My Printer

  • Pogačar & Fairlight Cycles Show Us Low Cost 3D Printed Components for Bikes

    There has been a lot going on in 3D printing for bicycles over the years. The most successful implementation so far is in bicycle seats. Carbon 3D printed seats are now being used by most of the major players and are a hit, giving riders comfort at a hefty premium. Besides this, companies have tried many things, such as wheel hubs, derailleur components, entire frames, and lugs, to help customize frames. Helmets, shoes, and other gear have also been tried.

    Especially small brands have been pushing innovation through 3D printing. Typically, light weighting is driving the adoption of 3D printing in cycling. But also, less heat buildup, sweat-wicking properties, unique topologies to increase comfort, aerodynamics, and custom fit are driving the adoption of 3D printing in cycling. It helps that Tour de France bikes now cost upwards of $25,000, while “regular” high-end models are pushing $ 6,000. Given the high cost per kilo that bikes can now command, 3D printing economics are totally doable. But recently, bike valuations have ebbed, more entry-level models are emerging, steel is back in fashion, and lofty expectations are returning to earth. Will 3D printing in bikes remain as hot as it once was? Will bikes become more affordable? We think that saddles and helmets are here to stay, but will 3D-printed bike wax or wane?

    Tadej Points the Way

    We pointed out Tadej Pogačar using 3D printed parts on his Tour bikes in 2023. In addition to high-end custom parts, there are also some small custom material extrusion parts. These small parts are holders, buttons, housings, clips, and more. They help Pogačar customize his bike’s cockpit, wiring, feel, and interfaces. Lightweight custom components are cheap and can be made on desktop 3D printers. By involving Pogačar and his mechanics in the design process, custom parts can be made to his exacting specifications. Now you could do this yourself and easily set up a service for it, but for many people, it is not yet accessible.

    Triathlon Success

    But, in the triathlon world, we can see several companies emerging that make custom parts for triathlon bikes. Triathletes are obsessed with weight and custom parts. 4 Frames has various products, including Garmin seat post mounts. You enter your bike’s brand and model, and it will direct you to the custom part for you. A Garmin mount is $36, and the firm has an AirTag mount for an extra $4, a GoPro mount for $6, and a number mount for $14. They also have a $120 hydration bladder that fits in a case beneath the steering wheel. They have a kind of portable snack cubby and more. 4 Frames uses Material Extrusion, and the products are affordable. They also seem to be made with the user in mind, with deep knowledge of what triathletes want and need.

    A custom 3D printed bike computer mount designed for aerodynamic integration. Image courtesy of Garmin.

    Hinloopen makes Rocket Mounts for bike computers. They say that Pro teams use their mounts. For bike models like the Y1Rs, you just tell them your popular bike computer, and they have a mount for it. They cost $179 and are made by an ex-BMC engineer using powder bed fusion from a service.

    A custom 3D printed rear-mounted bottle holder designed for triathlon applications.

    3DPari makes road and triathlon bike parts, and for $45, you can have a bottle cage mounted behind your back.

    Slipstream3D makes between the armrests and bottle holders for around $200. Both Slipstream and 3DPari do custom designs if you’d like to be like your hero Tadej Pogačar.

    Neat components make $26 holders for the Garmin.

    Most of the above firms are small shops run by engineers, 3D printer enthusiasts, and triathletes. An uncommon trio of abilities and interests leads to a rare ability to make the perfect components for the user.

    Silca’s 3D printed titanium cleats are designed for durability and weight savings. Image courtesy of Silca.

    Silca, on the other hand, was founded in 1917. That company makes 3D printed cleats, computer mounts, and derailleur hangers. I like their $99 derailleur hangers because they’re said to be stiffer and lighter than the OEM components. They are said to improve shifting. These are not cheap, but they show that metal 3D printing is possible in this market. Also, they show that, beyond housing, mount upgrade products are possible.

    A 3D printed derailleur hanger featuring a lattice structure for weight reduction. Image courtesy of Silca.

    The most encouraging example of 3D printed parts I’ve seen publicly, however, is from the British company Fairlight Cycles. The firm specializes in steel frames and craftsmanship, but is also innovative. On their Stael 4.0 bike, they say that they used tubes by the venerable Reynolds firm. That company has an in-house metal LPBF machine and uses it to make tools for bending their tubes correctly.

    Reynolds uses metal 3D printed tooling to support bicycle tube manufacturing. Image courtesy of Reynolds.

    Now that tool is much simpler than the ones we usually associate with 3D printed tools. But it’s super cost-effective for Reynolds to make. In addition to cost savings, it can help their tubes conform to custom geometry, thereby improving frame strength and comfort while reducing costs. This is a great example of a rather old process of welded tubing can use 3D printing cost effectively.

    But, the Fairlight, on the same bike, uses more 3D printing.

    The company specifies a “3D printed down tube cable guide..The brake hose now routes through the part for a more elegant aesthetic…All-new 3D-printed bottom bracket cable guide for mechanical gear set-ups. We have made one part do several jobs; as well as guiding the front and rear derailleur cables, it also acts as a guide for the brake hose and for the dynamo rear light wire,” and a “Specific 3D printed bottom bracket guide for Di2 and AXS set-ups. Guides the brake hose and dynamo rear light wire.”

    Now I love that because cable guides are a tried-and-true 3D printing application that we do very well. Custom, small, precise enough, and cheap, we can really fit in here. Especially if multiple versions of wiring and bikes are needed. And now, with the industry split a bit between hydraulics and regular brakes, and between electronic switching and mechanical switching, more wiring is prevalent. And the second example, for a specific setup, is a dream part for additive. Multiple functionalities in one complex assembly are what we do well.

    It is the helmets and seats that are grabbing the headlines. But as we can see, there is more going on with 3D printed bike parts. Custom parts could be something that some demanding consumers might aspire to, pointing the way to software- or engineering-based design services. And very specific bike parts made on low-cost machines are making their presence felt. With less expensive metal printing emerging, we could see more affordable metal parts as well. And in the regular production of bicycles, we can see small parts that could play a bigger role across many manufacturers.

