CNC Archives - Perfect 3D Printing Filament

Making a robot to carve photo real pumpkins #ElectronicHalloween

Stuff Made Here makes some of the whackiest over-engineered projects on the tube. Its exciting to see how much thought and work they put into less serious projects. Have you carved your pumpkins yet? Via YouTube

I’ve been wondering if I could turn my haircut robot into a pumpkin carving robot. Cutting hair and carving pumpkins isn’t really that different if you think about it – both cut stuff off a roughly pumpkin sized spheroid. In this video I do just that and carve some pretty amazing pumpkins with it. This was a bit of a sprint to get done – I can’t wait until next year to make even more insane pumpkins with it!

See more!

HAPPY HALLOWEEN! Every day this month we’ll be bringing you ideas and projects for an Electronic Halloween! Expect wearables, hacks & mods, costumes and more here on the Adafruit blog! Working on a project for Halloween this year? Share it with us in the comments below, the Adafruit forums, Facebook, Discord, Instagram or Twitter— we’d love to see what you’re up to and share it with the world (tag your posts #ElectronicHalloween). You can also send us a blog tip! Tune in to our live shows, 3D hangouts with Noe and Pedro, Show and Tell and Ask an Engineer, featuring ideas for projects, costumes, decorations, and more!

How Rapid Prototyping Has Revolutionized Product Development

From demonstrating proof of concept to testing the viability of a new part, prototypes are an essential part of the design process. Advancements in rapid prototyping technology, including processes like CNC machining and SLS rapid prototyping, have completely revolutionized the way that engineers review, test, and display their final designs.

What is rapid prototyping?

Rapid prototyping refers to a variety of computer-aided manufacturing processes that are capable of replicating parts from digital models. These processes are highly accurate and take far less time than traditional manufacturing methods.

Many engineers automatically associate rapid prototyping with additive manufacturing processes like 3D printing. Parts made with additive manufacturing are created by layering plastic, resin, or other materials in the shape of the final product. Some post-processing may be required to remove support structures and achieve the desired finish.

Rapid prototyping can also be accomplished with subtractive manufacturing. Subtractive processes like CNC machining create parts by removing layers from a block of metal, wood, or resin. Sheet metal prototyping can also be used to bend or cut metal into the desired shape based on computer-provided specifications.

In general, additive processes like SLA or SLS rapid prototyping are used to create complicated designs and low-cost visual models. Subtractive processes like CNC rapid prototyping are used for durable end-use parts or detailed models with high manufacturing tolerances.

Why traditional manufacturing isn’t enough

Prototyping is an essential part of the design process, but it hasn’t always been economically viable for most design teams. Creating a prototype with traditional manufacturing methods is often incredibly expensive and takes too long for an efficient design cycle.

The main problem is that most traditional manufacturing processes like injection molding require custom molds, tools, and other starting equipment. These non-recurring costs are negligible for large print runs, but they become prohibitively expensive for single prototypes.

As a result, many engineers were reduced to creating custom prototypes by hand or paying high up-front costs to a manufacturing specialist. Design teams were faced with the choice of either paying for an expensive prototype or sending a design to production without proper testing.

Luckily, rapid prototyping has none of the problems that come with traditional manufacturing. Processes like CNC machining and SLS rapid prototyping have no start-up costs, can be completed in short time frames, and allow engineers to create an exact replica of their original design.

Efficient and affordable production

When the first rapid manufacturing methods were developed, engineers immediately saw the potential for prototyping and design. Thanks to computer-aided technology, even a standard CNC turning service could now be used to create perfect replicas without the costs typically associated with traditional manufacturing.

All rapid prototyping services share the same feature of low start-up costs and a standardized price per unit. Because no custom molds or equipment are required, the per-unit price remains nearly identical for all levels of production. This makes it viable to order one, five, fifty, or a hundred parts on an as-needed basis.

Rapid prototyping lets engineers order scale models of their designs with incredibly short lead times. Depending on the rapid prototyping service, finished parts could be delivered within less than one week. Online manufacturing platforms streamline the process even further by introducing instant quote generation and an accessible online portal where engineers can track and manage existing orders.

With low costs and short lead times, it’s no surprise that many engineers have added rapid prototyping as a standard part of their design process. Design teams can compare visual models, test different materials, and create a perfect version of their product for final manufacturing.

