Perfect 3D Printing Filament - Page 661 of 737 -

Tractor chain #3DThursday #3DPrinting

candidogarcia shares this great design for a printable tractor chain!

download the files on: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3001013

Every Thursday is #3dthursday here at Adafruit! The DIY 3D printing community has passion and dedication for making solid objects from digital models. Recently, we have noticed electronics projects integrated with 3D printed enclosures, brackets, and sculptures, so each Thursday we celebrate and highlight these bold pioneers!

Have you considered building a 3D project around an Arduino or other microcontroller? How about printing a bracket to mount your Raspberry Pi to the back of your HD monitor? And don’t forget the countless LED projects that are possible when you are modeling your projects in 3D!

The Adafruit Learning System has dozens of great tools to get you well on your way to creating incredible works of engineering, interactive art, and design with your 3D printer! If you’ve made a cool project that combines 3D printing and electronics, be sure to let us know, and we’ll feature it here!

3D Printing Valued by the Navy for Underway Replenishment

Underway replenishment, also known as replenishment at sea (RAS) is a method of transferring supplies from one ship to another while a naval mission is underway. In a paper entitled “Future UNREP: Existing Technologies, Concepts of Operation, and Why Replenishment at Sea Must Evolve,” the authors argue that the methods of underway replenishment need to advance, and that they have a lot of potential to do so thanks to technology such as additive manufacturing.

Additive manufacturing is described in the paper as “a technology with significant potential for both industry and the Department of Defense (DoD).” Regarding the US Navy, the promise of additive manufacturing lies greatly in its flexibility and its potential for personalized manufacturing. The paper cites a 2014 Deloitte study that highlights the technology’s ability to deliver the right part at the right place, the right time and in the right quantity. The value of additive manufacturing, the study continues, includes the ability to manufacture parts that are:

Individually customized for specific purposes
Produced at the actual point of use
Created on demand
Manufactured in lower quantities with no loss of design fidelity

Additive manufacturing has been largely accepted by the Navy; in 2015, then-Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus issued a memorandum to the Chief of Naval Operations, Commandant of the Marine Corps, and the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition) to further develop and implement additive manufacturing. The memorandum issued directives to:

Increase development and integration of additive manufacturing systems
Develop the ability to qualify and certify AM parts
Standardize the digital AM framework and tools and enable end to end process integration
Establish the DON advanced integrated digital manufacturing grid

While 3D printing is being used in the Naval fleet, the paper points out, it has not yet reached widespread utilization or industrial capacity. The Navy has, however, seen successful testing on both smaller and larger scales.

3D printed submarine hull [Image: Energy.gov]

“For example, NAVAIR has established innovation cells and fabrication labs throughout its organization to familiarize its workforce with AM/3DP technology,” the paper states. “Their efforts resulted in the production of an H-1 helmet visor clip via three dimensional printing that was the first additive manufacturing part approved for fleet utilization and operations in the Navy supply system. Furthermore, a project known as 3-D Sailor is looking to expand this concept to the production of plastic pieces of flight deck gear, such as float coat clips and cranial helmet front panels, as well as developing digital technical data packages (TDPs) for the respective parts. NAVIR has also successfully produced a link and fitting for the MV22B Osprey’s engine nacelle which was subsequently tested and flown in the aircraft.”

The Navy’s experimentation with 3D printing has run from the very small, such as a radio clip, to the very large, such as a submarine hull. In addition to new parts such as these, additive manufacturing can also help by reproducing obsolete parts.

The TruClip is a radio clip 3D printed by the Navy.

Several challenges still remain to the widespread adoption of additive manufacturing in the Navy, according to the Deloitte report, including parts testing and qualification, information and communications security, training and developing of necessary skillsets, intellectual property issues, and DOD-wide AM governance.

Additional methods of underway replenishing are discussed in the paper, including undersea basing, autonomous and unmanned undersea vehicles, and autonomous shipping.

