The Kespry Aerial Intelligence Platform, which allows users to design and launch autonomous aerial surveying missions

When you’re pioneering a new technology, affordable iteration and scalability are key. Kespry needed a partner and a process that would help them do something that’s still extraordinary: develop parts using 3D printing, and then integrate those parts into end-use manufacturing. Reliability, repeatability, and proactive support would underpin the success of the collaboration. “We were a very small company trying to scale up our product and get it out to market as quickly as possible. We were looking for a supplier who had reasonable scale and the right combination of lead time and cost,” remembers Jordan Croom, Kespry’s lead mechanical engineer.

Croom came to Kespry, appropriately, from the aerospace industry, where he did additive manufacturing research and development with both metals and plastics. This background prepared him to apply 3D printing in a relatively novel way. “I had a good understanding of what was possible. We were in a unique place to be able to incorporate additive manufacturing into full-scale production, which I think is somewhat rare, even though it’s becoming more common these days. So that was new for me — to be making multiple hundreds of something per order and incorporate them into our production line.”

“We were a very small company trying to scale up our product and get it out to market as quickly as possible. We were looking for a supplier who had reasonable scale and the right combination of lead time and cost.”

Shapeways offered the kind of scalability and reliability that Kespry needed. “When we started with Shapeways, it was before we even had our first customer, and now we have hundreds of drones going out every quarter. And it’s been a smooth transition to get to that point. That’s definitely not true of all of our vendors. Shapeways is one of the few that’s held out throughout that scaling process.”

A look at Kespry’s 3D mapping software, part of their Aerial Intelligence Platform

Affordability and speed play equally important roles in the 3D printing-for-manufacturing calculus. “Leveraging 3D printing and Shapeways allowed us to get things out there faster without paying an exorbitant premium to do it. And it also allows us to make modifications and improvements to our product without interrupting shipping them out to customers. So we can make a change and incorporate it in production in a few weeks, whereas if we were doing injection molding, it would take maybe a couple of months to make that sort of change. Especially now at production scale, Shapeways can handle the quantities that we’re dealing with really well, without long lead times.”

“We do look for that teamwork and responsiveness in a partner, and Shapeways has shown that to us. I would definitely recommend Shapeways to other companies.”

This became particularly important when it came to the aesthetic covers that enclose the drone’s delicate inner workings. “I know for sure that if we’d tried to make an injection mold for that, it would have been exorbitantly expensive for us. We’ve been able to modify it relatively frequently without much cost impact at all because we’re not investing in fixed tooling,” making it possible for Kespry to bring the best possible product to market, faster. “Getting the right partner is definitely important to us. Somebody with repeatable quality, where we know we can prove a design once. We don’t have to worry about it changing or breaking in future orders.”

“Leveraging 3D printing and Shapeways allowed us to get things out there faster without paying an exorbitant premium to do it. And it also allows us to make modifications and improvements to our product without interrupting shipping them out to customers. Especially now at production scale, Shapeways can handle the quantities that we’re dealing with really well, without long lead times.”

Along the way, of course, there have been a few hiccups, but, “If we do have an issue, Neil, our account manager is very responsive, very proactive and patient. I’ll get an email, photos, a description, etc. asking us if it’s ok to ship, if they should reprint them. We do look for that teamwork and responsiveness in a partner, and Shapeways has shown that to us. I would definitely recommend Shapeways to other companies,” said Veronica Espiritu, Kespry’s production buyer.

In the end, the Kespry drone wouldn’t exist without Shapeways’ prototyping and manufacturing support. As Jordan put it, “We’ve been ordering Shapeways parts basically since the beginning. It’s been helpful to work with Shapeways because you’ve been able to scale with us, going from just a few parts a week to hundreds per month. Shapeways has been able to absorb the increase in demand. I think it’s reflective of both Shapeways and the state of the industry and technology that we’re able to do that in a reliable and repeatable way — without having any negative effect on usability and reliability as a product.”

start growing your drone business with shapeways

The post How Kespry’s Drones Are Mapping New Territories in Manufacturing appeared first on Shapeways Blog.

Last month, we put out a call for designs when the iPhone X was unveiled, and the community has already created some fantastic cases. We’ll be featuring the best of your iPhone X cases in a future post, so keep ’em coming!

In the meantime, if you’re looking for some guidance on how to get started in designing your own case, our partners at Vectary have created three videos that will walk you through the process of tweaking a basic design template to fit your needs. These videos are best for experienced Vectary users, so we recommend you try out one of our other Vectary tutorials first to get familiar with the free browser-based design software before you begin. Once you’ve created your 3D model, you’ll be able to automatically send the file for printing through Shapeways.