  • US Continues to Transfer Expeditionary 3D Printing Know-How to the Pacific

    At this year’s Balikatan event, an annual joint exercise hosted by the Philippines military with participation from Western allies, the US military trained Filipino troops in expeditionary manufacturing enabled by 3D printing and other digital production processes. A group of advanced manufacturing specialists known as ‘The Forge’, representing the US Army’s Hawaii-based 25th Infantry Division, taught their partners in the Pacific how to manufacture in a warehouse in the jungle, a skill that the US service members themselves had only begun acquiring the previous year.

    As I noted in my story about that event, the geography of that instance of tech transfer is anything but accidental, with Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) prioritizing a buildup of deployable additive manufacturing (AM) capabilities in China’s neck of the woods. The primacy of that theme was just reinforced by the US military’s announcement that it recently supplied Marines stationed in Okinawa with a new production system called the Advanced Integrated Mobile Machine Shop (AIMMS).

    Developed by US Navy civil engineers from Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Carderock’s Advanced Manufacturing Branch, and only just completed in February 2026, AIMMS is a containerized unit that in photos appears to leverage a Phillips Additive Hybrid unit, comprised of a Haas CNC mill and laser metal deposition (LMD) from brands including Meltio. The Phillips Additive Hybrid has become a standard choice for the US Navy thanks to its deployability, validated by its installation on US Navy vessels.

    While that doesn’t mean that soldiers will be riding around in AIMMS — which can be transported via attachment to a tactical vehicle — and printing parts on-the-go, its mobility does mean that it can be taken from place to place far more quickly than would a fixed installation. In addition to enabling resupply of critical parts close to the point-of-need, that also suggests the possibility of moving the same unit around for training purposes.

    A built-in training curriculum is certainly part of the appeal of containerized manufacturing, with DVIDS noting that getting service members up to speed on the basics of AIMMS takes about a week and a half, which is becoming something of a standard timeframe for introducing US military personnel to digital manufacturing techniques. And the training sessions are just as valuable to the engineers responsible for producing the equipment: according to DVIDS, Carderock is using feedback from initial trials at both Okinawa and Camp Pendleton to shape future versions of the system.

    Notably, Phillips announced just last week that the company will be participating in the 2026 edition of RIMPAC, the world’s largest international maritime exercise, held in the Pacific. Phillips will specifically be demonstrating the Additive Hybrid system at the event, suggesting that the AIMMS delivery to Okinawa is part of that context.

    The relationship between the US and Japan surrounding industrial policy is a topic I keep coming back to for a variety of reasons, and it seems relevant here as well. Japan is the US’s major partner in RIMPAC, and it would appear that, just as US troops shared their expeditionary manufacturing know-how with their Filipino counterparts back in March, the US will be sharing that same knowledge base with its Japanese allies over the course of the next month.

    Now that AM-enabled distributed manufacturing is becoming a reality, rather than simply a theory, it will be particularly interesting to track the shift in the pace of development, above all since more and more users are gaining the capability over the range of a genuinely distributed geography. Japan, for instance, is precisely the economy that should be able to take the newfound technical skill and run with it.

    Images courtesy of DVIDS 

  • 3D Printing News Briefs, June 18, 2026: Reseller, Relocation, Metal Space Powder, & More

    We’ll start with business news in today’s 3D Printing News Briefs, as XJet appointed a value-added reseller in Germany, BIO INX is expanding its presence in the Italian market, and DSH Technologies is relocating to join its sister company. Moving on, Sandvik introduced a copper alloy powder for applications in space manufacturing. Finally, scientists used 3D printing to make scaffolding trays for producing larger human gut organoids.

    XJet Appoints 3D-Werk as Value-Added Reseller in Germany

    3D-Werk’s Experience Center gives manufacturers a hands-on environment to evaluate additive manufacturing technologies, such as XJet’s NPJ solution.

    Israeli company XJet is strengthening its manufacturing ecosystem in Germany with the announcement of a strategic collaboration with 3D-Werk Black Forest GmbH, a leading German competence center for additive manufacturing (AM). XJet has already been active in the German market for years, and has an established network and customer base there. But now, by appointing 3D-Werk as a Value-Added Reseller (VAR) for its Carmel systems and ceramic and metal NanoParticle Jetting (NPJ) technology, XJet is taking a strategic step to make its presence there even greater. 3D-Werk has deep application expertise, and is uniquely qualified to help customers from demanding industry sectors, thanks to its business pillars of machine and material sales for metal and polymer AM technologies; parts production service with full post-processing capability; and its Experience Center, where customers can evaluate technologies before choosing one. 3D-Werk will introduce NPJ technology to its Experience Center, and will represent the full Carmel system lineup as part of an integrated solution.

    “3D-Werk has spent years building the expertise, the facilities, and the customer trust to help German industry make genuinely informed decisions about needed migration of production to additive manufacturing,” said Gerhard Duda, CEO of 3D-Werk Black Forest GmbH. “XJet’s NPJ technology represents something we have not been able to offer before – a path to manufacturing complex, high-performance parts that were simply out of reach previously. Adding the Carmel system family to our portfolio and to our Experience Center gives our customers access to a new category of manufacturing capability, and gives us the strongest possible argument for moving upmarket into the most technically demanding applications in Germany.”

    BIO INX Strengthens Presence in Italy with MP Strumenti Partnership

    Advanced biomaterials developer BIO INX announced a distribution partnership that will help its continued European expansion. Helping to strengthen its presence in one of the most dynamic biofabrication markets in Europe, MP Strumenti will now be the official distributor of BIO INX products in Italy. BIO INX is a spin-out from Ghent University and the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, and is a leader in developing bioinks for high resolution bioprinting, while MP Strumenti is a leading distributor of scientific instruments in Italy that’s recently decided to strengthen its focus in healthcare. It will be distributing the full BIO INX portfolio of materials, covering a range of bioprinting methods, including extrusion-based printing, multiphoton lithography, Digital Light Processing (DLP), and volumetric bioprinting. Together, the two will work to support a new generation of biofabrication techniques.