“As the future of the maritime domain continues to grow in complexity and competition from near peer competitors such as China, it is crucial that concepts of underway replenishment adapt to ensure compatibility with both strategic guidance and contested operating environments,” the paper concludes. “…Additionally, threats persist to the U.S.’s ability to maintain a comparative military advantage over potential adversaries, including internal process challenges and a rising China in the Asia-Pacific region. In order to maintain superiority across all warfare domains, a reimagining of current processes and operations is paramount, especially at-sea replenishment and logistics concepts of operation.”

Discuss this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com or share your thoughts below.

3D Printing Gold and Other Precious Metals with Cookson Gold We Interview David Fletcher

My rather graph and microscope photo filled Linkedin is often enriched by a flash of color. This is either some asinine viral video infecting the formerly useful Linkedin feed or it is, more happily, from an amber fire glow of 3D printed gold jewels. These come courtesy of David Fletcher who kindly peppers my Linkedin feed with lovely 3D printed jewels. David is the Precious Metal 3D Printing Manager at Cookson Gold. David has spent nearly 30 years at Cookson so must have developed quite the layer by layer Midas touch. Cookson is a supplier of all manner of goods to the gold industry from consumables to machines. It itself is a subsidiary of the Heimerle + Meule Group which is a leader in precious metal refining, reclaiming and products for precious metal separation. 3D printing in gold sounded like a panacea when it was first launched. It turns out that it is a bit more complex than initially assumed but by partnering with Powder Bed Fusion leader EOS Cookson has managed to present a gold and precious metal printing online service that has provided jewels for many customers in many different segments. The company also sells and supports EOS M80 and M100 3D printers. I got to know them as the realists in gold printing and found it high time for an interview.

How difficult is it to 3D print gold?

“As with all metal 3D printing the correlation between the system, the powder and the process are key to ensuring good quality parts in your chosen precious metal alloy. Cooksongold part of the Heimerle + Meule Group are able to print in 18k yellow gold, 18k red gold, 18k white gold, 925 silver and 950 platinum and have parameters available for the use on the EOS M080 and M100 systems. These are the only systems developed to handle high value powders to ensure full accountability. Other industrial and jewellery alloy parameters are also in development. We make all our own gas atomised spherical powders internally which are optimised for high “flowability”.”

Why did Cookson Gold move into 3D printing gold?

“As precious metal specialists supplying products and services to jewellery, industrial and dental clients Cooksongold part of the Heimerle + Meule Group were looking for different avenues and areas where we could supply our precious metals. One of the areas that was seeing huge growth was additive manufacturing which was focused on prototyping primarily at that time. Were were keen to push into the technology as we became aware of its advantages over existing production techniques to produce parts that are hollow and lightweight, that articulate cutting down on assembly steps and are highly customisable.”

How much labour is still present in a gold 3D printed part?

“The pre and post processing of precious metal parts is the same as any metal 3D printed part. The major difference is managing every piece of scrap/support/powder to ensure this is recovered and no precious metal is lost. Cooksongold are a major precious metal refiner so we can purchase the scrap alloy and turn this back into fine gold, silver and platinum and then realloy back into useable powder all in house. There are six basic steps to our bureau service – Design: Create the design, optimised and ready for direct precious metal 3D printing. Upload: Send the CAD file in an STL format via our secure portal. Quote: We assess the file and provide a quotation. Print: We build the part layer by layer by melting and solidifying the fine precious metal powder. Post process: We remove the building supports and sand blast ready for shipping. Finish: We deliver the part to our clients your ready-to-finish.”

What kind of customers do you have for it?

“We are dealing with clients from across both industrial and jewellery business channels. Cooksongold have four distinct business channels –

Cooksongold 3D: Our 3D printing bureau service. These clients range from individuals through to major manufacturers who start with a single product, progressing to a group of products designed for 3D printing with volumes increasing accordingly. In several cases the clients have gone on to purchase the M080 system with support from Cooksongold supplying the parameters and powders.

