My Printer

  • Largest Funding Round to Date for AI-Powered 3D Image Generation: Meshy Closes Series B Worth Nearly $400M

    Overall, the additive manufacturing (AM) industry has stayed impressively restrained in terms of trying to leverage any potential coattail hype from the AI boom. Perhaps the leading enterprises left standing after the collapse of previous hype cycles are those most likely to proceed with caution under such circumstances.

    It’s not as if there are no audacious claims to be touted regarding the opportunity to combine AI and 3D printing, either. Maybe the clearest example is the growing number of startups built to deliver AI-powered text-to-3D model generation. One such company, Meshy, based in the heart of Silicon Valley (Sunnyvale), just landed the largest funding round to date amongst this emerging group: a Series B worth nearly $400 million.

    What’s more, the company publicly announced its valuation for the first time. At $1.5 billion, it would count as one of the most valuable firms in the world in the 3D printing space. Meshy of course isn’t a pure-play 3D printing company, but the company does refer to the printability of its models as its “core differentiator”.

    As Joris Peels wrote about a couple of months ago, Chinese 3D printing OEM Flashforge recently struck up a partnership with Meshy to integrate the text-to-image function into Flashforge software. Meshy notes in the press release about its Series B that “five of the world’s ten largest technology companies by market capitalization or valuation” are already working with the company. In addition to Flashforge, it names four other 3D printing companies that it’s working with, including Bambu Labs and Creality.

    Interestingly, Meshy doesn’t name the participants in the Series B round, simply that all existing investors participated. This is the kind of situation where I’m inclined to believe that the silence means there’s some heavy hitters on that cap table. I find it at least somewhat notable that the company is headquartered in the same town as the Apple Wolfe campus, not to mention operations sites for a whole bunch of other tech megacaps, as well as the CHIPS for America Design and Collaboration Facility.

    Meshy says it will use the funds from the Series B to support its expansion globally, as well as its R&D objectives. According to the company, as of this month it has over 12 million registered users, and its revenue has grown 12x year over year.

    If you want to hear more about Meshy, listen to the latest edition of Printing Money.

    Meanwhile, Meshy is also rolling out a host of new features, including upcoming 8K texture capabilities, and the unique ‘Meshy 3D Agent,’ already available, which turns a chat into a printable model. That should be a pretty attractive feature as the general AI chat user base grows.

    It’s also unique that the company is already operating on a B2B and a DTC model, which is a hard line to straddle for the AM industry. But this feels like a product that’s fit to strike that balance. In that vein, Meshy’s offerings are a very obvious pipeline for working both consumers and businesses towards mainstream mass customization, which could be the ultimate endgame for the company’s business model.

    Returning to the topic of the relatively conservative approach that has started to take hold in the AM industry, we seem to have lost track of the fact that, to the broader public, arguably the only really interesting thing about the underlying technology is the potential to manufacture an image into an object. It makes perfect sense why AM enterprises would lose sight of this, as, in an industrial setting, that’s not at all how things work.

    But, maybe things could someday work kind of like that? That’s the dream that Meshy and other companies in its market segment are selling. If they can realize that dream even a little bit, that would not only represent the opportunity for quantifiable gains like revenue growth, but also, arguably more importantly, the opportunity for the sort of intangible wins that make people actually care about a technology.

    Images courtesy of Meshy

  • The State of the Desktop Filament Market 2026, Part 2: AI is a Fitful Day Drinking Intern

    In this series, we’re using cutting-edge AI research tools, including an unreleased deep research tool to look at the desktop 3D printing filament market. We’re then comparing it with our known data to see where AI research tools make sense, and where (and how) they make mistakes. The idea is to at the same time let your learn about the current state of the desktop 3D printing filament market, while also honing your AI skill and knowing if you should be using LLMs for research at all.

