDITIVE MANUFACFOR A CONTEMPORA

ART MARKET

3D PRINTING & THE CREATIVE INDUSTRIES

Faith Robinson

Artefacts and art objects retain value through a number of different traits -from cutural and emotional, right through to socio-political. Contemporary

sculpture in particular offers a platform for 3D printing, but how are art audiencesreceiving and perceiving works produced via additive manufacturing?


As a term, ‘Digital Art ’ should be used with caution.While it’s true that categorisation within contempo-rary Art History (as well as the Art Market, to someextent) is notoriously di fcult, it is use ul to set somekind o defnition be ore taking a closer look at anydigital work’s tendencies.

With this in mind, I am proposing ‘Digital Art’as work that fundamentally uses computers as part ofthe creative process. It is a suggestion broad enoughto encompass the Internet and data revolution thatdisrupted contemporary art making a few decadesago, while also critically allowing or the 3D CADdependent work of present-day artists who are boldlydeveloping their practice via 3D printing.

It is immediately evident just how complicateddiscourse within this area can be. Although manypeople attribute such confusion to the modern tech-nologies at play within Digital Art practice, there is agreat deal of history behind the aesthetic drive of newmedia artists.

The 1960s hosted an important moment inthe development of contemporary sculpture, during which work began to restructure itself via a kind of

‘dematerialised’ approach to what the art object was.This meant that or the frst time, artists turned toindustrial manufacturing techniques to produce their work, a move dismissed by much of the arts commu-nity as radical. Although their motives differed fromthe contemporary artists I’ll go on to mention, theemployment o modern technology to create (Digital)art remains as a shared methodology of the artists,then and now.

Thus, I believe that contemporary artistsshould be recognised for continuing a tradition byutilising additive manufacturing - a tradition that hascome to retain extremely high levels o (both culturaland monetary) value in the ever-maturing collectionsof art dealers and museum acquisitions departmentsaround the world.

But despite this, what is the status of 3Dprinted work within a contemporary art space today,and can these re-printable works ever attain the artmarket respect that they arguably deserve? Objects hold use, and in some cases, the use ofan object prescribes value. While the idea of ‘using’ apiece of art seems a little strange, it is true that even


22/28


a sculpture has a purpose — and that purpose differsfrom a designed object like a gun, for instance. Suchis the difference between an artwork and an artefact,yet despite such dissimilarity, both kinds of object can be held together in cultural collections worldwide.

The Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A), the worlds oldest museum of design, holds pride of placein the heart of London’s cultural district. Back in 2013,the institution made headlines by acquiring three3D printed prototype ‘Liberator’ guns (and the CADfles): a model, which was developed and success ullyfred by Texan law student Cody Wilson earlier that

year. The documented acquisition and exhibitionexperience o this piece rom the V&A’s Curator oDigital Design, Louise Shannon, illustrates not onlythe di fcult nature o the object itsel , but also thecultural signifcance that it retains: “The complex process of our acquisition of the gun has transcended the desig n of the gun itself, and tome has proven the Liberator to be a transformationalmoment in the recent history of manufacturing anddesign.” (‘3D Printing an Empty Space in the Law’,Louise Shannon, 2014) From import licensing issues through to thecon icting defnitions o a frearm between govern -ments, the challenges involved in displaying TheLiberator at the V&A only served to develop thefascinating narrative already held by this 3D printedobject from conception to application. It is not simplyabout the design of this weapon; what heightens theobject is the value that it’s history represents – andnew work exploring this history is already being pro-duced through contemporary sculpture like AddieWagenknecht’s ‘Liberator Rounds’. Pieces of art can also grow to develop import-ant positions within cultural histories, but gener-ally, they carry (in addition) a very di erent kind omeaning. It’s a value that i s somehow able to transcendthe everyday world of items and objects by accessing ahigher realm of spiritual / emotional / special cause –and this drives people not only to develop a personalconnection with that piece of art, but also to part witha lot of money to own it.

The British art market alone is a multi-billionpound industry, and despite the traditional stereotypeo the refned art dealer and the old- ashioned auctionhouse, Modern & Contemporary Art sales generatestrong numbers in support of this high-spend area

of business. Broadly speaking, works that are olderretain more history, which makes them a muchmore expensive purchase. Even so, younger pieces ofdigital / new media art are slowly gaining recognition by wise collectors as worthy investments, and recentevents to support digital art sales have further devel-oped dialogues in this area of the arts world.

Taking place physically in New York (2013) andLondon (2014), Paddles ON! is an inspiring collectiveof individuals, institutions and companies who aresupporting the sale of contemporary work, includinga small number of 3D printed pieces:

“PADDLES ON! is an exhibition and auctionthat brings together artists who are using digital tech-nologies to establish the next generation of contempo-rary art. Curated by Lindsay Howard and presentedin collaboration with Tumblr, this [London edition]collection is the second digital art auction at Phillips,in recognition of the increasing viability of this work inthe contemporary art marketplace.” (‘About Us’ PaddlesON! Tumblr page, 2013) Such a series o (hope ul ly on-going) eventsis proving that digital art is not just about the inter-net; it’s about producing something that manages todevelop the artist’s practice in an exhibition context, which is also desirable enough for a collector topurchase. “It's critically important for auction housesto embrace technology and understand the impactof what is, essentially, the digital transformation ofthe art world”, writes Megan Newcome, Director ofDigital Strategy and Paddles ON! Auction Organiserat Phillips. “Traditional, commercial art world modesof exchange are now being challenged by the globalnetworks - decentralized distribution, new forms ofownership, even new currencies” – a nd this, alongsidenew tech, is allowing the creation of elegant newmanifestations of the ‘digital object’ in an art worldcontext. The twenty-three available lots at London’sPaddles ON! auction included digital paintings, inkjetand silkscreen prints, and moving image - alongside3D printed pieces by two artists: Sophie Kahn and Yuri Pattison.

