Try to picture the sheer number of gadgets, utensils, and wearables sold in a year that involve plastic in some way. They all rolled off an assembly line in a factory somewhere, and there are probably as many ways for the manufacture of such a device to go wrong as there are devices themselves. Odds are good Eric Appelblom of FATHOM Precision has seen each one happen at least once, which is why Highway1 likes to make sure he talks to our cohorts about planning for the perils of manufacturing. We sat down with him to chat about what he sees for the future of the factory floor.
HWY1: What’s the biggest change you’re seeing to the way things are manufactured?
EA: Everybody’s trying to compress the product development cycle — people are starting to look outside of traditional processes and see how new ones can be applied to accelerate it. At FATHOM, for instance, we’re offering a combination of new technologies plus services that would normally be a series of handoffs through the timeline of product development: 3D printing, early bridge tooling, mass production. When you have the same set of people throughout, the things you’ve learned from different processes that typically would be sent out to a variety of companies are all under one roof instead; there’s no loss of knowledge.
HWY1: What are the changes that makes possible?
EA: A more traditional product development path would involve making a 3D printed version, then an RTV (room-temperature vulcanization) molded one before going into production. These days, 3D printing is so much faster because of the matured set of technologies and materials to choose from: you can pick one that’s more like your final resin and iterate on multiple designs in ways not previously possible. Today, you’re able to make decisions earlier in the process, decisions which steer you away from product development pitfalls that waste your time or lose you a lot of money.
HWY1: New processes and technologies mean there are probably new pitfalls to uncover; how do you account for or find them?
EA: [chuckles] Typically, you find them when your design doesn’t work. These technologies are relatively new enough that we’re still learning alongside everyone else, but we’re an agile group who can take risks for others. To uncover the pitfalls, as well as the benefits, you have to change your mindset and be open to exploring the integration of new technologies like additive. We don’t necessarily pitch people saying, “Tomorrow is now!” but we do say, “We’re on this ever-changing ride, trying as many new things as possible to see what we can do to improve the process and push the limits of manufacturing — and anybody who wants to partner with us is more than welcome to come along.”
HWY1: Do you build time for mistakes into your timelines?
EA: Ordinarily, yes, but the speed at which we’re able to move almost makes it unnecessary; when you iterate at an accelerated pace like we do, you have so much more time to test a design. For instance, at FATHOM, we have a DragonFly 2020 by Nano Dimension capable of 3D printing circuit boards. That process typically takes weeks, but now it’s possible to 3D print a PCB in hours; instead of having to wait days or weeks to see if just one design works, we can fabricate multiple variations on the same design. That’s just one example of how an additive technology is changing an industry like electronics, and it’s always advancing, too. The system is also capable of 3D printing flexible circuits, and that really encourages us to change the way we look at design. Advanced technologies like this one really turn manufacturing on its ear; you’re able to test out concepts and discover new ones earlier in the process, before you invest a bunch of money.
HWY1: What’s the most difficult part of choosing a material or process?
EA: It’s essentially an educated guess. You’re relying on your experience and your knowledge of materials and their properties, as well as how the person you’re working with thinks. When somebody’s new at designing something, although they think they have a concise idea of what they’re trying to accomplish and what the material needs to do, it’s often not the case: sometimes they just don’t have the experience of what the product will do in an actual real-world environment. Many times, you’ll pick a material and it’ll exceed expectations — and sometimes it won’t. Then you have to think about cost versus performance, and maybe you’ll end up changing the material. The nice thing about 3D printed tooling is that you’re not spending $25,000 on the wrong mold, you’re spending $5,000 and saving yourself from a huge mistake. That approach really reduces your potential liability when it comes to the development cost of an item.
HWY1: You hinted at this in your talk for Cohort Nine: you said you saw big changes coming — what does 3D printing look like a year from now?
EA: We’re going to see a revolution as far as materials go, including a change in methodology around the use and number of 3D printed parts in production elements. Right now, 3D printing is mainly used for product development and validation during those iterative cycles, but it’s going to become a real-world manufacturing process. You’ll often hear experts at FATHOM use the phrase “direct digital manufacturing” because it’s becoming more common for companies to take an additive manufacturing approach to final parts. For example, we’re working with a company in Barcelona right now who wants to additively manufacture large-format, low-volume parts that would be too expensive to tool. Additive materials have matured enough that companies can build parts in engineering-grade materials that can take the rigors of everyday use.