    “This collaboration reinforces MP Strumenti’s broader strategy to expand beyond our well-established solutions and provide a fully integrated ecosystem for the biofabrication and advanced manufacturing sectors. By introducing a comprehensive catalogue of biomaterials – from standard 3D printing filaments to specialized bioinks – we are creating a strong synergy with our portfolio of additive manufacturing technologies,” said Mauro Petretta of MP Strumenti. “Our goal is to position ourselves a trusted partner for researchers, industry professionals, and clinical users throughout their whole process.”

    DSH Technologies Relocates to Join Elnik Systems Headquarters

    DSH Technologies, which is the international authority on debinding and sintering education and services, is relocating to Pineville, North Carolina, specifically to join its sister company, Elnik Systems, at its headquarters. Elnik is a provider of industrial debinding and sintering furnaces, and makes its flagship AM/MIM3000 batch furnace at the Pineville facility. Stefan Joens, who is the president of both companies, relocated Elnik to Pineville in 2023, while still holding on to about 75% of its New Jersey-based workforce. Both Elnik Systems and DSH Technologies support the metal injection molding (MIM) and metal AM industries, and will continue to do so. In fact, this “much-anticipated” move by DSH to join Elnik will strengthen its commitment to metal parts manufacturing. The relocation is reflective of their shared vision to help better support partners and clients, and streamline metal parts manufacturing operations.

    “This is another major milestone in our journey to make a greater impact on manufacturing at a global scale. By consolidating these two companies under one roof, we are better equipped to serve our customers and scale both businesses while continuing to deliver the high-quality sintering capabilities and innovative solutions our customers and partners expect from us,” Joens said.

    Sandvik Launches Copper Alloy for Applications in Space 3D Printing

    Sandvik, which was recently acquired by Swedish investment firm Mimir, has introduced Osprey GRCop-42, a metal powder originally designed by NASA for 3D printing space components operated under extreme mechanical and thermal loads; examples include regeneratively cooled rocket engine parts, combustion chamber linings, and fuel injector faces. The copper-chromium-niobium alloy powder offers both high strength and high thermal conductivity, and is able to retain its properties at elevated temperatures, which should help lower qualification risk for space manufacturing. GRCop42 is known to be one of the most difficult copper alloys to manufacture to specification, especially due to the major differences in melting temperature between niobium and copper. But Sandvik adapted its Vacuum Inert Gas Atomization (VIGA) process to achieve controlled, repeatable production of the alloy and consistent batch-to-batch characteristics. The company produces the traceable Osprey GRCop-42 within its AS9100-certified quality system, and is now fully integrated into the Sandvik product portfolio, available in volumes for ongoing production as well as qualification activities.

    “GRCop42 is a material where production control is just as important as alloy design. Customers in the space sector need powder that performs predictably during qualification, printing and in service. Our focus has been to make this demanding alloy available with the consistency, documentation and traceability required for space programs,” said Szymon Kubal, Director of Technology Business unit AM, Powder Solutions, Sandvik.

    3D Printed Scaffolding Trays Used in Production of Larger Human Gut Organoids

    A team of scientists and other experts at Cincinnati Children’s in Ohio and Nantes Université in France developed and tested a new system for scalable production of human gut organoids that can grow their own nerve cells. For nearly two decades, experts at Cincinnati Children’s Center for Stem Cell & Organoid Medicine (CuSTOM) have been making miniature versions of digestive system organs to improve the lab-grown tissues. Their most recent work has focused on developing methods to make customized, transplantable tissues that are large enough to help restore diminished organ functions and patch up damage. Here, they used a Form 2 and Formlabs’ Surgical Guide Resin to print tray-like scaffolding molds that will enable the production of larger functional gut organoids twice as fast. This isn’t about bioprinting organoids, but about using 3D printing to create specialized lab equipment. The molds have grooves that can confine several sphere-shaped organoids, or spheroids, in a row, which encourages them to fuse together and mature within a mix of nutrients and other ingredients that support growth. The team used their new confined culture system (CCS) to grow colon, small intestine, and stomach organoids that developed a nervous system on their own.

    “We are now able not only to generate complex gastrointestinal organoids at scale, but also to guide their differentiation into functional tissues with integrated enteric neuronal networks. By leveraging a defined growth environment, the intrinsic self-organization capacity of the cells drives the formation of tissue structures that closely resemble the human gastrointestinal tract,” explained Maxime Mahe, PhD, senior author of the team’s paper.

  • 3D Printed Chip Packaging Specialist XTPL Enters Japanese Market

    The additive manufacturing (AM) industry naturally wants to move beyond prototyping to production at scale, and the industry is certainly starting to demonstrate success with that objective, especially in Asia. Still, every vertical in the midst of adopting AM is in its own unique phase of technical maturity, and the path from prototyping to production looks slightly different for every application.

    Additionally, every vertical that the AM industry is targeting has its own approach to R&D, and nowhere is this more apparent than with the semiconductor sector. To put things in perspective, the semiconductor sector is currently spending an estimated $150-200 billion annually on R&D, which is around 9x the size of the entire AM industry. Additionally, the revolution in chip packaging that I’ve been writing about all year is one of the most significant current drivers of semiconductor sector R&D spend, which gives companies at the intersection of AM and semiconductors an outsized opportunity to benefit.

    Polish original equipment manufacturer (OEM) XTPL is seizing on this opportunity, and has just announced its first sale in the Japanese market, following sales earlier this year in Taiwan and Silicon Valley. Moreover, the company’s sale of an Ultra Precise Dispensing (UPD) module to its unnamed Japanese client represents entry into a new market, and deployment of a new material offering, as well as a first foothold in a new geography.

    Whereas XTPL’s previous sale in Taiwan involves the flat panel display production process, the Japanese client is proving out the tech for advanced printed circuit boards (PCBs) as well as advanced packaging applications. What’s more, it’s XTPL’s first time offering copper-based materials, the most important category for the advanced packaging market.

    XTPL plans to deliver the UPD module in Q4 2026, at which point the Japanese client — which, while undisclosed, is “a publicly listed…advanced automated industrial equipment manufacturer” — will install the printhead in a prototyping machine that’s currently under development. Perhaps the most notable detail is that the customer is purchasing the device specifically to test its potential for use at industrial scale.