Common applications for rapid prototyping

Services like 3D printing and CNC rapid prototyping are widely used by both individual and corporate design teams. Rapid prototypes are often used throughout the entire design process to help engineers create accurate parts and avoid costly changes during actual production.

Conceptual models: One of the most popular uses of rapid prototyping is to create proof-of-concept models during the early stages of the design process. These models are used to communicate ideas and demonstrate project viability to interested parties. Thanks to the speed and efficiency of processes like SLS rapid prototyping, engineers can rely on these models to be available early in the design cycle.
Functional prototypes: The parts made with SLS and CNC rapid prototyping are as durable and functional as parts made with traditional manufacturing. Depending on the process, the part will often look and feel exactly the same as the consumer-ready product. This means that engineers can make changes to the prototype and trust that they will reflect accurately on the final design.
Pre-production design: Some prototypes show that a design is ready, while others highlight obvious flaws and areas that need additional work. The main benefit of rapid prototyping is that it allows engineers to go through an iterative design process. As soon as a change is made, the design team can order a new prototype and expect to receive it within a viable timeframe.

From 3D printing to sheet metal prototyping, rapid manufacturing can be used to create highly accurate models of nearly any design. Test the possibilities and compare material options by uploading a design to the 3D Hubs manufacturing platform today.

The post How Rapid Prototyping Has Revolutionized Product Development appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Lazy Manufacturing: Making Things Using Less Energy

A friend took a broken part of his old boat out of his pocket. “Can you fix this?” he asked me.

It was a complicated aluminium die-casting from the cold end of the engine’s heat exchanger. A tab with a hole for one of the fixing screws had sheared off, and the decades had not been kind to the rest of it either.

“I think so,” I said, and stuck the tab back on with Blu-tack.

His eyes narrowed. “It was a serious question.”

“I know.” I started to build a riser and sprue structure with more Blu-tack.

“Ah!” he said. “You’re going to make a mould and cast me a replacement. Thanks! But how will you melt the aluminium?”

“I won’t,” I said. “Aluminium would shrink, so it would end up the wrong size. I’m going to use Lego.”

He sighed and wandered into the next room. I heard him say something to my wife about her bloody husband and seaworthiness. Then he asked her if he could pour himself another whisky.

The application of computers to manufacturing has transformed the way humanity makes things, transformed the efficiency with which we do it, and transformed what it is possible to make. A great deal has been written about those transformations, going right back to John T. Parsons’ first numerically controlled (NC) machine tool in the 1950s [1].

But, while that has been happening, another change in how we make things has been progressing in parallel. We have been reducing both the forces and the temperatures that we need to deploy (and hence reducing the energy needed) to make a great range of products. Much less has been written about this change, and adumbrating it is the purpose of this article.

The Industrial Revolution started with iron; indeed – only slightly apocryphally – it started at Ironbridge in Shropshire with Abraham Darby smelting iron ore using coke, which allowed his grandson to make, among other things, the eponymous bridge. The revolution rapidly moved from iron to steel and took in brass, and later aluminium and other metals along the way.

Whenever you are going to make something from a metal, you need to get it very hot, or hit it very hard, or both. Metals, or at least the metals we use in most products, are tough; that is why we use them. For 150 years great force and great heat were the way that we made things.

Then, around the time of Parsons’ first NC tool, materials that had begun to be developed decades earlier – plastics – started to become significant. These were much weaker than metals, but melted at much lower temperatures or – in the case of some thermosets – could even be formed at room temperature.

Moving to the present day, every year now humanity makes about 100 million cubic meters of steel and four times that volume of plastics. Plastics overtook steel towards the end of the Twentieth Century because we discovered that – for many things – we simply didn’t need the strength, and that plastics were a lot more versatile, in part because they required much lower forces and temperatures to work with. The introduction of plastics is the first reason that force and temperature have reduced when we make things.

Conventional manufacturing is about cutting or moulding material (and also bending, to a lesser extent). Given the toughness of metals and the high temperatures at which they melt these – as I mentioned above – need big forces and temperatures. But of late the application of computers to manufacturing has facilitated a number of new ways of cutting that require little or no force. The most ubiquitous is the lasercutter – a bandsaw made of light. But there are also water jet cutters and (pre-dating the NC revolution) spark erosion and electrochemical machining. All these cutting machines remove material without applying large forces to it.

