3D Printing for Industrial Design

If we are serious about bringing manufacturing back to the West 🏭, we have to rethink how things are made. One of the most practical ways to do that is by adopting true multi-material 3D printing. And please, do not confuse this with multi-color printing, that's for toys and statues. I'm talking about combining a rigid engineering polymer (like Carbon-Filled Nylon) with a soft, flexible rubber (like TPU) in a single run. Trying to push these different polymers through one nozzle is an engineering nightmare. The temperatures clash, and the process is slow and wasteful. To do this reliably, you need a Toolchanger, a system in which every material gets its own perfectly tuned hotend. When you have that capability sitting on a desktop, it completely changes how you design products: 💧 Water-Soluble Supports: Intricate parts need supports you usually have to break away with pliers. Now, you can print the main part in a tough polymer and the supports in PVA. Drop the part in water, the supports dissolve completely, and you get a flawless surface. ⚙️ Zero-Assembly Mechanics: Print a rigid enclosure with a tough, flexible TPU hinge already built in. It comes off the bed ready to use: no gluing, no screws, no assembly line. 💰 Smart Material Use: Need incredible strength? Print just the outer shell in an expensive carbon-filled nylon, and fill the inside with an affordable basic filament. When you can securely produce complex, multi-property end-use parts right in your own workshop, you stop relying on fragile overseas supply chains. You keep your IP in-house. The materials are ready. The hardware has finally caught up. If you could combine two completely different materials into one single part today, what would you build? Let me know below. 👇 #3Dprinting #AdditiveManufacturing #Reshoring #MultiMaterial #Prusa

It’s starting to look like Tools-R-Us in my office with all these 3D-printed tools laying around. From left to right: Modular head with the hookup Square shank head ER collet with matching nut And on the far right, one of ARCH’s full-radius facemills These aren’t just desk ornaments. We use these continuously in ARCH University to train our employees on insert nomenclature, insert orientation, and proper seating techniques, without risking real tooling, inserts, or machines. Beyond training, 3D printing has become a serious asset in the machining industry: Rapid prototyping of tool concepts before committing to steel Visual aids for sales, engineering reviews, and customer education Safer, lower-cost hands-on training for new hires Faster iteration on tool geometry and insert pocket design Better communication between engineering, manufacturing, and customers. It’s a simple technology, but when used intentionally, it removes barriers to learning and speeds up understanding across the board. Curious to hear from others in manufacturing, how are you using 3D printing in your shop or organization?

Why invest in an industrial DLP system when a hobby printer can create the same geometry? This is a common question, but it's not the right comparison. Geometry is just one variable. From an engineering perspective, the key questions are: 👉 Can you maintain ±50 µm accuracy across builds? 👉 Are your material properties consistent from lot to lot? 👉 Do your parts comply with flammability, thermal, or biocompatibility specifications? 👉 Is your process stable enough for validation and scaling? This is where the differences become clear. Hobby DLP systems can produce shapes, but industrial DLP systems deliver controlled, repeatable parts with defined material performance. Material capability is the differentiator: • P3 MED Silicone 25A (Shin-Etsu Chemical) → True silicone elastomer → Biocompatible → Suitable for functional medical applications • Loctite IND3955 → UL94 V-0 rated → Elevated temperature resistance → Designed for electrical/electronic housings Process capability is equally important: ✔ Closed-loop exposure control ✔ Consistent energy delivery across the build plane ✔ Validated print parameters (not trial-and-error tuning) ✔ Repeatable mechanical performance from part to part Platforms like the Stratasys Origin Two are designed as manufacturing systems, not just prototyping tools. This distinction is crucial when: • You need parts to pass qualification • You're producing end-use components • You're scaling beyond one-off builds If your requirement is visual models, hobby systems may suffice. However, if you need engineering-grade performance and repeatability, the conversation shifts. The real comparison isn't about printer cost; it's about process capability versus risk. #AdditiveManufacturing #DLP #Engineering #3DPrinting #Manufacturing #MaterialsScience #MedicalDevices #Electronics #UL94 #Stratasys #OriginTwo https://lnkd.in/gfnZgPzZ