    Here, (as we can see from the image above) the LLM was a bit feckless with the data. If we look at more sources, especially European ones, then Recreus has a strong position in high-quality flexible materials. But the scraping tool missed the European vendor entirely. Also, TPU is widely sold; it’s just that no one excels in it. Online mentions, forum mentions, and things like this skewed the overall perception towards Ninja as well. I’m not saying it’s bad; it’s good stuff, but for many things, Recreus is much better, especially for footwear. Of late, Recreus has also been much more innovative. But, there are more novices talking about getting TPU to work in the US than there are talking in-depth about footwear TPU publicly. The scraping tool also did not at all find ColorFabb’s Varioshore TPU. This is probably the single biggest innovation in TPU. In orthotics and beyond, it’s Varioshore that is doing incredibly well because you can program it. Perhaps because people call it Varioshore it hadn’t seen it as TPU? Because the scraping tool missed ColorFabb TPU and Recreus, it spotted this huge market gap in TPU. I left this in there to illustrate a point. Check, check, check again. Because it’s so easy to screw this up. Imagine a company new to filament looking at this and concluding that the TPU market is wide open because the tool essentially missed two of the major competitors.

    I completely don’t agree that PEEK and TPU are similar. TPU, for many people, would be much more price-sensitive. If I’m doing something with PEEK, it’s because I need to use PEEK, which means that this expensive application or part is critical somehow, and I may be able to and want to pay for quality. For TPU, this is less of an issue, and things that need to work, such as shoes or braces, are high-volume items, so I’d want much better pricing and be sensitive to it. So again, the slide looks great initially but is super misleading. And indeed, if this were a cornerstone to planning your market entry, you would make the wrong decision.

    PEEK is complex, and the tolerances, equipment, and material cost are high. Also, for some reason, Notebook kept throwing in BASF in the Engineering tier because of Ultrafuse. This could also be confusing.

    Churn & Premium Buying (And Blatant AI Errors)

    Now, the above chart is very pretty; it’s also very wrong. Off-gassing is not what ruins prints; it’s outgassing. Moisture absorption itself causes hygroscopic filaments to print badly, making breakage more likely, adhesion poor, and the material brittle as well. It’s the water itself that is being heated, escaping in steam, that causes bubbles, poor interlayer adhesion, and voids. The term the model wants to use here is outgassing (or steam expansion or hydrolysis), which refers to water escaping due to heat from the nozzle. Chemical off-gassing occurs when trapped VOCs and other chemicals are released at room temperature. Off-gassing is a risk to users, perhaps, or a risk when the finished part could release material over time, which could be important in a spacecraft, for example. Notebook conflated two data points and enmeshed them here. Again I’m not trying to be nitpicky here, but if you read the sentence literally from the slide, then you’ll get it wrong completely.

    The ASA warping thing also looks plausible but is incorrect. PC ABS was already well known via Stratasys for many years. ABS was the very first filament used with desktop 3D printers and has always had warp issues. Better heated chambers and process control have reduced warp issues however for most users- For much of the market ASA is a newer, much rarer choice, and is growing. In particular, people are using ASA because it is excellent for outdoor use, and people have been making lots more outdoor things of late. So this point is completely incorrect. ASA warping specifically will not cause churn to other ASAs or other vendors; it will just cause people who use open printers to go back to PETG or PLA. Cheap closed printers will increasingly print the material well. I have no issues with ASA on the five different systems that I have at my home. And ABS warping, and warping in general in large parts, is a much bigger issue for people than ASA warping. I’m still pitching ASA to so many people as a material, and it’s not used as widely as it should be, and having it be summarized here as a major reason for people to switch between vendors is silly. Meanwhile, if we look at people who do want tougher or stronger materials, they’re looking towards polycarbonate. But new polycarbonate blends such as Prusament´s PC are not mixed with ABS, but with other additives and materials. So the point here is super misleading, especially since it is presented here as one of the major causes of churn.

    The carbon fiber nozzle wear thing was relevant in the Ultimaker 2 days. Amazing point in 2011, less so now. This was a huge issue previously, but now, with stainless steel nozzles (and a strong aftermarket), it is no longer an issue. Yet, any online LLM today still sees this as a problem. I keep trying to delete this from the dataset. Of course there is a preference for steel nozzles now, (just look at the recent INDX kerfuffle) but apart from extremely abrasive materials this is a solved issue for the vast majority of users. Again, on the other hand, it says that, “no scale equivalent ” exists for Ninjatek, which is completely incorrect. ColorFabb and Recreus exist and are more innovative. The dangerous thing here is not that the AI makes mistakes, but that it masks them so well and makes them so plausible.