And now, of course, we also have 3D printing. All the versions of this (even those that work with metals) apply very little force as they build things. We can imagine a 3D printer controlled by punched cards like a Jacquard loom that it would have been possible to build in the Nineteenth Century, but that simply didn’t occur to anyone. So we had to wait until the late Twentieth for the low-force 3D printing revolution to start. That, and the other methods in the previous paragraph, are the second reason that force has reduced when we make things.

Finally, the most productive manufacturing system on Earth – biology – has always used low-force methods. A growing organism usually has little more opposition to overcome than the weakest of the forces in physics – gravity. And what grows is not that strong either. With a few exceptions (such as tooth enamel) most biological materials are much weaker than metals. Indeed, almost all of them are plastics of a sort, being formed from polymers of various kinds like hair, which is made from keratin, insect exoskeletons, which are made from chitin, and wood, which is made from cellulose and lignin.

Naturalis

Some time ago colleagues and I did a systematic study of how biological systems evolve solutions to engineering problems, and contrasted that with human solutions to similar problems [2]. One of our conclusions was that, when humans do engineering (at least traditionally) we have tended to throw in energy to create a solution. But when evolution is doing engineering it tends rather to throw in information in the form of complicated structure or data processing to create its solutions.

Wood is a good example[3]. Both cellulose and lignin are brittle materials, but wood never shatters like glass. This is because it is made from cellulose fibres in a helix glued together with lignin. As stress causes wood to fail, the lignin fractures but the cellulose stays intact, stretching like a spring. This process absorbs a great deal of energy, which is why wood is so tough. The complexity of this structure is only possible because it is programmed (which is also the way we’d have to do it if we were to imitate it).

A Squash Stem

So, as human manufacturing has progressed we have used lower temperatures, less force, and weaker materials. To achieve that, in many cases, we use computers to do clever control of the manufacturing process. In this way human manufacturing is beginning to approach the way that evolution has always solved the same sorts of problems.

I put some rods in the holes in the die casting to act as cores. Then I built a Lego tank to hold it, and lined its inner faces with Sellotape to stop it leaking. It made a Lego bridge across the top from which I suspended the hose connector using a length of cotton.

I poured liquid silicone into the tank around and over the die casting and left it to set.

Then I took the resulting solid rectangular lump of silicone from the tank, cut round the embedded die casting with a scalpel, dug out the core rods, and separated the two halves of the mould that I had made. I scraped away the Blu-tack risers and sprues, put the cores back, and held the two (now empty) halves of the mould together with elastic bands. I mixed up some resin and poured it in.

An object originally requiring a temperature of 700^oC and a pressure of 200 bar to make had been reproduced at room temperature and pressure in a material about a third as strong as the original, which was quite strong enough.

That was a few years ago, and the result is still at sea. But if it fails, my friend has a couple of spares in his locker. As I pointed out to him, it was almost as easy for me to make three as to make one…

Adrian Bowyer is a British engineer and mathematician; in 2005 he created the RepRap Project to make a self-replicating 3D printer; this has been widely credited with starting the desktop 3D printer revolution.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_numerical_control#Parsons_Corp._and_Sikorsky

[2] Julian F.V. Vincent , Olga A. Bogatyreva , Nikolaj R. Bogatyrev , Adrian Bowyer , Anja-Karina Pahl: Biomimetics: its practice and theory, Journal of the Royal Society Interface, ISSN: 1742-5689, (2006).

[3] G. Jeronimides, The fracture of wood in relation to its structure, Leiden Botanical Series, No. 3, 253-265, 1976

Images: Berkshire Community College, Numerical Control Patent, Adrian Snood, Fabrice Florin, Berkshire Community College.

The post Lazy Manufacturing: Making Things Using Less Energy appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Unmet Fate: What if CNC Hadn’t Been Invented?

In David Noble’s book, Forces of Production: A Social History of Industrial Automation, the late York University professor examined the history of machine tool automation in the U.S. Noble argues that computerized numerical control (CNC), was the result of social and political forces that pushed for greater automation in manufacturing so that large corporations, particularly those in the aerospace and weapons industries, could maintain leverage over union members on the factory floor.

While Noble makes his argument and relays the history of CNC, he touches briefly on a technology that has become otherwise lost from manufacturing history. Invented by Lloyd B. Sponaugle and Leif Eric de Neergaard at the end of World War Two, it was called “record-playback” or the “motional” method for programming machine tools.