Precious Metal Powder Production & Sales: Proving both existing and bespoke alloy powders to the clients requirements. Importantly as a major refiner of precious metals we are able to provide “full chain of custody precious metal alloys” providing a provenance for the precious metals.

Precious Metal Parameter/Application Development: We provide developed parameters for existing alloys and development of parameters for new alloys to a clients specification. We are also able to carry out development of parameters for a specific application or geometry.

Precious Metal Recycling & Refining: We carry out scrap precious metal recycling, melt & assay analytical services. We are able to offer gold & silver refining services with our LBMA accreditation. We can also offer our clients metal account trading with precious metal finance option available.

Finally we work with EOS selling the M080 system and supporting sales of the M100 for precious metal applications.”

What kind of parts are they making?

“The parts we are producing for clients are wide and varied depending on the business channel. The industrial applications we are looking at are incredibly varied using various Platinum alloys and fine silver. In the jewellery world the designs are coming of age with designers now really taking advantage of what is possible from direct precious metal 3D printing. The beautiful pieces from Marie Boltenstern incorporate precious stones and beads into the designs with no evidence of how the stones got there. The watches from Michiel Holthinrichs are amazing timepieces that are completely customisable to the wearer. With the parts we have designed in house such as the 18k bicolour bracelet opening up a whole new world of possibilities for both jewellery and watches.”

Is it primarily one-offs or more series?

“We have clients who are submitting one off parts that are unique and customisable. However we have also seen an increase in series production with repeat orders. many clients start with a single product, progressing to a group of products designed for 3D printing with volumes increasing accordingly.”

So you sell the Eos M-80 machines and are a service?

“This is correct, In addition to offering our own bureau service we sell the M080 systems exclusively on behalf of EOS. As we progress to the M100 system we will focus on our 4 primary business channels supporting clients with their precious metal applications, powders and parameters with EOS handling the system sales and support.”

I know that estimating costs is difficult in metal printing but can you give us an idea of what a standard gold band wedding ring would cost for example?

“As you have indicated costing of all metal 3D printed parts whether non precious metal or precious metal is not simple. The two key factors for precious metal are yield – how much precious metal powder is used to produce supports. And build height – the taller the piece the more 20micron slices required the longer it takes. The approx production cost for a simple 18k yellow D shape or oval wedding ring band would be €60 plus the precious metal content.”

What is the ideal part to print in gold, and a terrible one?

“The ideal part to print is the 18k bicolour mesh bracelet which is a perfect example of design for AM. The part is light weight, articulates and can be customised and importantly it cannot be produced any other way. Parts that can be easily cast are quote often not ideally suited to 3D printing. These parts can be printed but do not take advantage of any of the benefits the technology offers and thus are not cost effective to print.”

Could you walk us through some of the key design rules for gold 3D printing?

“Direct Precious Metal 3D Printing opens up a whole world of possibilities for creating objects which cannot be manufactured using traditional methods such as casting or milling. However, there are certain requirements associated with the process so Cooksongold created the following design guidelines to help our clients achieve the best results possible, in doing so they will be able to create products that were not possible before. Please use the information provided as a guide and as a general rule it is advisable to avoid working to the minimum tolerances in all areas of your design.”

Size
The Precious M080 uses a circular build platform with a diameter of 80mm. Cooksongold therefore specify that all parts should be no bigger than 75mm in diameter and 90mm high.

Wall thickness
The minimum wall thickness is 0.3mm however this is dependent on the geometry of the design. We would also recommend increasing this value for larger pieces.

Small details and thicknesses.
The general detail resolution of direct precious metal 3D printed parts when processing parts on the Precious M 080 is between 200 µm and 250 µm (these values ensure the production of dense material). The dimensional accuracy of the machine (x,y) is currently in the region of +/- 100µm. An example of dimensional accuracy would be if we built a block 50mm x 50mm x 50mm then the tolerance’s would be 50mm +/- 0.1mm in the x and y direction. The dimensional accuracy in the z direction is controlled by the layer thickness, so the tolerance would be tighter.
Detail resolution refers to the smallest feature size of dense material that can be reproduced on a part. When building extremely small parts any sharp angles or corners may appear slightly rounded.