    The Magic Slide

    Now, when using AI as a research tool, we have these completely serendipitous moments that make it seem like you’ve gone and replicated an office full of McKinseyites all by your lonesome. Here is something I think would be interesting to discuss at a meeting. But it is false clarity. First off, the most important thing is that ovality really matters in filament. I could have a very tight tolerance for the filament dimensions, but if it is not the right ovality, I’ll still have big issues with it fitting well through the Bowden tube. Furthermore, when and where you measure really matters too. If I measure my filament once and the tolerance is good, it could still be all over the place for the rest of the filament. This will mean that more or less material is in the heat zone at more or less pressure throughout your build, wreaking havoc on everything. So the tolerance matters, but it should ideally be measured all along the entire filament, or at least many times. So this slide, which seems to give a lot of clarity, actually obfuscates the real issue. If you want to buy or make quality filament with tight tolerances all along the filament, continual ovality measurements matter. It’s not about a filament being a particular diameter, but about consistent extrusion.

    I like that sustainability narratives come to the fore here, but Reflow is actually bankrupt. And I’ve never heard anyone say that they were anxious about slicer configurations; it was just annoying at the worst of times. If anything, new users tended to stick to the filament they knew previously because it was difficult for them to dial in new filaments. Now, people are freer to experiment. What the research tool completely missed was that many brands are now better at loading settings for various filaments. Printing on the whole is more stable now, and filament has improved, which makes printing easier. I do agree with the convenience factor, but there is a lot more going on than just the RFID tags.

    Buying Journey

    I like this summation of many buying journeys, abandoned baskets, and more. We can see in 3D printing that community members on forums have been driving traffic and choice in filament brands for many years now. One thing underrepresented here is YouTube. YouTubers, through sponsorships, use in projects, and reviews, are driving a lot of buying now. Some of this is paired with kickbacks in the form of affiliate fees. Indeed, some YouTubers are making over $250,000 a year, mainly from 3D printer OEMs. So for the first time, a lot of the previously free, informed opinion is paid for. I know several of these people, and they generally seem upstanding and have real joy in their work. But the decision funnel will radically change over the coming years due to YouTube and affiliate. Before, if you canvassed opinion, it was from people who had no skin in the game. Everyone was giving their best advice based on their own experiences; now, with opinions flooded by commerce, we need to find new paths. We also don’t really have many filament testing and evaluation initiatives. There will be real scope and need for this. If we look at advertising and paid search, we can only assume that a lot of money is migrating directly to social as well, so this need will become more pressing.

    I really don’t like the AI´s use of “impenetrable filter” here. First off, an impenetrable filter is not a filter. And this is yet another sign of the AI trying to be snazzy but hiding meaning, rather than bringing it to the fore. There are a series of filters that all inform opinion, but many people just buy the cheapest stuff available to them or try out a lot of things as well. So the wording here makes it seem like publishers own this space, and this is not the case. We saw this very clearly with the rise of the Amazon filaments that were initially not pushed at all by social media or users, but simply came up during Amazon searches by people who bought printers or dogfood there. Amazon completely replaced this channel. Many scarcely believed how big Hatchbox got because no one was mentioning it anywhere, but it was doing tens of thousands of spools. So again, the wording is seriously misleading here. If you read the slide alone, you’ll conclude that social media is the way to go. But, there are other distribution paths and paths to credence.

    Conclusion

    So how to conclude this part of the series? AI tools can be very powerful, but we must not forget that a lot of these tools have been made to be rather sycophantic. Here we’ve used some very powerful tools, and the results at first glance look amazing. Now, some of them are. I’m very pleased with the pricing information. I was very pleased to be able to index all the relevant forum discussions, comments, product pages, OEM pages, and pricing information. I was very pleased with the pricing trends and materials trends. But, there were a lot of inaccuracies. The most powerful finding (no one makes TPU!) was completely incorrect. Bankrupt companies were included. Old worries from years ago were touted as current problems. Snazzy summations gave people completely wrong ideas about the data. And some of the synthesized data was handled incorrectly. A nice slide would hold a lie. A summation of the major churn drivers was riddled with errors. The segmentation was good, the pricing data was good, and the low-volume amortization insight was good. But if you did not know the industry, the strategic choices that you’d take from this data would be incorrect. And I’m sure that if I had left these slides up without STOP signs all over, they would have ended up all over, giving the wrong impression.