A stylus connected to motors to record the motions of a part being machined.

How it worked was that a machine operator would fabricate a part or trace a template of the part and the system would record the operator’s motions onto magnetic or punched tape. The tape could then be fed into a piece of manufacturing equipment, like a lathe, and the motions would be replayed, just as the machine operator had performed them, producing an identical part.

The technology got far enough that multiple patents were filed for it and working systems were developed, including within GE, which sought machine tool automation due to a number of large strikes that had recently occurred at its Schenectady, New York headquarters. In 1946, two engineers from GE’s Industrial Control Division, Lowell Holmes and Lawrence Peaslee, followed in the footsteps of Leif Eric de Neergaard, “recording and reproducing displacements (registered as shifts in the phase of electrical signals).” The initial system featured a selsyn generator, with which the angular movement was transmitted to a motor that moved an odometer counter and a wire recorder.

To test the technology, the engineers were able to record the number of motor revolutions using the recording wire. The signal was then played back, performing the same number of revolutions. Using the recording wire, Holmes and Peaslee were only able to record one channel of data, leading them to test out magnetic tape as a recording medium. The pair modified a single-track audio recorder to include four tracks. At the time, tape recording was only in its nascent stages, leading the engineers to invent their own means of recording and reading the tape.

The next step involved recording the three-axis movement of a tracer stylus along a part template. Then, they were able to apply this technique to recording the motion of a machine tool being manually operated. By 1947, GE’s record-playback system was working, capable of recording a tracer stylus or a machine operator’s movements with accuracy of up to one-thousandth of an inch.

Holmes’s boss, Harry Palmer, saw the technology as a method by which the company could hire fewer skilled (more expensive) machinists, saying record-playback could be a “multiplier for the few outstanding machinists.” Kurt Vonnegut, who worked as a publicist for the company then, pointed out that it would also save time in training machinists.

However, according to Noble, because the record-playback “relied too heavily upon the skills of machinists (programs reflected their intelligence, their control) and hence fell far short of the ultimate goals of management and the fantasies of the technical enthusiasts.” Therefore, the technology was abandoned by companies like GE in favor of numerical control (N/C, later to become CNC).

An early CNC machine. Image courtesy of CNC Cookbook.)

Noble explains how N/C, instead of relying on the motions of the machine operator, the machine toolpaths were “described in detail mathematically, corresponding to the blueprint specifications for the part”. This was recorded in the form of numerical information onto magnetic or punched tape.

Record-playback allowed a human operator to interpret a blueprint and manually perform the manufacturing process. In contrast, N/C was an abstract method calculated by a “part programmer” who sat at a desk. Previously tactical fabrication was made into something algorithmic. Noble put it this way:

Whereas record-playback was a reproducer and, thus, a multiplier of skill, extending the reach of the machinist, N/C was an abstract synthesizer of skill, circumventing and eliminating altogether the need for the machinist. In short, as one early N/C inventor described it, N/C was an ‘automatic machinist.’

Though Noble argues that the end goal for management was to replace troublesome workers with reliable machines, he explains that management ultimately compromised with unions and gave union workers the ability to “patch” and write CNC programs.

In the end, the adoption of CNC may not have impacted the relationship between workers and their bosses overall, but one can only imagine what would have happened had record-playback become the dominant machining technology on the market.

CNC eventually enabled the development of 3D printing, with the same machine tool path methodology being used to program the route of 3D printers as they deposit material. In some cases, CNC systems are still modified to become 3D printers. Nobel also points out how the development of N/C codeveloped with computers. We can now see how mathematically derived geometries on computer screens are fabricated layer by layer on 3D printers. Interestingly, we also see GE playing a key role in the development of additive manufacturing.

The Touch from 3D Systems provides haptic feedback for virtual design. Image courtesy of 3D Systems.

Had record-playback dominated, it’s not out of the realm of possibility that computers and 3D printers might not still have been invented. They may have even evolved from a more tactile, intuitive perspective, rather than the abstract, cerebral methods of N/C. We might even imagine modern computers and design software being more user-friendly. Perhaps haptic styluses resembling 3D Systems’ Touch device, depth sensors like the Leap motion controller, or VR headsets would have been developed instead of the more indirect methods of interfacing with computers that we use today, such as keyboards and mice. Currently, we can train robots by moving their arms and then having them replay these movements so perhaps we’re going to for some applications return to a similar development?