Supports
Support structures are required on nearly all builds and perform a variety of functions. Their main use is to raise the parts off the build platform so that they can be easily removed once completed. They are also added to pieces which have shallow angles or horizontal sections to prevent deformation. Finally they can also act as a heat sink ensuring the powder melts correctly during the build process.
It is important to consider that supports need to be accessible to be removed so any internal structures need to be self-supporting.
Please be aware that post processing may be required to remove any witness marks left after support removal. We have included some brief examples of supports below to illustrate how small design changes can have a huge impact on the amount of supports required, which in turn will help to optimise the yield of your powder.

Angles and overhangs
Horizontal areas and shallow edges angled less than 35 degrees from the platform base will need a support, otherwise the edge of the piece may deform into the loose powder below. This can lead to a rough surface finish in that area or even cause the build to fail. Overhangs or angled walls that do not need supports will achieve a better result than those that do. Adding radii and designing pieces with angles of under 40 degrees from the platform usually eliminates the need for support structures. The more upright the wall, the better the surface finish.

What do you see as the future of 3D printing gold?

“Not limited to gold the future of precious metal 3D printing is very bright. The jewellery industry is now starting to adopt the technology and most importantly designing for the process creating some amazing and unique pieces not thought possible previously. However the biggest area of growth is undoubtedly in industrial applications. The volume of parts and possible applications is staggering with design for AM optimising parts for their function and reducing the high volumes of precious metal required. As the saying goes, The future is very bright.”

3Ding Prints Satellite With Student Team

With a new project, a group of students and 3D printer manufacturer 3Ding have printed an operational mini-Satellite. The students from Hindustan Institute of Science and Technology developed the 33 gram nylon satellite as part of NASA and idoodlelearning‘s Cubes In Space initiative. They’ve dubbed the cube-shaped, mini-satellite Jai Hind 1-S. 3Ding helped print the cubical […]

The post 3Ding Prints Satellite With Student Team appeared first on 3D Printing.

Mosaic Manufacturing improve multimaterial 3D printing in the Palette 2

Mosaic Manufacturing, a Canadian digital technology company responsible for the FDM multicolor 3D printing Palette system, has released its latest multi-material ecosystem – the Palette 2. Comprised of CANVAS, a cloud-based multi-material slicing platform, and the CANVAS Hub, a device connecting 3D printers to the cloud, Palette 2 will enable both advanced and new creators to […]

Researchers from S2A Lab Experimenting with Remote 3D Printing Control

Late last year, we learned that researchers with the Smart and Sustainable Automation Research Lab (S2A Lab) at the University of Michigan College of Engineering had been working to develop an algorithm that would double the speed of desktop 3D printers. It works by using Filtered B-Spline (FBS) algorithms to adjust 3D printer control and mitigate unwanted vibrations while the print speed goes up. Earlier this week, we received an update on the team’s vibration compensation algorithm from Chinedum Okwudire, PhD, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at the university and the director of S2A Lab.

“Over the past year we have been working to integrate our vibration compensation algorithm into Marlin and release it open-source to the 3D printng community. But we have not succeeded because of the low computational power and memory on the ATMega2560 microcontroller which cannot support our algorithm,” Professor Okwudire told 3DPrint.com. “We are now looking into releasing it open-source on firmware that run on more powerful microcontrollers. More updates on this to follow as we make more progress.”

CAD model of XYZ Calibration Cube commonly used for determining acceptable acceleration and jerk speed limits of desktop 3D printers.

But the innovative vibration compensation algorithm isn’t the only thing the researchers in the S2A Lab have been working on lately.