    In a press release about XTPL’s first sale to the Japanese market, the company’s CFO, Jacek Olszański, said, “The order from Japan…[is] a completely new project that immediately enters the most advanced part of our industrial pipeline. This proves that the development of UPD technology is driven not only by progressing existing projects through subsequent stages, but also on securing new, advanced engagements with global partners.

    “Following the industrial implementation in the FPD segment in China, the Japanese project adds to a pool of five other XTPL projects currently at the fourth stage of evaluation, namely testing on a prototype industrial machine integrated with our UPD module. In this case, the specification is significantly more advanced, which translates into an approximately twofold higher unit value of the module compared to our Chinese deployment.”

    Thus, if one were to view what XTPL is doing through a simplistic “production vs. prototyping” lens, the takeaway would be that six of XTPL’s customers currently use the company’s technology for R&D. However, if you view the company’s activity through the lens of the vertical it’s targeting, the reality emerges that XTPL is on the brink of converting six customers from prototyping to production at scale.

    While the semiconductor sector is admittedly unique, the experience of the AM industry in other sectors, including defense and medical, similarly reflects the effectiveness of embedding a pathway from prototyping to production in one’s business strategy. Again, that pathway looks different for every vertical, but there are commonalities nonetheless, such as the need to execute digital transformation at an organizational level.

    To narrow the focus to the semiconductor sector again: especially in the West, I think the AM industry still doesn’t realize quite how large a market opportunity chip packaging is going to be. TDK’s acquisition of Fabric8Labs should change that to some extent.

    One angle explaining the deal is data center hardware, but TDK appears just as interested in Fabric8Labs due to chip packaging. Fabric8Labs may have a rather standalone manufacturing process, but there’s reason to think that, at least in China, manufacturers are exploring more widely used processes to see if they can translate to chip packaging workflow.

    Images courtesy of XTPL

  • Fabri Raises $13.5 Million to Create Digital Foundry

    Fabri is a startup that wants to create a “digital foundry,” and just raised some funds to help it reach this goal. There are far too few foundries in America. These legacy businesses are closing or find it difficult to recapitalize after founders retire. Money is elsewhere, chasing bytes not bits, and foundries are an ancient business. Even if firms invest in manufacturing, then CNC, precision manufacturing, or 3D printing will be at the forefront of their plans. Foundries are old world, a part of an America that made things. Now, with most products being made outside of the US, this is a decided problem for the defense industry in particular. Fabri is therefore part of a new cohort of firms that want to reinvent foundries.

    As far as I know, Skuld was the pioneer, reinventing foundry technology years ago. With a renewed focus on defense, independence, and a US military gap, many more firms are following it now. The US needs to build more submarines to shore up its nuclear triad, it needs to replenish its depleted (by half to two-thirds) precision missile arsenal, and will need to build many more autonomous vehicles in the future. This is a significant opportunity for additive, but also Fabri and firms like it. What Fabri wants to do is use the latest computational tools to advance foundries through automation. By reducing labor as a component of investment casting and speeding up lead times, the firm hopes to grow by shipping parts faster.

    Fabri is 3D printing wax molds to skip a few steps in the investment casting process. Furthermore, they hope to automate many steps and use data and software to optimize production. For now, the company is working in Aluminum, copper, bronze, C71500, and steels, and wants to expand into nickel (IN713C, Mar-M247). Casting sizes are limited to 7 x 13 x 15.75 inches. The company is ITAR registered and has the CMMC Level 2 cybersecurity validation, as well as JCP Enhanced Validation, which also looks into compliance and security. 

    In some cases, foundry lead times can exceed two years, so this is a real opportunity with real money behind it. Fabri will now have real money as well. The firm has raised $13.5 million from the likes of Lavrock Ventures, Balerion Space Ventures, RTX Ventures, Lockheed Martin Ventures, Marlinspike, Tenon Ventures, and SBXi. The latter is a club comprised of Accel, Polaris Partners, GETTYLAB, General Catalyst, Pillar, Danaher, Underscore VC, and Glasswing Ventures, all working together to back MIT founders. Balerion is a space VC that has stakes in Anduril, Vast, and Relativity. So their money means a lot, given their exposure to firms that need to build stuff. Marlinspike, which has the coolest name of any VC, invests in AI, robotics, aerospace, and cybersecurity, and is also in Anduril. So having Anduril as a prospective client should not be too much of a problem. And having both Lockheed and RTX on this is just awesome for Fabri. Fabri also received $5 million in 2024, and RTX and Lockheed were a part of that as well. 

    Fabri says on its site that people should “Join us and rebuild American manufacturing. The DoD named castings a top-four defense priority. The foundry is the front line of reindustrialization.” Boom, no ambiguity there, no talk about golf clubs or spinal cages. This is a company with focus. And to go out and be able to just focus so fully on the DoD opportunity is a real benefit for the firm.

    The firm, which is led by ex-Relativity staffer Steven Davis, ex-Velo3D software engineering manager Pieter Coulier, and ex-Inkbit VP of Operations Tom Cole, benefits from real experience in wanting to do something old completely new again. Hopefully, they’ll develop a tool to fit a purpose, become reliable, and stray away from complexity. Fabri also hopes to leverage “our exclusive high-throughput additive manufacturing process and AI-driven design software, we can deliver casting in days, saving our customers critical time and money.” It is working on FoundryOS, which “interprets part geometries, generates tooling-free patterns, and automates process control from shell building through pour and inspection, with full traceability from melt to delivery.” And the firm is very ambitious, saying that, “the plan is one new foundry a year until American casting capacity is back where it should be.”

    The really cool thing is that they’re not going to (as far as we know) sell the software. The intention is also not to sell the equipment. Instead, they’re going to, like Seurat and Vulcanforms, use their technology to build a service. So they’re actually in the business of buying, building, and retooling foundries. We would expect more firms like Fabri to emerge over the coming years. Given the critical needs of US defense and the vast amounts of money at play, this is a very lucrative space to invest in. What I also like is that in Precision Castparts, they have a natural predator in that $10 billion behemoth. Smaller defense-oriented foundries such as Waukesha Foundry, Barron, and Signicast will also be more than a little curious. So they have exit opportunities aplenty in large and huge firms. Fabri may very well quietly and in the background build a very competitive significant business that is defensible to boot.