Of course, those are only one person’s ideas of what may have happened had history not played out the way it had, but it does bring up an important point at the heart of Noble’s book: the trajectory of technology is not written in stone, but determined by social and political forces. As 3D printing continues to develop, we can think about how we might direct its evolution in ways that benefit the most people possible, rather than those seeking to control it for their own ends.

The post Unmet Fate: What if CNC Hadn’t Been Invented? appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Hybrid Manufacturing: Opportunities for Additive Manufacturing and CNC Companies

“Hybrid Manufacturing Markets: Opportunities for Additive Manufacturing and CNC Companies”, a new report from SmarTech Analysis, digs down into the market for hybrid manufacturing systems, which combine AM with subtractive manufacturing on a single platform. Hybrid machines are typically large-format machines utilizing high-volume additive processes such as DED and WAAM. But there are PBF and even FDM hybrids too.

This new SmarTech report shows how the market for hybrid manufacturing machines is driven by both their multi-functionality and their promise of cost-effectiveness. Hybrids can enable repairs of parts, process hard-to-cut, and high-hardness materials, and also provide post-processing capabilities. Some hybrids can also print multiple materials in one build. With regard to cost-effectiveness, there are potential cost savings on hardware and operational cost improvements through less need to move the part in process.

In the report SmarTech estimates that hybrid printers will generate $155 million in sales in 2019, growing to $424 million by 2025. Materials (mostly metals) consumed by hybrid machines will reach $24 million in 2019. By 2025, materials usage by hybrids will have grown to over $240 million.

“We believe the hybrid manufacturing business is a sizeable opportunity not just for firms that make big AM machines, but also for companies whose home is in the CNC space,” says Lawrence Gasman, President of SmarTech Analysis and author of the report. “Our market estimates, seem to confirm this belief. The AM market continues to grow faster than the CNC business, so is an attractive opportunity for the machine tool firms,” continues Gasman.

The Mazak INTEGREX i-400 AM combines a five axis machining with laser cladding.

Among the firms with roots in CNC that have entered the hybrid business are Diversified Machine Systems, DMG Mori, ELB-Schliff, Hermle, Ibarmia, Mazak, Mitsui Seiki, Okuma, and WFL Millturn. The hybrid activities of all of these firms are profiled in the SmarTech study along with profiles of long-time AM firms who now offer hybrids, such as GE Additive, Matsuura, Optomec, OR Laser and Trumpf.

The report also notes that hybrid manufacturing is dominated by aerospace applications. For example, according to press reports, GE is planning to utilize hybrid manufacturing for the production of 25,000 LEAP engine nozzles. However, hybrid is moving into other areas including automotive, oil and gas, construction and even the medical and dental sectors. In oil and gas, for example, hybrid technologies could serve to provide efficient on-demand manufacturing in remote locations—such as ocean-based oil and gas extraction platforms. According to the SME organization about 6 percent of all medical 3D printing already uses hybrid machines and the SmarTech report provides some examples of where this is already happening.

Of course, as SmarTech points out in its report, hybrid manufacturing is not for everyone and there are limits to the hybrid manufacturing market. For example, some potential users are put off by the fact that the additive and subtractive feature of the hybrid machines do not work simultaneously, which some regard as an important inefficiency. Other detractors point to the fact that special training is frequently required for the operators of hybrid machines. Learn more here.

For more details contact: Rob Nolan rob@smartechpublishing.com

The post Hybrid Manufacturing: Opportunities for Additive Manufacturing and CNC Companies appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

X-Carve Demo with Inventables

Thanks to the guys at Inventables, we were able to test out the X-Carve in their office in Chicago. The X-Carve is a cool piece of machinery in different ways. I had the pleasure of conducting an interview with the CEO of Inventables, Zach Kaplan, a while ago. It was a fun conversation overall and it got me thinking more in terms of the entrepreneurial economy. Kaplan then extended an offer for me to test out the X-Carve machine in their office at a later date. I then gladly set up a time to do so, and I learned a lot about the machine itself.

I have various experience with technology and machines. I work out of a Makerspace in Chicago called Pumping Station One, so new technology and machinery does not necessarily intimidate me. It does take a little bit of time to learn the nuances of any machine though. Before I was able to come in and test the X-Carve, I had to learn how to use the software associated with it to upload images that were to be carved out later. I chose a project that would require a little more complexity than a simple, quick carve on the machine. I try to do difficult projects early on when I am working with technology or new mediums. It allows for a rapid learning curve, and one starts to see the benefits and limitations of a device.