“In the meantime, we have been experimenting with a new way of controlling 3D printers, where stepper motor commands (and other low-level control commands) are generated in the Cloud, rather than on a microcontroller,” Professor Okwudire explained to us. “The idea is not too different from how video streaming works, and is a refined version of how OctoPrint, Astroprint and 3DPrinterOS work. It gives Wi-Fi enabled 3D printers access to advanced algorithms like ours, running on the Cloud, without need for very powerful microcontrollers. Our initial results have been very encouraging. We were able to compensate the vibration of a Lulzbot Taz 6 3D printer situated in Michigan from cloud-based controllers in South Carolina and in Australia without much problems, hence slashing printing time by up 54% compared to using Marlin. Details of this work are published in the special issue on Innovations in 3D Printing of the open-access journal Inventions.”

The team published the details of their work in a paper, titled “Low-Level Control of 3D Printers from the Cloud: A Step toward 3D Printer Control as a Service,” in a special issue of open access journal Inventions all about 3D printing innovations; co-authors include Professor Okwudire, Sharankumar Huggi, Sagar Supe, Chengyang Huang, and Bowen Zeng.

Overview of setup for experiments.

The abstract reads, “Control as a Service (CaaS) is an emerging paradigm where low-level control of a device is moved from a local controller to the Cloud, and provided to the device as an on-demand service. Among its many benefits, CaaS gives the device access to advanced control algorithms which may not be executable on a local controller due to computational limitations. As a step toward 3D printer CaaS, this paper demonstrates the control of a 3D printer by streaming low-level stepper motor commands (as opposed to high-level G-codes) directly from the Cloud to the printer. The printer is located at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, while its stepper motor commands are calculated using an advanced motion control algorithm running on Google Cloud computers in South Carolina and Australia. The stepper motor commands are sent over the internet using the user datagram protocol (UDP) and buffered to mitigate transmission delays; checks are included to ensure accuracy and completeness of the transmitted data. All but one part printed using the cloud-based controller in both locations were hitch free (i.e., no pauses due to excessive transmission delays). Moreover, using the cloud-based controller, the parts printed up to 54% faster than using a standard local controller, without loss of accuracy.”

Control as a Service (CaaS) is just one of several examples, such as cloud robotics and cloud manufacturing, of paradigms inspired by, and built on the shoulders of, cloud computing and other service-oriented architectures (SOA). It works like this: a device’s low-level control functionalities are moved out of a local controller to the Cloud, where they can then be accessed on-demand remotely. Multiple 3D printing services rely on SOAs and cloud computing, and the trend of controlling 3D printers remotely through a web-based wireless host platform, such as OctoPrint, 3DPrinterOS, and Astroprint, continues to grow.

But, these types of platforms send G-codes, or the equivalent, from the Cloud to the 3D printer while at the same time assigning lower level computations to a microcontroller. So these don’t offer the same kind of CaaS that the S2A Lab is working to develop.

“3D printers are an excellent case study for advancing CaaS, especially since many of them (particularly those of the desktop kind) have very limited computational resources on their local controllers,” the researchers wrote. “The control performance of desktop 3D printers could be significantly improved at low cost via cloud-based control algorithms provisioned through CaaS.”

The researchers used a Lulzbot Taz 6 3D printer with dual extruders for their experiments, though mentioned in the paper that industrial 3D printers could also stand to benefit from this kind of advanced control algorithm.

“Therefore, this paper presents preliminary work on low-level motion control of a desktop 3D printer from the Cloud, as a first step towards in-depth research into 3D printer CaaS (3DPCaaS). It not only shows that low-level control of 3D printers from the Cloud is feasible, but also demonstrates huge improvements in 3D printing speed and accuracy that can be achieved using an advanced cloud-based motion controller over a standard local controller,” the researchers wrote.

Prints of Medieval Castle using: (a) local controller (Marlin); (b) cloud-based controller in South Carolina; and (c) cloud-based controller in Australia. The portions of the prints highlighted in dashed rectangles failed (broke off) during printing due to delicate support structures.

The S2A Lab set up a website as a gathering place for people who want to continue researching the idea, and testing 3DPCaaS on their own 3D printers.