    So AI crawlers, indexing tools, LLMs, and research tools are powerful but misleading. Imagine having a bright erudite intern who drinks heavily during the day and occasionally does coke. That, to me, is the state of AI-aided research today. Fast and seemingly convincing, the words tumble out and seem to make sense until you stop and think. So be careful out there, folks. I think that AI-aided research is powerful stuff, but then again, so is coke. Eventually, this is going to be useful, but not before it ends a lot of careers.

  • After the Hype: Conflux’s Dan Woodford on What It Takes to Scale Aerospace AM

    A decade ago, Conflux Technology was founded around a simple idea: heat exchangers might be one of the best applications for metal additive manufacturing (AM).

    At the time, much of the industry was focused on what 3D printing would someday achieve. Conflux took a different approach, spending years developing a technology it believed could eventually meet the demanding requirements of aerospace, defense, and motorsport. Today, according to CEO Dan Woodford, that long-term bet is beginning to pay off.

    “The momentum that people talked about five or ten years ago is now actually there,” Woodford told 3DPrint.com. “The intention is converting into action.”

    Dan Woodford, Conflux Technologies CEO.

    The Australian company specializes in additively manufactured metal heat exchangers, where better performance can justify higher costs. After nearly a decade of developing the technology and working with customers, Conflux now finds itself operating in a market shifting from experimentation to real deployment.

    “The fact that additive is becoming a serious part of the design and creation of next-generation aircraft is now just a fact. It’s moved from being something people thought might be useful to something that is deliberately being included in development programs. The momentum that people talked about five or ten years ago is now actually there. Does that mean we’re suddenly going to see huge numbers of parts flying tomorrow? No. But the intention is converting into action.”

    That change is visible across aerospace programs where AM is being considered from the beginning, rather than added later as an experiment.

    The idea came from founder Michael Fuller, who spent years working in Formula One before launching Conflux in 2015. He saw heat exchangers as one of the applications where metal 3D printing could offer a clear advantage over traditional manufacturing. The complex internal channels, large surface areas, and demanding cooling requirements involved in thermal management made them a great fit. Rather than trying to apply AM everywhere, the company focused on a single challenge.

    “We gave ourselves a head start and chose a really difficult subject matter,” said Woodford. “When we started, the technology was still maturing, but now we’re in a really good position. A lot of companies are using additive in interesting ways, often alongside traditional manufacturing. What we’re seeing now is that entire heat exchangers are increasingly being built through additive manufacturing, and that’s becoming much more common.”

    AMSL Aero’s Vertiia aims to be the world’s most efficient long-range, zero-emissions, electric VTOL aircraft. Image courtesy of Conflux.

    Today, aerospace and defense have become one of the company’s major growth areas. In fact, Conflux has worked with aerospace customers since 2018 and has participated in programs involving organizations such as Airbus, Honeywell, and General Atomics. Among its public projects are contributions to hydrogen-powered aircraft development, including Airbus’ zero-emission initiatives and the European Union-funded THEMEA4HERA program, which focuses on thermal management systems for future hydrogen regional aircraft.

    For Woodford, however, the bigger story is not any single project. It is the industry’s growing focus on certification.

    “The second thing that’s changed is that companies are now taking certification seriously and translating it into concrete action. For us, that’s both a challenge and an opportunity. The conversation has shifted from whether additive can do the job to how we qualify it, how we certify it, and how we put it into service.”

    But getting AM into aerospace isn’t simply a matter of buying bigger printers or faster machines. According to Woodford, the challenge is much broader than that: “People sometimes think scaling means buying more machines, but that’s only one piece of the puzzle. It’s an entire production system. You need the right designs, the ability to manufacture consistently, depowdering, post-processing, inspection, and quality systems. It’s an end-to-end production process. That’s what scaling actually looks like.”

    Advanced liquid-liquid heat exchanger. Image courtesy of Conflux.