Image result for x-carve

X-Carve

In order to carve an image into specific material on the X-Carve, it is necessary to operate the accompanying software it uses, which is called Easel. For anyone new to manufacturing, it is simpler to navigate than some of the software packages I have used for similar CNC operations with different devices. The biggest benefit of this software is that is web-enabled. This allowed me to work from anywhere on a design that could be carved on a machine. This design can be carved when it is linked through Easel to any X-Carve device via WiFi. The interface is nice and maneuverable. The biggest issue with it would be the learning curve still involved with bit sizes used for various carving. For a new person using the platform, it would be intimidating to learn the specific drill bits required to do carves at a precise level. Fortunately, I had the assistance of people at X-Carve to learn, as well as previous experience with CNC machines. For someone completely new to this type of work, it would take a bit of time to learn all of these things. I’d estimate a full week would be enough to get someone up to speed on the various materials and bits associated with them based on the thickness of material. From there it would just be an ongoing learning process.

Branding Material

The project that I wanted to carve was a marketing piece. I wanted to carve a two-colored acrylic circle that had a logo for an online clothing store I created. It also would have a QR code attached on one side of it. Ideally, the QR code would then take someone to our Instagram page. The concept was a bit difficult to pull off. It required a strategy called flip milling. We had to specifically create a jig that would allow the piece to be flipped and rotated in place for carving done in the same position of the material. This is a little bit more complex than some materials, such as a laser cutter that may cut the material first and then one may be able to manually flip the object. The flip milling allowed us to have a very accurate carving done on the front side and back side of our object. I was able to learn how to do this project specifically through the help of the Inventables team themselves. This means that a good amount of the learning curve was reduced, but I am not sure how that may work for a person who is not able to have the same type of advantage.

The project did not take long to create as it was a small circular disk that had about a 2 cm radius. The overall carving took around 30 minutes. This includes the various setup that we needed to do for flip milling and general maintenance of the X-Carve. Like any other machine, there are certain intricacies that we must understand about our device. This is where having the X-Carve team to help with the project was great, but I would suggest for anyone using the X-Carve should consult various YouTube videos for different projects and future self-driven learning. There are a lot of possibilities that can be made with this device that I am not even aware of. Overall it was a great experience to get all of these tips and a completed project with the Inventables team. Unfortunately, the QR Code didn’t work. But I will work on this project more and see how we can get a QR Code scanning circular image.

The post X-Carve Demo with Inventables appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

3D Printing and the Circular Economy Part 6: CNC Machining

Desktop Metal CNC

CNC machining is a manufacturing process in which pre-programmed computer software dictates the movement of factory tools and machinery. The process can be used to control a range of complex machinery, from grinders and lathes to mills and routers. With CNC machining, three-dimensional cutting tasks can be accomplished in a single set of prompts. CNC refers to computer numerical control. Today we will be comparing CNC methods to 3D Printing and additive manufacturing in terms of their places within a circular economy.

Transportation waste is not as large of a concern when it comes to CNC machining. It is important to have one’s material ready before they are to place the material within a CNC center. The layout of one’s factory or fabrication environment is more critical towards this type of waste. Similar thoughts can be arrived at in terms of additive manufacturing. Based on the types of material used for a CNC machine, it is slightly difficult to transport larger amounts of the metals used for these machines.

Inventory waste is mostly oriented towards what material you are using for the CNC process. Typically we are using metal materials. The type of materials typically used consist of brass, copper alloys, aluminum, steel, stainless steel, titanium, and plastics. The type of material is very important because of production needs. CNC machining is a subtractive process. Hence, the various materials will cause different shearings as well as carving residue and debris that will be produced during a cutting out of a piece.

Image result for cnc machine debris

CNC Waste

Waiting time in terms of CNC machining depends on the feed rate. Feeds specifically refers to the feed rate the tool advances through the material while speed refers to the surface speed that the cutting edge of the tool is moving and is needed to calculate the spindle RPM. Feed is generally measured in Inches Per Minute (IPM) in the US and speed is measured in Surface Feet per Minute. Feed speed as well as material density causes the amount of wait time to differ per manufactured part. Part geometry also has a role to play here as well as hardness. A CNC typically is faster than a 3D printer device, but this is again dependent on material and geometry.