Create an iPhone X case with a grip (AKA stand, or popsocket)

Choose a simple cutout for the back of your case…

…or a more complex pattern that’s truly personalized

If you’re an experienced 3D designer, think of these Vectary-built models as a jumping-off point for your own iPhone X creations. And let us know: What are some of the design challenges presented by the new phone? What are you most excited about?

The post It’s iPhone X Day! Get Your Case on With These 3 iPhone X Case Tutorials appeared first on Shapeways Blog.

So you’re launching a physical product. Maybe it’s just a simple object, maybe it’s a hardware product with integrated electronics, or maybe it has mechanical functionality. You’ve built one (or probably many) prototypes, you’ve launched a successful crowdfunding campaign in order to manufacture your first batch, and now you need to do just that.

This is the point at which many entrepreneurs run into trouble – how do you scale from 1 to 1,000 units? Or 10,000? Maybe even 100,000 if you’re lucky. There are many factors to consider when scaling your manufacturing, but one of obvious concern is the method with which you’ll create the physical components for your product.

So how does someone go about choosing the right method that will scale along with his or her business? Here we’ll explore the pros and cons of two popular types of plastic part manufacturing: injection molding and 3D printing.

Background

When focusing on plastic components and products, there are traditionally few manufacturing methods available, the oldest and most common being injection molding. While injection molding has dominated the manufacturing landscape for decades, new techniques, such as 3D printing, have begun to gain traction by offering an alternative at costs competitive with injection molding for low-volume runs.

Unfortunately, there is no single manufacturing method that is perfect for every part and situation. As you’re thinking about creating a new product or scaling up the production of an existing one, it’s critical that you take special care to understand the advantages and disadvantages associated with both methods.

Injection Molding

Injection molding is one of the oldest high-volume manufacturing processes, wherein a molten material (such as a thermoplastic) is injected into a metal mold. Once injected, the thermoplastic takes on the mold cavity’s shape, is cooled, and is ejected as a solid part.

Injection molding is typically used for producing high volumes of the same object. For instance, if you’re looking to manufacture 100,000 pairs of identical plastic sunglasses, injection molding would be a great way to go about doing that.

The method does have its pitfalls, however. First, there is a large upfront investment involved in making a mold. Molds can be reused to make hundreds of thousands, if not millions of parts, but can cost anywhere from a few thousand dollars to over $100,000. As a result, there is an inflexibility that comes with needing to create a new mold for every new or modified part. That said, injection molding is a complex but powerful process that has been the go-to solution in the plastic part manufacturing market for years.

3D Printing

3D printing, or additive manufacturing, is a 30-year-old technology that has picked up a lot of steam in recent years. Unique to 3D printing is the process of adding material together to create the end part. This is opposed to cutting material away, like in milling, or reshaping it, like in injection molding.

There are many benefits inherent to this process, such as the ability to produce completely custom parts with virtually no upfront cost. With 3D printing, rather than needing a new mold for every new part, all you need is a new digital file. Additionally, 3D printing is capable of producing shapes that are impossible, or very uneconomical, to produce with any other manufacturing method.

Like injection molding, 3D printing also has its downsides. Today, many 3D printing processes are expensive, slow, and may produce parts that are not up to industry quality or material standards.

So, what process should you use to manufacture your parts – 3D printing or injection molding? When considering both methods, deciding between the two can become rather complicated and case-specific.

Considering Unit Cost & Order Volume

As previously mentioned, the prerequisite to injection molding any part is creating the mold itself. Mold costs vary greatly, but the cheapest ones typically start at around $5,000. Once you have a mold, the cost to make each unit is very little considering it really only includes the plastic used (which is very cheap), and perhaps a tiny bit of labor. This means that the upfront cost of making a mold gets amortized over your production run; with each additional unit you produce, the unit cost decreases since the initial mold cost is being spread across another unit.

3D printing is a different animal. Because 3D printing is a digital manufacturing technology, there is virtually no upfront cost to making a new part. At the end of the day, 3D printed part costs can be attributed mainly to material cost, manufacturing time, and labor. All of these are more expensive for 3D printers than for injection molding, but again, without an upfront mold cost the barrier to entry is a lot lower.

So, looking purely at unit costs, which method is more economical? There is always a point at which injection molding becomes more price competitive than 3D printing. Today, this point is usually somewhere between 1 and 10,000 units for parts that could be made to satisfaction with either method.