  • Largest Publicly Announced, Single Order in EOS History: Beehive Industries Spends $50M on M4 ONYX 3D Printers

    Earlier this year, Beehive Industries received a $29.7 million contract to produce its Frenzy 6 and Frenzy 8 engines for the US Air Force. The metal additive manufacturing (AM) user with facilities in Colorado and Knoxville, TN claims that its process is both faster and 60 percent cheaper than the conventional methods used to make engines for uncrewed systems.

    Beehive Industries leverages its large fleet of EOS 3D printers to support its workflow, a fleet that’s about to increase by more than double: EOS just announced that Beehive has ordered another 30 machines to be delivered over the next 12 months, which will bring Beehive’s total EOS capacity to 50 printers.

    Specifically, Beehive has ordered the EOS M4 ONYX, the company’s newest, most sophisticated metal AM system. The original equipment manufacturer (OEM) launched the machine at last year’s Formnext, with shipments to customers beginning in Q1 of this year.

    Relevant to the Beehive purchase, the American Center for Manufacturing Innovation (ACMI), an organization that supports US manufacturing enterprises in adopting new technologies to support strategic sectors including defense, was one of the first M4 ONYX customers, validating the machine’s use for the US military aerospace supply chain. Service bureau Incodema3D, a defense sector specialist, also committed earlier this month to buying four additional M4 ONYX machines.

    The US military reportedly will need years of work to replenish its weapons stockpiles following the conflicts in Venezuela and Iran, driving demand for domestic defense contractors. Additionally, new weapons systems in-development in response to the rapidly shifting global combat environment require a ramp up of AM-centric product development strategies.

    Anyone interested in learning more about that context should register for the UAS Additive Strategies webcast, sponsored by EOS and HP and presented by 3DPrint.com and AM Research, on June 30 from 11 AM-2:30 PM Eastern.

    In a press release about Beehive Industries’ order of 30 M4 ONYX printers from EOS, Beehive’s COO and CFO, Darius Ehshetami, said, “Beehive is experiencing unprecedented demand for our Frenzy 8 engines driven by major  defense programs and the urgent need for affordable, high-rate production of uncrewed systems. Our expanded  collaboration with EOS and this substantial investment in best-in-class 3D printers will  significantly increase our production capacity while reinforcing our commitment to delivering  scalable, American-made propulsion solutions that strengthen warfighter capabilities.”

    Marie Niehaus-Langer, CEO of EOS, said, “Beehive Industries’ unprecedented investment demonstrates how additive manufacturing has become a foundational production technology for the next generation of advanced propulsion systems. The success of the Frenzy engine program highlights what is possible when innovative design and industrialized additive manufacturing come together. We are proud to support Beehive as they expand production capacity and  accelerate the delivery of high-performance technologies to customers around the world.” 

    While I’m not naive about how much one company in the AM industry tends to view the next company with contempt, I still think that EOS is exactly the kind of company that the rest of the AM industry should want to see succeed. It’s a pure-play company that has been and will be in it for the long haul, and it has achieved its reputation the old-fashioned way, by providing a quality product and providing excellent customer service.

    The reason that matters is because that’s the only business model that can be reliably replicated in a machine tool market: you can’t replicate hype, or ride coattails, and even if you can, the lifespan for that method is inevitably short. That may be boring, but it’s also reality.

    Anyhow, what we can see from Beehive Industries, and Incodema3D, and Ursa Major, etc., going all in on EOS machines, is that eventually, building a business the right way can benefit an entire industry, not just one company. Going forward, I think this will become more and more apparent in terms of how the winners and losers get separated.

    That’s not to say there won’t be another hype cycle; in fact, the next one has already started! The point is that it should now at least be obvious which companies will outlast each successive hype cycle and make it through more unscathed than the competition. For the most part, they will be the companies that are okay with doing things the boring way.

    Images courtesy of EOS

  • As California Debates AB 2047, New York’s Law Targeting 3D Printed Guns Prepares to Take Effect

    California’s controversial AB 2047 is still making its way through the state legislature. Meanwhile, in New York, lawmakers have already moved forward with similar restrictions for preventing the production of 3D printed firearms.

    Governor Kathy Hochul signed New York’s legislation into law on May 27 as part of the state’s FY27 budget package. The law is expected to take effect later this summer and is designed to address so-called ghost guns, including firearms and firearm components produced using desktop 3D printers.

    The New York law focuses not only on the firearms, but also on the technology used to make them. Under the legislation, 3D printers sold in New York will eventually be required to include technology designed to prevent the production of illegal firearms and firearm parts. The law also directs the state’s Division of Criminal Justice Services to lead a task force that will recommend the standards manufacturers must meet. Once those regulations are in place, New York will be able to take action against companies that sell non-compliant printers in the state.

    Police agencies will also be required to report recoveries of 3D printed firearms to the state. The legislation criminalizes the unlawful possession, sale, or distribution of blueprints used to print illegal firearms and firearm parts, as well as the manufacture of certain 3D printed firearms.

    Hochul first introduced the idea in January as part of a broader gun safety package, targeting ghost guns and 3D printed firearms. The package included plans to encourage safeguards on 3D printers and limit access to certain gun-design files online.

    In fact, Hochul’s office says the measures are intended to keep state laws aligned with the changing technology. The administration argues that ghost guns and 3D printed firearms can be difficult to trace and that states need new tools to address how some firearm components can now be made outside traditional supply chains. When announcing the legislation, Hochul said New York was taking steps to close what she called the “plastic pipeline” and limit the spread of untraceable firearms.

    So the New York law and California’s AB 2047 are both trying to regulate the printers, not just the guns. In fact, California’s AB 2047 would require 3D printers sold in the state to include firearm-blocking technology and would create a state approval process for compliant machines. Beginning in 2029, non-compliant printers could no longer be sold or transferred in California.

    But, critics say it is not clear whether the required technology can actually work, and they worry the rules could affect schools, businesses, makers, and other lawful users of 3D printers.