Over-processing is not as much of a concern for both of these methods of manufacturing. CNC machining and 3D printing are both great at building quick prototypes of designs. Over-processing can become problematic in CNC when one wants to make very polished cuts of a material to have sharper edges and rounded surfaces. There may be an element of over-processing there that leads to time wasted.

Post processing is a big issue when it comes to 3D printers. Post processing issues are not as apparent with CNC parts. They typically are ready for deployment after they have been produced with excellent surface finishes.

Image result for cnc waste

CNC Carvings

Recyclability is apparent with various CNC waste materials post production. It is important to be constantly aware of the different products used. In order to recycle, it necessitates the separation of materials. This requires bins oriented towards specific materials labelled clearly near a CNC machine. Without this, most of the scrap will be left unattended and mix together to a point of difficult separation.

Overall the differences between CNC machines and 3D print are considerable. The sheer amount of waste material produced by a typical CNC is way more than a 3D printer. There are efficiency trade offs that are associated with 3D printers in terms of speed and material transportation. In the future advances to additive manufacturing will shrink the gap in terms of creating products in a more sustainable and additive manner versus a subtractive fashion.

The post 3D Printing and the Circular Economy Part 6: CNC Machining appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Machining Parts for Apollo 11 Project Engress @NYCCNC

John Saunders of NYC CNC shared on YouTube:

Machining Parts for the Apollo 11 Anniversary: Project Egress!! | WW258

Apollo 11. Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. 50th Anniversary. Adam Savage. Project Egress—need I say more!? Join us for this exciting journey we weren’t sure we could make! We were given an amazing opportunity to collaborate with other makers and Adam Savage’s team to make an Apollo 11 hatch door replica for the 50th anniversary of the lunar landing. Not only was this a great challenge for our team, it was a way to pay it forward and commemorate important aerospace history! Parts from various talented makers will be assembled by Adam and his team on July 18th, 2019 at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C. If you’re interested in attending this FREE event, check out the link in the description below. We hope to see you there!

Industry Experts Interviews with Alessio Lorusso of Roboze

A lessio Lorusso

Alessio Lorusso is the CEO of Roboze. Roboze is a 3D printer manufacturer that has done a lot of work within the additive manufacturing field. Roboze makes high-temperature 3D printers capable of working with high-performance materials such as PEEK and PEI. These are used in demanding applications such as the aerospace industry.

Explain your life experience and how it has lead you to this point.

My name is Alessio Lorusso, I am 28 years old, I was born in Bari in Italy, I’ve always been interested in 3D Printing technology since I was a kid. I grew up in an entrepreneurial environment, my father taught me to work hard and never give up in front of any obstacle. My dream was to establish a company in order to revolutionize the Additive Manufacturing business. That’s what I am trying to do with Roboze today.

Roboze

In different articles I have read it says that you built your first 3D Printer when you were 17.

That’s exactly right. My huge passion for motorsport, manufacturing and technology led me to build the first 3D Printer by myself. I was only 17 years old, my factory was my bedroom. That’s when I built the first FFF 3D Printer with a Beltless System in the world.

The technology used for the Roboze is different than typical printers on the market. Can you shed light on these differences?

We design and produce 3D Printers with a Beltless System. At Roboze we have changed the rules of the game, bringing mechanical precision to the FFF 3D printing technology. We decided to rethink everything, starting from the most important aspect: the kinematics of the axes. We eliminated the belts and we introduced a direct mechatronic movement of the X and Y axes entrusted to a hardened steel rack and pinion. Doing so, we have finally introduced real precision. You can’t rely on rubber belts because they are subject to deformation, wear, tear and they need continuous calibration. Thanks to our Beltless System, the accuracy and repeatability of the movements are guaranteed ensuring smoothness, quietness and positioning precision equal to 0.025 mm.

Roboze One +400

Roboze Beltless Printer

You were able to run your organization without the need of capital investment from outside sources. How liberating and handicapping was that initially when you started?

It was not easy. Roboze was founded in 2013, we were only a few people back then but we were deeply focused on what we were going to achieve. We felt free to explore and research new ways to improve our 3D Printing solution technologies. Those initial years were very liberating but full of hard work and late nights too. There is still so much work to be done, we are at the beginning of something bigger for us and for the entire Additive Manufacturing sector. And I want Roboze to play a big role in this upcoming and evolving 3D Printing revolution that the world is witnessing.