The Death of Expensive Prototyping: How 3D Printing Changed Manufacturing Forever Let me take you back to 2017 when I was trying to launch my first product. £8,000 and three months later, I had ONE prototype. And guess what? It wasn't even right. Fast forward to last week - I printed 12 versions of a new product, tested them all, and nailed the design. Total cost? £200. That's what 3D printing has done to manufacturing. Why does this matter? Because the old way of prototyping was brutal. Factory minimums that made your eyes water, sample fees that felt like daylight robbery, and months of WeChat back-and-forth. Want to change your design? "Sorry sir, new mold needed" - and there goes another few grand. But now? It's actually mental how simple it's become. You start with your idea - could be a rough sketch, basic CAD file, or just a concept. Within hours, you're holding your first prototype. Don't like something? Print a new version. Customer feedback suggests a different grip? Done by morning. Handle too thick? Fixed in an hour. Let's talk real numbers: 2017: First prototype cost me over £5,000. Each design change? Another grand. Timeline? Two to three months of back and forth, minimum. 2024: First prototype runs £50-100. Design changes cost £20-30 each. Timeline? 24 hours from idea to holding it in your hand. Real talk: If you've got a product idea but you're waiting for "the right time" or "more money" - stop. The barriers are gone. The excuses are dead. What you actually need is simple: a product idea (obviously), a basic design file (plenty of freelancers can help), and access to a printer or printing service. That's it. Here are your next steps: Get your idea out of your head, find a decent CAD designer, print your first prototype, and start testing with real people. This isn't just about saving money. It's about getting your product right before you bet big on manufacturing. Comment PRINTER if you want my list of trusted designers and printers I use for all my products. P.S. Currently testing a new product that would've cost £20k to prototype the old way. Total spend so far? £600. Times have changed.

How a 130-year-old company reduced expenses by 75% and increased their annual production by over 50% with large-format additive manufacturing One of the oldest foundry techniques in heavy machinery manufacturing just got a serious upgrade. At JC Steele, a global leader in stiff extrusion machinery for industries from ferro alloys to wallboard, traditional foundry sand casting is meeting large-format Additive Manufacturing. Using the BigRep ONE, JC Steele now prints the patterns for their sand casting molds - faster, smarter, cleaner. The results speak for themselves: 75% cost reduction, 50% faster production cycles. Introducing AM into our production has greatly improved our operations,” says Chris Watts, Pattern Shop Supervisor. “We’ve eliminated the longest, most error-prone steps: manual pattern design, interpreting drawings, and managing waste in the foundry. The takeaway? Marrying a century-old foundry process with cutting-edge 3D printing doesn’t just modernize - it transforms. Design iterations are faster, workflows leaner, and the path from idea to finished mold is smoother than ever. For manufacturers still on the fence: the future of heavy industrial tooling isn’t just digital. It’s digitally empowered foundry work. #3Dprinting #foundry

Stop printing parts designed for CNC machines. You're wasting 50% of what 3D printing can do. Most companies use 3D printing to replicate parts they used to mill or injection mold. This is the biggest missed opportunity in additive manufacturing. The real value comes from Design for Additive Manufacturing, or DfAM. Here's what that looks like in practice: Take this rocket engine model by Prusa Research . Most designers create without considering the manufacturing technology. But this model was expertly designed to require zero supports. The results are: → 30%+ reduction in print time → Zero post-processing → All intricate details preserved This is DFAM in action. With FFF 3D printing especially, understanding the technology's constraints lets you design around them. The result isn't just a different manufacturing method, it's a complete rethinking of what's possible. You get: • Lower costs • Faster production • Higher quality output • Designs that weren't possible before DfAM isn't just about making parts differently. It's about thinking about products differently.

INDUSTRIAL DESIGNERS: 3D printing is no longer the future ——— Additive has been used in production before, but never at this scale with this level of finish. Apple is now 3D printing the titanium cases for all Apple Watch Ultra 3 and Series 11 using recycled aerospace-grade powder, meeting structural, cosmetic, and sustainability requirements at once. That’s millions of units. The shift from subtractive to additive changes what’s possible: built-in textures, near-final geometry, half the raw material, no tooling limitations. This isn’t a prototype pipeline. It’s mass production with fewer constraints and better outcomes, for the company and the planet. 3D printing is no longer the future. It’s the present. Are you ready to change your concept of manufacturing? ——— Craftedby.agency