    Conflux is already producing hundreds of heat exchangers annually for customers outside aerospace, primarily in automotive applications. The company’s long-term goal is to reach production volumes in the thousands while creating manufacturing systems that can be replicated beyond its own facilities.

    Size is another challenge. Many of the heat exchangers being developed for aircraft are larger than what today’s metal 3D printers can produce in a single build. To get around that limitation, Conflux has developed designs that allow multiple printed sections to be joined into a single component.

    “A lot of the aerospace parts we’re creating today are actually larger than the machines can print in one piece,” Woodford explained. “We’ve developed ways to create modular parts made up of two, three, or more sections that are joined together into a single component. We’ve already deployed those into aviation test programs, and we’re progressing that approach. Longer term, large-format machines will become important because that’s where you really unlock the maximum performance.”

    While commercial aerospace remains a long-term opportunity, defense programs and newer aircraft projects are moving faster. Conflux is already working with advanced air mobility companies and sees drones and other uncrewed aircraft as a way to get parts into service sooner. In many cases, the approval process is less demanding than it is for large passenger aircraft.

    “We are already crossing into production,” he noted. “The reality is that commercial aviation moves deliberately. Putting a part onto an aircraft that carries thousands of passengers will always take time. There are hurdles we need to clear, and we’re working through them with our partners. Some things simply can’t be accelerated.”

    One thing Woodford would like more people to understand is that AM is no longer a technology of the future.

    “I’d like more engineers to realize that additive is ready to be included in product development roadmaps and taken seriously. There are still hurdles, especially in aerospace certification, but those hurdles are being addressed. That’s the exciting part. The technology isn’t waiting for a future opportunity anymore. The opportunity is already here,” concluded Woodford.

  • 3DPOD 308: Engineering Design with Matthew Shomper, Not a Robot and F13LD

    Matthew Shomper has worked on 3D printed medical devices for many years. There, he specialized in new geometries, cutting-edge designs, designing implants, FEA optimization, approval processes, 510(k) submissions, textures, and more. He worked with surgeons and implant companies and went through the entire process from design to implant for spinal cages, plates, and more. Now he is consulting on implant design and has an implicit lattice engine design tool called F13ld. I’m obsessed with F13ld and urge you to try it out.

    This episode of the 3DPOD is brought to you by Assembrix, leaders in distributed additive manufacturing with secure print. Assembrix enables organizations to protect IP and scale production across distributed networks through encrypted workflows, real-time monitoring, and full control over digital manufacturing. 

     

  • Bambu Lab and Insta360 Invite Makers to Build Custom Camera Gear

    Bambu Lab is expanding the role of MakerWorld, its community platform for 3D printable models. The company has partnered with camera maker Insta360 to launch the Luna Ultra Design Challenge, making Insta360 the first camera brand to establish an official presence on the platform.

    Running through August 9, the collaboration gives makers access to official 3MF and STEP files for the Luna Ultra, Insta360’s new flagship dual-lens handheld gimbal camera co-engineered with Leica. By releasing the camera’s CAD files, Insta360 is making it easier for users to design and 3D print accessories that fit the device precisely, without having to measure or model it themselves.

    Insta360 Luna Ultra Model. Image courtesy of Insta360.

    Makers can use the files to create everything from camera mounts, grips, and filming rigs to protective cases, decorative covers, and other custom accessories, then share their designs with the MakerWorld community.

    At the heart of the partnership is the release of official 3MF and STEP files for the Luna Ultra. With access to those files, makers can design and 3D print custom accessories that fit the camera, from filming rigs and mounts to decorative shells and themed covers.

    The move points to MakerWorld’s growing role as more than a model-sharing website. By bringing an established consumer electronics brand onto the platform, Bambu Lab is testing a model in which manufacturers actively collaborate with the maker community instead of leaving third-party accessory development fully to independent designers.

    It also reflects how much the desktop 3D printing market has changed in recent years. As consumer printers have become faster, easier to use, and more reliable, companies like Bambu Lab have attracted a much broader audience beyond traditional makers. That larger user base is making the desktop 3D printing community a more attractive partner for consumer brands looking to engage users long after they purchase a product.

