Posted On: 02/09/2014 1:15:50 PM
Post# of 375
Longs on SGLB understand that there is a need for process quality assurance. People tend to disregard the need for a closed-loop controller. Metal 3DP for industrial manufacturing differs completely from prototyping with plastics, sand, etc. Products produced with non-metal material don't require the precision that is needed to create operational parts. Metal 3DP needs a solution for process monitoring for parts to tolerate the harsh conditions of an operating environment. Without precision and certification, no product can be put to market. And if we say that certification of metal 3DP parts proves too complex to achieve, then the entire process will not be invested any further. However, we do know that this is not the case and many companies and industries are adopting this new method of production.
Many companies have tried to develop a method of process monitoring but none has been able to create a reliable system. Look at the inventions by Sciaky, Stratonics, Arcam, and Jyoti Mazumder to see how they have not been able to produce a reliable way to ensure process accuracy. If the opposite was true, then a system would already be in place and metal 3DP would already have a closed-loop controller. Also, the efforts to develop a process monitor is not new. A method to control the printing process so that the quality of the product meets expectations is not a new idea and procedure found to be needed. The problem has existed long before most of us ever heard of 3D printing.
I personally believe the technology behind PrintRite3D will gain success. I don't think the scientists and engineers directing America Makes granted Sigma Labs participation and grants for naught. There are expectations for Sigma Labs to contribute. The same can be said by Greg Morris and we can look at the timeline from Morris Technology to GE Aviation that Sigma Labs contributes to the metal 3DP in ways GE Aviation is confident to invest billions in AM.
What I ask for those who think Sigma Labs will not be a part in developing the technology is what they think is a solution. What can be brought to contribute to metal 3DP for the process to become more widely adopted? Do we continue to use post-process inspection for parts produce or are there better methods at controlling process in real-time?
Many companies have tried to develop a method of process monitoring but none has been able to create a reliable system. Look at the inventions by Sciaky, Stratonics, Arcam, and Jyoti Mazumder to see how they have not been able to produce a reliable way to ensure process accuracy. If the opposite was true, then a system would already be in place and metal 3DP would already have a closed-loop controller. Also, the efforts to develop a process monitor is not new. A method to control the printing process so that the quality of the product meets expectations is not a new idea and procedure found to be needed. The problem has existed long before most of us ever heard of 3D printing.
I personally believe the technology behind PrintRite3D will gain success. I don't think the scientists and engineers directing America Makes granted Sigma Labs participation and grants for naught. There are expectations for Sigma Labs to contribute. The same can be said by Greg Morris and we can look at the timeline from Morris Technology to GE Aviation that Sigma Labs contributes to the metal 3DP in ways GE Aviation is confident to invest billions in AM.
What I ask for those who think Sigma Labs will not be a part in developing the technology is what they think is a solution. What can be brought to contribute to metal 3DP for the process to become more widely adopted? Do we continue to use post-process inspection for parts produce or are there better methods at controlling process in real-time?
(0)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