Q: "Should I print this design for production?" A: "It depends." When seeing prototype designs done with 3D printers, some clients ask if they should continue 3D printing (AM, or Additive Manufacturing) for their production builds. I typically follow up with a few questions: 1. How many do you want to build? The term "production" means different things to different industries. 10 units/year? 100,000/week? 2. How quickly do you need the production parts? One reason folks choose Additive for production is the short lead-time. We're talking about hours or days to final parts instead of days/weeks (or months) for molding. 3. How sensitive are you to capital investment (tooling?) Sometimes it's cheaper (and a better option) to make a mold. 4. Do you anticipate changing the design after launch? Many times we'll launch pilot production with Additive to build inventory, and (in parallel) build a tool for mass-production. 5. Are you interested in learning about the power of Additive? It's so much more than an alternate manufacturing process. AM is a mindset. AM can eliminate entire assembly processes by consolidating separate parts into one printed part. AM can build wholly void internal parts, with complicated moving linkages inside (!) with no assembly needed. Some AM technologies can mix and blend materials into the same print, creating photo-realistic parts. It has so many opportunities for creating new/novel forms impossible with traditional manufacturing methods. So if you're just looking to replace a molded part with a printed part, you might be disappointed. It's not really an apples to apples comparison. Similar to Design for Injection Molding and Design for CNC, Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM) has rules that should be followed to ensure that your part builds correctly, reliably, and for the right cost. Let me know if you need help navigating the waters of AM. Shown here is a volume pilot production build (4800 parts) in HP MJF with DyeMansion Polyshot blast/dye finish. https://lnkd.in/g9-tJTxR #DfAM #AdditiveManufacturing #3DPrinting

Your product is getting great reviews, customers absolutely love it… but there’s one small sizing tweak they all seem to want. If you’ve already spent $30,000 on an injection mold, this can be heartbreaking to hear. Redesigning and retooling for such a small change can put you between a rock and a hard place. Do you ignore the market, or blow your budget in the process of best serving your customer base? During my recent interview with Merit3D founder Spencer Loveless, he revealed how he’s able to easily adjust a 3D-printed part by just a tenth of an inch based on customer feedback. Think about that. In a traditional manufacturing world, that would mean: - Recreating the mold - Spending thousands, or tens of thousands, of dollars - Waiting weeks, probably months With 3D printing? You tweak the CAD file, hit print, and you’ve got the new version in hand almost immediately. For inventors and small companies, 3D printing is making domestic manufacturing a serious alternative to expensive overseas injection molding. You can move faster, learn faster, and adapt faster—all while keeping control over quality and supply. In a world where speed and adaptability win, this is a game-changer. Have you used 3D printing to turn your idea into a product? What was your experience? #Innovation #inventright #Entrepreneurship #Technology #3Dprinting

The future of footwear may not be manufactured in bulk. It may be fabricated around you. That is what makes this shift so interesting to me. 3D-printed footwear is moving from novelty to a real industrial model, with market forecasts pointing to rapid growth over the next decade. At the same time, brands and manufacturers are using additive manufacturing, digital design, and custom-fit workflows to shorten development cycles and make more personalized products viable. What is new here is not just the printer. It is the system around it: → scan the foot → model the fit digitally → print the part on demand → produce closer to the customer That matters. Because once footwear becomes data-driven and locally fabricated, several things change fast: → fit gets more personal → prototyping gets faster → waste drops because you do not overproduce → inventory pressure falls because you do not need to guess demand the same way To me, that is the bigger signal. This is not just about a better sneaker. It is about a different manufacturing logic. Formlabs notes that 3D printing already enables customized orthotics with better biomechanical precision, lower material waste, and simpler digital workflows. McKinsey has also pointed to digitization and 3D design as a way to shorten design cycles and reduce sampling iterations in apparel and footwear. And once that logic matures, the use cases get much bigger: → custom athletic footwear built from gait and pressure data → hospitals producing orthotics faster and closer to the patient → micro-factories making products on demand instead of stocking shelves → footwear designed for one body, not an average body That is why I think this matters now. The question is no longer whether personalized fabrication is possible. It is whether brands move fast enough before customers start expecting every product to fit like it was made only for them. Would you actually wear a shoe fabricated around your own biometric data? #AI #3DPrinting #Footwear #Manufacturing #Innovation #FutureOfWork #RetailTech #Customization #Technology