    “We see a shift where creativity doesn’t stop at capturing images—it extends into building and shaping the tools themselves,” said Max Richter, co-founder and vice president of marketing at Insta360. “This collaboration between Insta360 and Bambu Lab brings together imaging and the maker community for the first time in this way, bringing creators the freedom to push the boundaries of what’s possible.”

    The contest has two categories. One is for makers who design and upload 3D printable accessories using the hashtag #PrintForLuna. The other is a social media competition, where users can share photos, videos, sketches, or ideas for custom Luna Ultra accessories.

    Bambu Lab and Insta360 are offering 40 prizes worth a combined $11,160, including Luna Ultra cameras and Bambu Lab’s latest desktop 3D printers. Winners will be announced on August 20.

    MakerWorld × Insta360, Luna Ultra Design Challenge. Image courtesy of Bambu Lab.

    Perhaps more significant than the prizes is the possibility that community creations could move beyond the contest itself. According to the companies, selected designs from either competition track may be developed further and potentially become official products, with creators receiving additional collaboration opportunities.

    The partnership also shows that more consumer brands are looking to work with the maker community. By releasing official CAD files instead of leaving users to model products themselves, companies can make it easier for makers to design accessories that fit their devices. For Bambu Lab, the collaboration is another step in expanding MakerWorld beyond a site for sharing printable models. In addition to community designs, the platform now hosts official brand partnerships and design challenges that connect manufacturers directly with makers.

    The partnership adds to a growing number of collaborations between consumer brands and desktop 3D printing companies. Whether through co-branded products or community design projects, companies are finding new ways to connect with makers and tap into their creativity.

  • 3D Printing News Briefs, July 25, 2026: Distribution, Board Game, & More

    We’re starting with material distribution news in this weekend’s 3D Printing News Briefs, and then on to outer space. We’ll end with a story about an ancient board game. Read on for all the details!

    6K Additive Names AMPERE Alloys as New European Distributor

    6K Additive’s UniMelt® enables the sustainable manufacture of high-performance metal powders, now more readily available to European manufacturers through AMPERE Alloys.

    U.S. company 6K Additive produces high-performance, sustainable metal powders for additive manufacturing (AM), including refractory metals, titanium, and nickel-based superalloys. It recently announced that it’s appointed AMPERE Alloys as an official distributor of its powders for the European market. AMPERE is a premier European specialist in metals and ferro-alloys for industrial applications, and by partnering with 6K Additive, it will expand its product offering. European manufacturers will enjoy direct, streamlined access to 6K Additive’s suite of metal AM powders, which are made using the company’s proprietary UniMelt microwave plasma production system. AMPERE brings to the table its regional expertise, extensive distribution logistics, and strong commercial network, and its commitment to quality system management makes the specialist a great fit for 6K Additive’s technology. Per the agreement, AMPERE Alloys will handle powder sales, localized distribution, and first-line technical support from its 12 European warehouses.

    “Expanding our footprint into Europe requires a partner that shares our uncompromising dedication to quality, regulatory compliance, and customer satisfaction. AMPERE Alloys is the ideal partner to champion our sustainable metal powders in Europe. Their established logistical network and technical expertise will ensure that aerospace, defense, medical, and energy customers across the continent can rapidly integrate our premium materials into their production workflows,” said 6K Additive CEO Frank Roberts.

    ESA’s Metal 3D Printer Technology Demonstrator Produces 5th Sample

    ESA astronaut Sophie Adenot showing the fifth printed sample to the ground teams during the activity. ESA/NASA

    In 2024, the first metal 3D printer in orbit, ESA’s Metal 3D Printer Technology Demonstrator, was launched to the International Space Station. Now, the fifth sample has been produced on that printer, and retrieved during the Epsilon mission by ESA astronaut Sophie Adenot. On long missions, it’s impractical to carry large amounts of spare parts, and resupply is not always possible, so that’s why onboard 3D printing could be useful here. By working with the Demonstrator, astronauts gain important experience, and better understand the potential of metal 3D printing in space. Each print that’s completed on the ISS focuses on a different aspect of the technology’s performance and capability, and three metal 3D printed samples have already been sent back to Earth to be analyzed at ESTEC and the Technical University of Denmark. Those results will be published soon. As for the fifth sample, it was sent back to Earth on board the CRS SpX-34 spacecraft and will also be tested.