How do you view additive manufacturing on the global scale?

The industry is changing quickly. The most difficult part is to be on track with all the latest technological developments. That’s why we invest a lot of work in R&D. Most of our employees are engineers, about 80% of our team. We are aware that the 3D Printing field is evolving each day rapidly, that’s why I want Roboze to be agile and learn quickly from the changes this market is experiencing.

Roboze Partners

What issues and practices need to be thought of consistently in order to advance the field of additive manufacturing?

We believe that R&D is the secret for advancing the field of Additive Manufacturing. That’s why we are continually increasing our investments in the field of materials engineering, new technologies and industrial services. Our mission is to provide through continuous product innovation the best professional 3D printers with FFF technology for extreme industrial applications in the Oil & Gas, Automotive, Motorsport, Aerospace, Manufacturing and Defense sectors. Doing so, we can create real advantages in terms of precision, flexibility and customization for our customers.

Roboze seems to have a focus on the aerospace industry in particular. What benefits does Roboze give to aerospace companies compared to other organizations?

Additive Manufacturing is changing the future of aviation and defense supply chains and the way these industries are designing and manufacturing their solutions. Roboze technologies – especially PEEK which is the most advanced semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer with excellent mechanical properties and chemical resistance in a wide range of conditions – allows companies in the aerospace sector to get closer to Metal replacement. One of the biggest challenges in the aerospace industry is to reduce aircraft weight thanks to lighter components. Super polymers like PEEK instead of light alloys, like Aluminium, guarantee high performance with a consequent reduction of weight, CO2 emissions and fuel consumption. That’s why Roboze FFF 3D Printing technology is essential for our customers in order to save time and money during manufacturing processes.

What cities are the best for additive manufacturing globally?

As a matter of fact, manufacturers are increasing more and more their reliance on 3D Printing alongside CNC machining, another strong indicator of how essential additive manufacturing is becoming to the production process. I believe Europe, United States and Asia are certainly the fastest growing regions where Additive Manufacturing is developing internationally today. That’s where we are focusing our efforts to increase Roboze’s commercial growth.

What are key areas of concern for the additive industry as a whole?

Additive Manufacturing requires a new set of skills like machine maintenance, material handling and post-processing knowledge, that’s why I believe education and training to be essential in order to drive the right development of 3D Printing solutions. Roboze wants to give manufacturers the opportunity to learn and drive innovation through such advanced technologies.

3D Printing PEEK parts for Aerospace

How surreal was it for you to be named a Forbes 30 under 30?

In 2018 I had the pleasure to be named by Forbes one of the 30 under 30 most promising CEO in Europe. I am deeply proud of this achievement but I keep looking forward in order to improve our 3D Printing Technologies. Today our Roboze 3D Printers are used by companies such as GE, Bosch, Dallara, KTM and Airbus. Our main goal is to make Roboze 3D Printing solutions a key player in the Industry 4.0 advancement by offering high performance materials suitable for Metal Replacement and the production of functional prototypes and finishes parts.

What do you believe your key to success has been?

I am always thinking as a maker, I like things done and I have always worked hard in order to make them real. Passion for what we are trying to achieve at Roboze is huge. But passion itself is not enough: determination and huge listening skills are essential for my professional growth. That’s why I put together a very talented team of young professionals at Roboze with diverse backgrounds, experience and skills.

What is your biggest goal and or hopes for the future personally as well as professionally?

I like thinking in terms of goals and not hopes. I feel proud for what we have achieved at Roboze so far, but there is still a lot to do, a lot to learn, a lot to go. One of the main goals in 2019 will be to increase our team to about 60 people and to open two subsidiaries around the world by 2021.

Where do you see yourself and your organization within the next 5 years?

5 years is such a huge time window, especially in the Additive Manufacturing field where changes happen so quickly. I would say I see Roboze as one of the main FFF 3D Printers manufacturers in the world within the next 5 years.

Adafruit’s Top Ten YouTube Videos of 2018 #AdafruitTopTen

Through the next couple of weeks we are going to post Adafruit’s Top 10 lists ranging from social media to new products. Be sure to check back every weekday!

2018 was a pretty epic year for Adafruit YouTube content. So sit back, relax, and enjoy our 2018 highlight reel.