A small collection of silver, stainless steeland titanium 3D prints comprises Chelyabinsk eBayextrusions, 2013 by Pattison. The work representssculptural pieces o the abled Chelyabnisk Meteor, which have been reverse-engineered and 3D printed by sourcing online images of the found fragments


Chelyabinsk eBay extrusions (2013)3D printed .925 silver, 316L stainless steel, titanium.Dimensions variable.Courtesy of Yuri Pattison & Mother's Tankstation, Dublin.

Période des Attitudes Passionelles: 3D print from laser scan onaluminium base. (1 of 5) Dimensions variable - Figure: 39 x 31 x 13 cm;overall: 46 x 31 x 17 cm. Courtesy of Sophie Kahn.

available on eBay, collected by the artist, who stated:“I was interested in the displays of authenticity withinthese eBay listings as the ultimate ridiculous example oftraditional culture fetishising the 'original' object”.

Sophie Kahn’s Période des Attitudes Passio-nelles, 2014 extends her artistic practice by alludingto “The impossibility of ever capturing more than a traceof the past, or of a living, breathing body, despite our grandest e or ts to fx it in place”. This, her stunninglysculptural self-portrait, employs 3D scanning and 3Dprinting to contrast digital and analogue through aninsightful, fragmented aesthetic. It’s clear that despitesharing a medium for production, these works explorevery different themes. Despite the beauty of both pieces, these worksface a number of fascinating challenges – in particu-lar, the issue of how easily 3D printed sculptures can be reprinted. To a buyer, this is an exceedingly criticalpoint: if the original of the work exists immateriallyas an Stl fle, the value o the 3D printed sculpture isimmediately compromised.


23/28

To learn more about this process, I returned to thepractice of Nick Ervink: a Belgian artist whose suc-cessful use of additively manufactured sculpturalpieces has given him a global reputation as a leaderin the feld.

Heleen Sabbe, the Managing Assistant atStudio Nick Ervinck enlightened me with some detailsof print editions, which I was not surprised to hearare very limited. Of a particular work, between threeand eight prints are produced – a ter which (under nocircumstances) can more be made. Due to cost, largesculptures are not all made at one time, which meansthat interestingly, frst editions o ten sell at a cheaperprice than later 3D print editions of the same artwork.

Finally, 3D prints are worked on further in thestudio post print: “We paint them by hand or apply alacquer to make them really glossy; this makes the sculp-tures different from a print directly from the machine.”

Together, all of these details legitimise thepurchase power of the artwork. However, until theprocesses involved in 3D printing a sculpture aremore commonly understood, it may be di fcult orcollectors to see past the idea o a simple “Press print”approach which, in this context, threatens the appeal(and market value) o additively manu actured art. Regardless of the era in which art is made, itis rare for a piece of work to explore the material orprocess through which it is produced. Artists maketheir art to express an ongoing theme in their prac-tice and although there is work that is concerned withthe particular way in which it is made, there are fewartists using 3D printing who specifcally make artabout 3D printing.

Work by Kahn, Pattison and Ervinck all exploreextremely different ideas, and each uses additivemanufacturing as an extension of their Digital Artpractice. In her supporting essay, Paddles ON! curatorLindsay Howard summarises the collection of the

auction’s contributing artworks in a few beautifullysuccinct phrases. ‘Experience is now thoroughlyin uenced by digital technologies’ she writes, goingon to claim that ‘digital art serves as a true re ectionof this contemporary age’.

The interpretation of culture by artists is rec-ognised not only in the subject matter of their work, but a lso in the process that brings it to be. Manysectors within the 3D printing industry recognisethat there is still a long way to go for artists and buyersalike to fully understand the long-term implicationsof 3D printed collectibles.

Maintenance of the materials used is justone of many potential factors that could affect theinvestment potential of a piece of art, and for such ayoung technology, there may be all manner o (as yet)un oreseen di fculties acing the uture o this nichemarket. As additive manufactur e continues to develop,disrupt and become relevant to more and more busi-nesses worldwide, it is almost certain that its effect within the arts industry will be felt as well. My hope isthat we’ll be seeing 3D printed artworks within moreprivate and public art collections in the years to come– perhaps in sync with an international growth in theadoption of the technology.

‘Experience isnow thoroughlyinfluenced by digitaltechnologies... digitalart serves as a truereflection of this

contemporary age’.


Faith Robinson

With an academic background in Historyof Art, Faith Robinson is the ConferenceManager at 3D Printshow. She lovesaesthetics, and alongside writing, Faithmaintains a long-term dedication to thecreative industries and the aspects ofdigital humanities involved.

Stand out from the pack withtoday and become one of oEuropean Airwolf 3D resel

Hawk 3D Proto is part of Cutwel Limited, a leadingUK supplier of engineering cutting tools, work holdingsystems, metrology and much more! www.cutwel.co.uk

THE WOLFPACKIS EXPANDING

/hawk3dproto

@hawk3dproto

www.hawk3dproto.co.uk

[email protected]

01924 869 610


24/28

ARTI ST PROFILE

Dave Marks

Threading science, art, and technology, Shane Hope uses open-source nanomoleculardesign software to create and manipulate molecular models, which he assemblesby the thousands into painterly 3-D prints. Equal parts scientic and fantastical,organic and digital, Hope’s holographic creations hint at the innite possibilities

of genetics and molecular physics, as well as the notion of “hacking matter.” As hehas said: “The ability to assemble things from-the-molecule-up could give rise to

borderline costless systems for controlling the structure of matter itself.”

46 | Feature Article

Disruptive Magazine Issue5

Documents

Transcript of Disruptive Magazine Issue5