    “3D printers are far from being simple gadgets and I’m delighted to have worked on this European technology demonstration for the future of human spaceflight,” said Adenot. “Congratulations to everyone involved and thank you to the CADMOS User Support Centre teams who guided me throughout the process!”

    Ancient Board Game Brought Back to Life with 3D Scanning and Printing

    The 3D printed board based on scans of the original game board discovered at Vindolanda. Image: Newcastle University

    In 2019, a stone board was excavated at an archaeological site in England called Vindolanda, a Roman frontier fort and town that was occupied between about 85 C.E. and 200 C.E. It was split into five pieces, and while it was later used as a flagstone, the artifact was originally a popular board game called Ludus Latrunculorum. It was found outside the fort, which suggests that women and children played it too, and not just the soldiers. If you’re interested in playing the strategy game, you just need to visit the Roman Army Museum! Researchers at Newcastle University used a handheld Artec 3D Spider to scan each piece and create a virtual 3D model, before 3D printing a playable replica of the game out of PLA.

    “It was amazing to be involved in the actual scanning process and to see something so complex and historical be realistically recreated. It will be very beneficial for the Vindolanda Trust to have a replica Roman game board and 3D interactive model, both whilst the original Roman board is on loan and to create a more engaging, tactile experience for the visitor,” said Sophie Westlake, the activity and diversity officer of the Vindolanda Trust.

    There’s not an existing set of rules for Ludus Latrunculorum, but historical descriptions make researchers believe that it’s similar to checkers, with two players attempting to capture their opponents’ pieces by trapping them in between their own pieces.

  • GKN Aerospace & Pratt & Whitney to Use Additive for the F135 Engine

    GKN Aerospace and RTX unit Pratt & Whitney will collaborate on additive manufacturing for the F135 engine. This is an important engine. The turbofan powers the F-35 Lightning II, but has been beset by quality issues. Cracked blades, incorrect titanium, micro cracking, fires, and slow production have plagued the program. So GKN and Pratt can really make waves if they use additive to scale and perfect future programs.

    GKN Aerospace in Norway and Pratt & Whitney have now signed a Technology Development Agreement. Together, they want to look at making an Additive Manufacturing demonstrator, and deliver certified parts in 2028. The two would work together with the Norwegian Defence Materiel Agency (NDMA) on the project. This could really see the Norwegians increase their AM capacity and knowledge significantly.

    Rather than LPBF, the companies will be using GKN’s own DED process. GKN has three DED centers, and one is at Trollhättan in Sweden, while the others are in Bristol and Fort Worth. I don’t know if they’ll now open a fourth center in Sweden. GKN started work on DED in 2017 during a five-year Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with ORNL and spending $17.8 million with them.

    The large cell-based system could make parts of up to five meters. The wire-fed machine uses a 20Kw laser and floods the entire cell with Argon, which is wonderful news for Linde and co. I continue to be flabbergasted that it seems like the GKN system still uses Kuka robots. Look, they’re all fine and dandy if you want to paint a car, but Kuka is owned by a Chinese firm. Especially for defense applications, I would never use a Kuka robot. I’m sure that they have promises, but if I’m a Chinese firm and my government wants something from me, I’ll comply.

    This agreement is a bit of a slap in the face to Norsk Titanium. That company has a distinct American feel to it, but is nonetheless largely Norwegian. The firm has a plasma DED process that has been qualified for Boeing, Airbus, and Northrop Grumman. The press release states that the “development work will be led from GKN Aerospace’s facility in Kongsberg,” which makes me think that the printing is taking place in Sweden or the US. If I were Norwegian, I’d much rather spend my hard earned oil money on learning to print these parts on machines I have access to in my own country.

    One can only hope that there is some technical reason to go for GKN. Perhaps they want to make Inconel components, for example, and Norsk Titanium of course only does titanium. The idea is to make a large part such as a casing. The duo hopes that there will be better efficiency in buy to fly, costs, lead times, and supply chain resilience.

    GKN Aerospace Senior Vice President Sébastien Aknouche said,

    “I am pleased to see this collaboration bringing together strong industrial capabilities and advanced manufacturing expertise. This initiative reflects our ambition to further develop and industrialise additive technologies for demanding aerospace applications.”