    19 guns seized by members of the New York Drug Enforcement Task Force REDRUM Team. Image courtesy of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

    Among those raising concerns about the proposal is David Tobin, Executive Producer of 3D Printing Nerd and Executive Director of the Community Manufacturing Initiative. In a recent interview with 3DPrint.com, Tobin argued that lawmakers are focusing on the machines, rather than the criminal activity they are trying to prevent.

    “The things they’re trying to make illegal are already illegal. You can’t make them more ‘illegaler’,” Tobin suggested. “The focus should be on enforcing existing laws rather than creating regulations that affect everyone who uses a 3D printer.”

    Tobin has also warned that more states could begin exploring restrictions aimed at 3D printers themselves. New York’s recently enacted law shows that the debate is already extending beyond California.

    New York Has Been Working on This Issue for Years

    New York has long been working on this issue. In 2019, the state made sure 3D printed firearms were illegal. Since then, lawmakers have introduced additional proposals aimed at ghost guns, firearm blueprints, and the technology used to make them. In 2023, Assembly Bill A8132 proposed requiring background checks for certain 3D printers capable of producing firearm components. That same year, U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand introduced the federal 3D Printed Gun Safety Act, which sought to prohibit the online distribution of digital firearm blueprints. The law signed by Hochul this year takes that effort a step further. Instead of focusing only on the firearms, it also examines the printers and digital files involved in their production.

    Backers of the law say it is a response to the growing number of ghost guns and 3D printed firearms being recovered by law enforcement. They argue that states need new ways to address weapons that can be difficult to trace. For example, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has argued that regulations targeting both digital gun files and manufacturing technology could help create additional barriers for people seeking to produce illegal weapons.

    Not everyone is convinced the approach will work. Groups such as Adafruit and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have questioned whether 3D printers can reliably identify firearm parts in the first place.

    For example, Adafruit argued that printers simply follow instructions and do not actually understand what they are making. The EFF has also raised concerns that these types of requirements could eventually lead to printers scanning or restricting user files. What’s more, critics say the challenge becomes even greater because the 3D printing industry relies on many different machines, software platforms, and open-source tools, which means firearm-detection systems could be very difficult to apply across the industry.

    3D printed ghost gun parts recovered from a March 8, 2023, search warrant by District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg. Image courtesy of Manhattan DA’s Office.

    New York has already taken a first step. California may be next. But for the 3D printing industry, the question is how far future regulations will go, and whether they can address illegal firearms without affecting the broader uses of 3D printing technology.

  • Divergent Declares that German 3D Printers are Superior, And Plans Massive LPBF Expansion

    Divergent has announced a new version of its Laser Powder Bed Fusion (LPBF) printer and a new site. The company aims to do nothing short of “further accelerating its mission to build the new industrial age.” It also says that it has “built the most advanced industrial metal 3D printer in the United States.” This implies that German and Chinese 3D printers are more advanced than American ones. This is quite an admission by the firm; after all, if it really thought it had built a better machine than EOS and BLT, it would have said it had made the world’s most advanced 3D printer. But this is sure to be welcome news to the Krailling crowd. However, I’m not sure if this implies that Divergent thinks that it has made a more advanced 3D printer than the Nikon SLM Solutions NXG. Or at least those units made in the US.

    Divergent has always excelled at marketing, partnerships, and PR. The 3D printing market, always curious about Divergent’s prospects, is now wondering what the firm is doing with its over $1.1 billion in investments. After developing large-scale glue robots, the firm then diverged to an LPBF machine. It diverged, developing a design and manufacturing service to help companies produce AM parts. High-profile partnerships followed, diverging it further from making a car.

    What is it doing to provide itself with new capabilities that others do not have? What can it do that an Incodema or Sintavia can’t? What’s the difference between Divergent’s offering and what a service does? What exactly is Divergent? Is it a late-out-of-the-gate unicorn designed to disappear, like a cohort of other firms? Perhaps there is a kind of duality between those entrepreneurs who can get money and those who excel at shipping products? Or will Divergent be able to make good on its promises to “build the new industrial age?” And why does it keep claiming to be the world’s first end-to-end software-hardware production system for industrial digital manufacturing? Clearly, Materialise had this decades ago, and lots of services have this now. What does that claim even mean? Does the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) not have any software hardware production systems more advanced than Divergent? Has no one at ORNL or elsewhere ever built such a system? I’m done with mollycoddling everyone; it’s just not a good strategy for promoting the common good. It’s time to put up or shut up.

    The Monolith One.

    The company says its printer will have an output eight times higher. The system, called Monolith One, has 24kW and a build volume of 700 x 700 x 835 mm, while measuring 6.5 x 6.5 x 8.2 m.