“This work is still very experimental but it has shown great promise,” Professor Okwudire told 3DPrint.com. “It may just be the next big thing in 3D printer control, where printers can gain on-demand access to powerful algorithms that boost their performance without need to upgrade to very powerful microcontrollers. What we picture is an OctoPrint-like platform where people can upload G-Codes and remote control their printers with the help of advanced algorithms like ours running from the Cloud.”

Discuss this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com or share your thoughts below.

What are the Ethics of 3D Scanned and 3D Printed Museum and Archaeological Artifacts?

[Image: Sketchfab]

3D scanning and 3D printing have been used as forms of preservation, creating digital records and physical replicas of fragile archaeological finds or threatened works of art. The technology has gained popularity in museums, where copies of artifacts can be made to be handled and examined by the public, or studied more closely by scientists. However, a group of researchers argues that there is currently a lack of ethical and legal guidance regarding 3D data and that standards need to be implemented.

The ethical considerations of creating 3D data of human remains need to be considered, the researchers argue in a paper entitled “Standardisation in 3D Geometric Morphometrics: Ethics, Ownership and Methods.” They point to the growing number of resources such as MorphoSource, Sketchfab and Digitised Diseases, which offer access to digital human bones among other scans.

The 9,500-year-old Jericho Skull. [Image: National Geographic]

“The key to understanding the ethical requirements of 3D data, arguably lies in defining how 3D data differ from physical human remains and other digital data formats,” the researchers state. “Results from a survey by indicated that researchers and collection managers and curators generally considered 3D data to lie between photographic data and the original object with regard to ethics and ownership. However, more work is needed in order to determine what this middle ground between photographs and skeletal remains would entail when considering the ethics, ownership, and use of 3D digital data.”

While 3D digital images are typically considered “owned” by the person who created them, there is a lack of consensus regarding scans of items of objects of cultural, religious and societal value which are generally not copyrighted. The researchers point to a case in which a 3D photogrammetry model was made of a Michelangelo statue on a college campus. The college petitioned for the scan to be taken down as the publisher had not sought the permission of the college or the sculptor. As the statue was not under copyright and was in a public place, however, no legislation prevented the online publication of the data.

The researchers argue that standards need to be implemented when it comes to the ownership of digital 3D data. MorphoSource, for example, states that before uploading and sharing data, individuals need to obtain permission from the curator or collection manager of the institute where the data was collected. Several museums have guidelines regarding photographs taken from their collections, but not regarding 3D data. Things get more complicated when you consider altered 3D data; are copyrights voided when an individual makes alterations to scans?

When human remains are involved, there are guidelines for museums regarding their storage, but not for 3D replicas.

“A common argument for scanning human remains is to allow repatriation requests to be honoured, while still keeping a digital copy of these data to be utilised for further research,” the researchers state. “Nevertheless, no research could be found in which the organisations and communities actively making repatriation requests were consulted with regard to their views on retaining 3D scans of human remains after repatriation.”

Controversy was caused when the artist Oliver Laric 3D scanned and 3D printed seven columns from the Old Summer Palace in Beijing. The prints are held in Norway, but they will be returned to China, as it has been argued that the work was an attempt to steal cultural heritage. This was only one case, however; again, there is no standardized guidance as to what constitutes cultural theft regarding 3D scanning and printing.

The Old Summer Palace [Image: Wikimedia Commons]

There is also the matter of error, whether it happens during the digitization process or during the extraction of data. How should errors be handled in reproducing human remains or cultural artifacts? At this time, no standards exist for this matter either.

The researchers conclude that further discussions need to take place regarding a standardized approach to 3D data collection. First, however, more understanding is needed regarding how different institutions and cultures view 3D scans of human remains.

“These discussions need to be started, while the field is still developing, in order to avoid the problems that have already hindered archaeological research in the past due to the difficulty in comparisons across studies and to prevent results from losing their value due to a lack of standardisation,” they explain. “We therefore argue that cross-disciplinary research, involving anthropologists, archaeologists, bioethicists, and legal scholars, is needed to consider these ethical questions and to develop suitable guidelines of proper practice.”