The figure below shows the relative unit cost for runs of the same theoretical injection molded and 3D printed part, plotted logarithmically. This model assumes a mold cost of $10,000 with each injection molded unit adding $0.20 of material cost. It assumes the 3D printed unit cost for the same part to be $20/unit for any run volume.

This logarithmic graph shows the theoretical unit cost for the same part manufactured separately with 3D printing and with injection molding. Using 3D printing, the unit cost remains at $20, regardless of the number of parts produced. Using injection molding, a $10,000 mold must be made prior to making the first unit. From there, each unit can be made for an additional $0.20, thus making the effective unit cost equal to $0.20 + $10,000/# of units produced. From the above graph, we can see that due to the upfront mold cost with injection molding, it only becomes the more cost effective production method if you are producing more than 500 units.

Other Considerations

Outside of unit cost and order volume, there are other considerations that come into play when choosing between injection molding and 3D printing:

Complexity – Whether an object is organically shaped or has ultra-sharp edges, its type and degree of complexity can help inform which manufacturing method you choose. Ultimately, you should choose the method best suited for making what you’ve designed. When thinking of “creative” or organic shapes as complexity, 3D printing wins. When thinking of hard engineering constraints and tolerances, injection molding [ed. note: most often] wins.

Production Time – Production time is typically determined by the manufacturer’s capacity and and the size of the production run. The many steps required to get something into production can factor into this timeline, from sourcing a manufacturer, to making a mold, to quality control, shipping and eventual delivery. You should always consider the manufacturer’s location, steps to getting to production, and guaranteed delivery time.

Iteration & Change – As with all competitive products and services, being able to iterate often and maintain agility is key to innovation. If you’re at the beginning of a long product development journey, spending a few thousand dollars on a mold that cannot be changed will most likely slow down your innovation cycle. However, if you’re at a point where your focus is scale and repeatability, then injection molding may prove to be more fitting than 3D printing.

Into the Future

As we look towards the future we’re seeing exciting developments within the realms of both 3D printing and injection molding. These advancements are making it easier and faster to get things made, and will hopefully lower the barrier so that more and more people can make the products they dream up.

Next time you find yourself on the journey to get something manufactured, consider the above factors and make the decision that will increase your chances of success in bringing a new product or part to life.

Looking to explore what 3D printing can do for your business? Get in touch with the Shapeways for Business team.

The post High-Volume 3D Printing vs. Injection Molding appeared first on Shapeways Blog.

3D printed parts meet traditionally manufactured parts in Preceyes’ first-of-its-kind surgical robot

Thijs Meenink had a challenge both enormous and microscopic: create a solution for eye surgeons to perform procedures at a scale never before attempted — a much, much smaller scale. However, the size of the problem he was addressing was huge: untreatable retinal diseases that affect 50 to 75 million people.

Meenink co-founded Preceyes to develop a new kind of precision robotic solution, one that could both assist surgeons and mitigate the risks of human error in the most, well, precise of surgeries: vitreoretinal procedures that take surgical instruments inside the eye. “These are the most delicate, and the most difficult kind of procedures within eye surgery, and even within microsurgery,” he told us. “The stability and precision, plus the smoothness of using a robot really contribute to the abilities of the surgeon.”

Pioneering a technology based around hardware iterations has traditionally been a costly endeavor. For Preceyes, creating a new generation of ultra-precise, first-of-their-kind surgical robots necessitated a new way of working. “The complete system is totally new. There is no part that was already available; the entire system is built from scratch.” Shapeways would play a key role in bringing it to life.

“I started out experimenting with Shapeways over five years ago. First I made one thing, then a few things per month, and it just kind of snowballed. I soon saw how useful it could become.” As Meenink developed Preceyes’ robots, 3D printing became more than a means of creating parts. Without Shapeways, the robots simply would not exist.

“It started with prototyping — just to hold something and get a feel for its shape and mechanisms. And testing to see if things work like you’d thought. But, when you get more familiar with it, you make real products. And you have a lot of freedom. Now, I think we have 60 products made by Shapeways that are in the robotic system, in nylon, aluminum, and stainless steel. In the beginning you aren’t really familiar with the process and the possibilities. I was expecting to receive parts that were very weak. But that changed: the parts weren’t weak, and tolerances have only gotten better and better. They simply work.”

One of the best illustrations of the power of 3D printing in the robots’ continued development are the covers that protect its most delicate operations. “The robot makes weird movements. The space the robot moves in is much larger than the actual robot. With complex shapes enabled by 3D printing, you can make sure that this space is bounded, keeping the system small. This impacts and improves the efficiency of space, cost, and many other things. This is not possible with other production methods — it’s way too expensive to make these covers from metal or plastic using conventional manufacturing. 3D printing is a really perfect system.”