    Large-Format Metal LPBF Systems Comparison

    Manufacturer & Machine Model [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] Build Volume (X × Y × Z mm) Build Volume (Liters)* Laser Array Configuration Individual Laser Power Total Cumulative Laser Power (kW) Size Status vs. 700×700×835mm
    Eplus3D EP-M3050 3058 × 3058 × 1200 11,239.5 L Custom Multi-Laser Array 500 W / 1000 W Up to 64.0 kW 27.47× LARGER
    Eplus3D EP-M2050 2058 × 2058 × 1100 4,658.9 L Custom Multi-Laser Array 500 W / 1000 W Up to 64.0 kW 11.39× LARGER
    AddUp “MASSIF” Project 1500 × 1500 × 2000 4,500.0 L Custom Multi-Laser Array 500 W / 1000 W Variable 11.00× LARGER
    Farsoon FS1521M-U (Tall) 1530 × 1530 × 1650 3,862.5 L 16 or 32 Fiber Lasers 500 W 8.0 kW or 16.0 kW 9.44× LARGER
    BLT BLT-S1500 (Max Z) 1500 × 1500 × 1500 3,375.0 L 18 or 26 Fiber Lasers 500 W 9.0 kW or 13.0 kW 8.25× LARGER
    Eplus3D EP-M1550 1558 × 1558 × 1200 2,912.8 L 16 or 25 Fiber Lasers 500 W (1kW optional) 8.0 kW to 25.0 kW 7.12× LARGER
    BLT BLT-S1500 (Base) 1500 × 1500 × 1200 2,700.0 L 18 or 26 Fiber Lasers 500 W 9.0 kW or 13.0 kW 6.60× LARGER
    Eplus3D EP-M1250 1250 × 1250 × 1350 2,109.4 L 9 to 16 Fiber Lasers 500 W (1kW optional) 4.5 kW to 16.0 kW 5.16× LARGER
    Farsoon FS1521M (Standard) 1530 × 1530 × 850 1,989.8 L 16 or 32 Fiber Lasers 500 W 8.0 kW or 16.0 kW 4.86× LARGER
    BLT BLT-S1000 1200 × 600 × 1500 1,080.0 L Up to 12 Fiber Lasers 500 W 6.0 kW 2.64× LARGER
    AMCM (EOS) M 10K 1000 × 1000 × 1000 ~1,000.0 L Multi-laser Custom Array 1000 W (1 kW) Variable 2.44× LARGER
    Nikon SLM NXG XII 600E 600 × 600 × 1500 540.0 L 12 Fiber Lasers 1000 W (1 kW) 12.0 kW 1.32× LARGER
    AMCM (EOS) [M 8K] 800 × 800 × 1200 768.0 L 8 Fiber Lasers 1000 W (1 kW) 8.0 kW 1.87× LARGER
    Eplus3D EP-M825 825 × 825 × 1100 748.7 L 8 Fiber Lasers 500 W 4.0 kW 1.83× LARGER
    Monolith 700 × 700 × 835 409.2 L 12 2 Kw 24 kW —
    Velo3D Sapphire XC 1MZ Ø 600 × 1000 (Cyl) 282.7 L 8 Fiber Lasers 1000 W (1 kW) 8.0 kW 31% Smaller
    Nikon SLM NXG XII 600 600 × 600 × 600 216.0 L 12 Fiber Lasers 1000 W (1 kW) 12.0 kW 47% Smaller
    EOS [M4 ONYX](1.3.3, 1.3.6) 450 × 450 × 400 81.0 L 6 Fiber Lasers 400 W 2.4 kW 80% Smaller
    Nikon SLM SLM 500 500 × 280 × 365 51.1 L 4 Fiber Lasers 400 W / 700 W 1.6 kW to 2.8 kW 87% Smaller

    The 12-laser system will have 2 kW lasers and work with aluminum, nickel, steel, and titanium. The system was developed in-house across 28 months. The company also, rather interestingly, says that the Monolith One can produce “multi-material structures.” That is very interesting, and I’m very curious. Do they have the Aerosint multiple recoater technology, or how are they doing this? This could be a real advantage in some aerospace and armor structures. Especially if it could build these efficiently without too much change around. The Monolith One is entirely made in the USA. The company also implies that all components come from there. This should be a great relief to defense users. But, you are not allowed to buy one.

    The Monolith One.

    The company is also expanding to a 430,000 sq.ft facility in Long Beach. There are six Monoliths running, which implies that they’re at around a tenth of the capacity of several other firms in the Long Beach area. What is very exciting is that the company aims to install 64 more machines over the next two years. That would make them one of the largest operators of LPBF machines in Long Beach. Their total capacity over two years will therefore be approximately 10% of BLT’s current capacity.

    Divergent CEO Lukas Czinger said,

    “The Monolith One is the first metal 3D printer designed ground up for scaled production of critical hardware. Importantly, its design encompasses the years of operational insights we have earned delivering production structures to the defense and commercial sectors. Monolith One is an American machine with an American supply chain. We are building them at rate today and our Long Beach factory will house 64 more of them. With annual output in the tens of thousands of munitions airframes or hundreds of thousands of critical piece parts, our second factory represents the new industrial age at scale.”

    Divergent Factory in Long Beach.

    The company hopes to work in defense and use “4-axis scanners with spot-size zoom capability” to improve throughput. Divergent also says that a 1700 cm2/min gas-flow unit allows for fewer optical window washes and longer print runs. Powder handling is closed-loop. The company has worked on build plates, with “heating and novel cooling controls up to 200°C to enhance reliability, dimensional stability, and repeatability.” It has optimized turnaround times through software and interchangeable build volumes. We can’t be sure whether it’s kind of like a Farsoon continuous-build thing or if it works differently.

    Divergent’s CTO Brian Erhartic,

    “Every feature of Monolith One was engineered to maximize reliability, scalability and control,By starting from a clean sheet, our team has built an additive manufacturing solution that expands the overall performance envelope of DAPS, particularly to serve a wider customer landscape and drive efficiency into downstream operations. It’s only because we custom engineered the printer specifically for integration into DAPS, that we were able to realize a significant increase in operational efficiency, quality control, and build volume.”

    Cruise missiles for CoAspire.

    The company hopes that with the new printers in place, in two years it can make (either/or): over 30,000 missile airframes, 60,000+ warhead casings (100lb class), 25,000+ automotive subframes, or 30,000+ automotive suspension systems. I’m not sure if it’s economical to run parts like that in LPBF. But perhaps the firm can really lower costs significantly.

    Divergent states that it is valued at $2.3 billion and has raised over $1 billion, while it has impressive clients such as “CoAspire, Saab, Triumph Group, Bugatti, and McLaren.” The in-house 3D printing approach, using a software-enhanced large-format LPBF process coupled with design and sensor integration, seems promising. Indeed, Seurat, VulcanForms, and others are trying it as well. Doing this at a time when the US needs to rearm and make complex parts quickly is auspicious. The firm is also ambitious, and good at socializing and spreading its mission.

    But we’ve lived in a land of claims for far too long. I want to see Divergent succeed. I want to see those tens of thousands of parts coming out of there. But I want to see parts; I want to see volume. I’m done riding shotgun on other people’s dreams; I’m done being led to la-la land by unicorns. It’s put-up-or-shut-up time. I want to see parts. I want to compare parts and know how much is being made. It’s time to get real.