Authors of the paper include Cara S. Hirst, Suzanna White, and Sian E. Smith.

Discuss this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com or share your thoughts below.

US Army Converting Plastic Bottles to Printable Parts

Recycling isn’t something one associates with the US army ordinarily. But when it comes to the battlefield, you take whatever resources you can get. The US army and the marine corps have devised a method for turning plastic bottles, cardboard and other recyclable materials into 3D printing filaments. The findings have massive implications for the […]

The post US Army Converting Plastic Bottles to Printable Parts appeared first on 3D Printing.

MakerGirl brings its STEM education service to new locations

MakerGirl, a non-profit organization that uses 3D printing to teach young girls, science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) skills, has recently announced plans for expansion. Originally, MakerGirl only offered its 3D printing courses at the University of Illinois, but has since expanded to other academies, such as Northwestern University. Additionally, MakerGirl is entering the final […]

Mosaic Manufacturing Introduces the New and Improved Palette 2 for Multi-Color, Multi-Material 3D Printing

In 2015, Mosaic Manufacturing launched the Palette, a device that allowed any 3D printer to become a multi-color, multi-material machine. It functioned by combining up to four filament strands in one extruder. Later, the company would upgrade the device to the Palette+, which has been getting positive reviews from customers. Now Mosaic Manufacturing is introducing the Palette 2, a more deeply integrated, user-friendly version of its well-known device.

The Palette 2, like its predecessors, works with single-extruder 3D printers to create multi-color, multi-material prints. What sets the Palette 2 apart is that it integrates and communicates directly with the user’s 3D printer. It can still be added on to the 3D printer as an accessory, but its integrated mode makes it feel like a native part of the system, according to Mosaic Manufacturing. All the user has to do is hit print to create multi-color or multi-material parts, as easily as they would create single-material parts.

The Palette 2 is compatible with nearly all filament-based 3D printers on the market by connecting a USB cable and a filament feed tube. Mosaic Manufacturing compares its integration capabilities with those of the Intel Inside model, and the company has already formed partnerships with multiple companies including Dremel 3D, MakerGear, Raise 3D and Robo 3D to integrate Palette 2 into the next generation of their 3D printers.

Other improvements to the Palette 2 include better print calibration and a more reliable printing experience, thanks to the device’s direct communication with the 3D printer. It’s more portable than its predecessors, too – it occupies less desk space, comes with a stand, and can be mounted to a wall or printer. It can also be transferred easily between printers. Installation is extremely easy, requiring no physical modifications to the 3D printer itself.

The Palette 2 has a continuous printing feature that automatically detects when one filament runs out and splices another to the end of the first one. It also features a full color touch screen so that users can customize prints directly from the Palette 2. Mosaic Manufacturing will be releasing a professional version of the Palette 2 called the Palette 2 Pro, which will operate 20% faster and come with a longer warranty.

Pre-orders for the Palette 2 start at $499 ($599 MSRP), which is far less expensive than the original Palette, which retailed for $999, and the Palette+, which cost $799.

The Palette 2 Pro

In addition to the Palette 2, Mosaic Manufacturing is launching a cloud platform called CANVAS. Software for multi-material, multi-color 3D printing systems was lagging behind the hardware, the company points out, so Mosaic developed CANVAS, a simple, browser-based slicer designed for multi-material 3D printing. Its features include version control for print settings, data-driven settings optimizations, and will soon allow users to “paint” or colorize 3D printable files in an intuitive and simple way.

CANVAS promises to streamline workflow, decrease processing times, decrease or even remove transition material, organize files, and increase the quality of 3D prints over time. The software is free and can be used for single-material 3D printing as well as multi-material.

Mosaic Manufacturing was founded in 2014, and the Palette 2 has been in the works since 2016.

Discuss this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com or share your thoughts below.

[Images: Mosaic Manufacturing]