The Preceyes Surgical System uses a revolutionary technique in which the motions of the physician are mimicked at micro scale within the eye of the patient. Meenink is a mechanical designer, so the ergonomics of the human-computer interface would pose a unique challenge. “The surgeon holds the motion controller (or joystick), and the gripper on the joystick must have a very ergonomic shape. I had to work through five or six iterations to get there. All were made by Shapeways. Quickly testing and adapting designs, week by week, easily iterating, works so well with Shapeways.”

“I frequently recommend Shapeways to others. The freedom of design, the speed, the large custom parts, large bounding box, and prices — even up to 100 pieces, it’s still way cheaper to use 3D printing. And there’s no other supplier that has this kind of transparency of production and delivery. It’s always consistent.”

Now, Preceyes is preparing to take its robots to market as “the very first company in the world to make a system for robotic eye surgery that will be available commercially in operating rooms,” but the research and development process won’t end there. And it will continue to be enabled by 3D printing. “When I’m designing something new, I try to put the most 3D printed parts and the least conventional parts. Cost, speed, the ability to combine parts, etc. all play a part. With 3D printing, the possibilities are endless.”

He also reminds us that the promise of medical robotics is just beginning to be fulfilled. And while some fear the power of these technologies, Meenink, for one, welcomes the rise of the bots. “Don’t be scared of robots; theirs are better than human hands. They will not take over the world, but they will assist surgeons for the better.”

start growing your business with shapeways

See the Preceyes system in action here:

The post “Don’t be scared of robots” How Preceyes Surgical Robotics Define Medicine’s New Frontiers appeared first on Shapeways Blog.

Last week, Knezevic and sound engineer Edin Secibovic launched a Kickstarter for their innovative T3TRA loudspeakers. With frames in colorful Shapeways Strong & Flexible nylon and panels in laser-cut birch plywood, the speakers combine two of the most popular digital manufacturing techniques. The single-piece tetrahedral frame also offers a distinct audiophile advantage, dramatically reducing vibration (and the usual small-speaker tinniness). The result is a small-but-mighty portable speaker. I asked Igor about what led him down this new path in product design.

What inspired you to create the T3TRA speakers?

I thought, “Let’s try to use the simplest geometric forms,” which make great sense for hi-fi sound (no hard edges, no corners, so fewer resonances, etc.), and try to make all the pieces digitally, with a minimum of post-processing. The frame is 3D printed and the sides are natural plywood (birch), laser-cut to fit perfectly into the 3D printed frame. As a result, T3TRA speakers have great sound, especially in this size group.

The finished T3TRA, and in concept form

What advantages did the 3D printed element bring to the speakers?

The tetrahedral frame of the loudspeaker is 3D printed in SLS nylon, giving it great stability and excellent sound properties because of the shape (no parallel edges), rounded edges (better for sound diffusion) and perfect uniformity of nylon material. In short, it’s a “unibody” frame. This is quite hard to achieve with other manufacturing methods. Plus, it can have that really intense Shapeways dye color. The color really pops – like candy.

Available color options

What was the process of creating them like?

This sound system as a form/shape was designed by myself, but the real sound expertise was provided by my friend and co-creator Edin Secibovic, who is a sound engineer. As we tried out some ideas, we realized that by combining two digital manufacturing methods, we can achieve an affordable speaker design which can be produced on-demand and hand-assembled relatively quickly. As far as sound quality is concerned, it worked at first try! We were very pleasantly surprised. Even deep sounds were apparent, which can be a problem for small-form speakers. A few tweaks were needed to make the parts fit perfectly, but it was pretty painless.

The 3D printed frame and laser-cut side panels

Overall, what makes these speakers special?

It’s about having the minimum number of parts, which fit perfectly together since they are all fully digitally manufactured – making for excellent sound distribution. In sound, less is definitely more. It turns out SLS nylon is a very good material for sound applications since the material is perfectly uniform in all directions and sizes are always exact.

We also have another design in the works – this one fully 3D printed, and with a different form factor. Coming soon, so stay tuned!

In the meantime, check out the Kickstarter for the T3TRA speakers, and don’t miss the incredible pieces in Alienology’s Shapeways shop. Let us know in the comments: have you used 3D printed parts in gadgets you’d like us to feature? Leave a note below for a chance to be featured on the blog.

The post Alienology’s Latest: Audiophile-Approved 3D Printed Speakers appeared first on Shapeways Blog.