    Images courtesy of Divergent

  • Zellerfeld Buys Volumental

    Volumental is a Swedish 3D scanning company that has created, over the past decade, a scan-to-fit solution for use in stores. The company has worked with sports retailers and shoe brands such as New Balance and Hoka to make a shoe-fit solution. You can go to a store, scan your feet, and you’ll have the absolute right size. Then, afterward, you can always order from that brand to get the right-sized shoe. I used the engine once in a store, Bever, to buy hiking boots and was impressed with its speed and efficiency. The tool pointed my salesperson to narrowing down specific Meindl boots based on my foot shape. Others would not be comfortable given my high arch, saving the salesperson and me a lot of time. I really liked that as an experience. Their FitEngine uses AI to generate the right fit and can also be used at home through phones. And that sizing solution I used once to buy a pair of Hokas online. This helped me go through with my purchase because I would be more confident that they would fit, and they did.

    Now, Volumetric has been acquired by Zellerfed, the German 3D printed shoe production platform. On the face of it, this could be a revenue-generating opportunity and cost-saving project in one for retailers and shoe brands. But the firm is now being taken over by the 3D printed shoe movement, Zellerfeld. Zellerfeld could simply be interested in a technology that would be useful to itself or its market. But by becoming a YouTube for shoes, the company will probably differentiate itself not only by having many designers work on its platform, but also by offering well-fitting shoes. That, therefore, could point to Volumental itself or at least its offering being integrated into Zellerfeld.

    Beyond this, things could get very interesting. If Zellerfeld can make truly individual shoes that can conform to your foot and optimize comfort and walkability, they could have further differentiation. And Volumental can be instrumental in unlocking this potential.

    If Zellerfeld could engineer its shoes to work better on your feet, it could grow much bigger. Volumental reportedly has scanned over 66 million feet and is in over 3000 stores. So that data lead could also aid Zellerfeld. Perhaps it could, through Volumental, extend its 3D printed shoes into shoe stores or develop a fit-to-print solution for store chains?

    At first, Zellerfeld’s centralized 3D printing approach seems more likely. But perhaps an in-store printing solution, provided in part by the company, could give it an unassailable lead. Even if it does not provide access to the geometries, the overall total understanding of the variety in human feet is very valuable. And if it can accurately size your feet from home and give you better-fitting shoes, then Zellerfeld could see more customers.

    Zellerfeld has really pushed, grown, and developed its own offering and the 3D printed shoe market. I’ve always been skeptical of 3D printed shoe developments on the whole. But given Zellerfeld’s progress, we can now see a complete offering emerge. If the company can develop comfortable shoes and find the right designers, it could grow its business towards higher-volume customers.

  • Limitless Labs Raises $20 Million in Series A Funding for Agentic CAD

    Limitless Labs has raised an additional $20 million for its agentic CAD/CAM platform, bringing its total funding to date to $27.3 million. Investors in the Series A round include Dell Technologies Capital, Square Peg, Grove Ventures, Meron Capital, and Kinetica.

    Limitless Labs CEO David Priev said,

    “The manufacturing world doesn’t just need more automation, it needs a better way to capture and scale the expertise that still lives inside the heads of a relatively small number of experienced machinists. We built Limitless Labs to work inside the CAD/CAM systems manufacturers already use, helping teams standardize best practices, reduce programming bottlenecks, and free senior programmers to focus on the hardest work, without giving up control. We believe the next major AI platform will be built for the physical world, and that starts with giving manufacturers a way to scale their best knowledge across every new part and every new engineer.”

    Yair Snir, Managing Director at Dell Technologies Capital, stated,

    “Limitless Labs represents the next wave of enterprise AI, moving beyond digital workflows and into the physical world of precision manufacturing. Their unique foundation model and the caliber of their production deployments gave us conviction that this team is building the defining platform for AI in manufacturing.”

    The company says that its AI model is a,”Physical AI Foundation Model, trained not on text or generic code, but on the physics of metal cutting, CAD geometry, and the operational constraints of real machines.” The firm has a CAM Agent that can recommend tools, prioritize operations, and generate tool paths. This is similar to Toolpath.com, but in this case, the idea is that the CAM Agent works with or in established tools such as Creo, Siemens NX, and Mastercam, which saves the machinist time. Limitless Labs thinks that it can save half of the work.

    Lior Handelsman, General Partner at Grove Ventures, added,

    “Eighteen months ago, we backed Limitless Labs’ vision that agentic AI could transform the factory floor. What the team has achieved since then has exceeded expectations. They are combining deep technical innovation with practical software in a way that could reshape how the world’s most critical parts are made.”

    The company is targeting defense, aerospace, and motorsports applications, and reporting pilot programs in place with companies like Cadillac, Blue Origin, and Sandvik. Blue Origin is notable since the astronautics firm is usually less than talkative about any manufacturing information. Limitless Labs also says it can deploy in ITAR compliant set-ups. The funding it’s raised will be used for a sales ramp up, help growing headcount, improvements to its model, and new versions automating more CAM operations.

    To be fair, I expected a whole lot more of these firms a year ago. So far, we have seen dozens of CAD and authoring-based startups, and around 50 additional startups in broader CAD/CAM automation using AI. They all promise similar things: just by existing in the space, AI will save operators and companies time. There is also a lot of talk about physical AI and real world models, or models based on machines and operations. If so. where are these models being created? How are they being created? What are the datasets like? And does this mean that this particular model will be fed from your CAD/CAM files? Will your G-code, your CAD model, and your manufacturing data be used to power this startup and others? How are they getting this data, and how can they firewall my data? Because if they take tool paths or CAD, then I can reverse engineer model data from them.

    There is a huge amount of risk around these models sucking in training data, which is then reverse engineered to the individual file or machine. G-code reversing and just general usage data for specific installations would also be very valuable. But I think this is a huge security risk and would not be comfortable having any sort of AI CAD/CAM tool in any kind of professional environment at the moment. Sure, I’ll play with this stuff at home, but if it comes time to invent things, I’d never use them. With their originality and their intrusiveness, there is just too much risk associated with these models currently. Some of them may, in some distant future, save operators time, but will you risk your firm’s future or your job on this today? I wouldn’t. The AI CAD/CAM companies must explain how they’re, on the one hand, getting real world data that is relevant, while on the other hand, not sucking up their user data. And the fact that this startup can’t even manage to secure a picture of a factory floor or CNC machine doesn’t exactly make me warm and fuzzy inside.

    Images courtesy of Limitless Labs