    Chris Johnson, vice president of the F135 Program at Pratt & Whitney, stated,

    “This agreement reflects our continued focus on advancing technologies that support the long-term needs of the F135 program. We appreciate the collaboration with GKN Aerospace as we explore new manufacturing approaches that contribute to future engine readiness.”

    I’m going to go on a limb here and guess that this is part of a defense offset agreement whereby indirect offsets are being funded as part of Norway’s recent purchase of 52 aircraft. Kongsberg, as a direct offset, got to build wing leading edges, panels, rudders, and more for all F35s. Furthermore, Kongsberg made the JSM missile for the fighter. It’s of course kind of hilarious to use offset more for supply chain resilience. Due to every partner company wanting local production and offset, a large fighter program becomes a puzzle, and every one of the 20 countries receives a piece. In this case, furthering Norway’s local production prowess could maybe have been better if it involved making parts in Norway.

    GKN is also involved already in contracts in Norway for the F35 and other platforms. This therefore is an important thing for Norway´s defense industry. Kongsberg is doing very well, with revenue up a third compared to last year. Its excellent radar systems and missiles are in high demand. But, Norway will have to more broadly stimulate its defense industry in a world more fraught with risk and uncertainty.

  • R3 Printing Bets on American-Made Industrial FFF 3D Printers

    For years, co-founders Paul Sieradzki and Petra Wood ran a 3D printing service bureau in New York. As they worked day to day with the printers, they experienced firsthand the challenges of scaling the business. Desktop machines needed constant attention and repair, while industrial systems were expensive and often locked users into proprietary materials, software, and service contracts. Neither offered what his business really needed. So instead of accepting those limitations, he decided to build something different.

    That decision eventually became R3 Printing, a company that spent nearly eight years developing its own industrial fused filament fabrication (FFF) platform. It was the printer he wished had existed while running the service bureau. Together, they launched their first commercial FFF system earlier this year.

    Now based in Los Angeles, the startup is entering a more competitive industrial polymer market with a unique message to its competitors. The duo claims their new printers are designed, assembled, and tested in the United States. They also support open materials and aim to make high-performance polymer printing more accessible without giving up industrial capabilities.

    And lucky for them, the timing may be working in the company’s favor. The company’s launch comes at a time when American manufacturing is getting more attention. As more customers look at where their equipment is made, Wood said the “Made in the USA” message has become more important than the company originally thought.

    “With domestic production, this interest in American-made industrial equipment has grown. But that wasn’t always expected to be a major selling point,” Wood tells 3DPrint.com. “At first we thought it would be a bonus. But now, there’s a big push to seek out American-specific companies. It depends on the customer. For government customers, obviously that’s important. For others it’s more of a bonus, but with aerospace and similar industries they definitely need American systems.”

    R3 printer. Image courtesy of R3.

    The company estimates that roughly 80% of its printers are sourced domestically, with final assembly, research and development, and manufacturing all taking place in California. Some components still come from Europe, but Sieradzki explained that the decision to manufacture in the U.S. was intentional despite the higher costs.

    “There’s no doubt that making things in the U.S. is more expensive,” he said. “But it can be done because we did it. You just have to be smart about it. And that philosophy extends beyond manufacturing. Instead of just assembling existing technologies, R3 questioned nearly every aspect of industrial FFF design.”

    For Sieradzki, the journey to make his own machine began when he realized desktop machines required constant monitoring, while enterprise systems were expensive and restricted.

    “There was this huge gap in the market,” Wood noted. “Because Paul had been running a service bureau, he had experienced those challenges himself. Every design decision came back to one question: ‘What would actually benefit the customer?’”

    Instead of relying on venture capital, R3 took an unconventional route. The company raised more than $5 million through multiple equity crowdfunding campaigns, combined with New York State funding and an early Air Force grant. That money allowed the team to hire engineers and continue developing the platform without rushing it to market.

    “We didn’t get any VC money,” Wood said. “We did it almost entirely through equity crowdfunding, which is very unusual for a startup. And truly, that slower approach also shaped how the printers were developed. While many hardware startups face pressure to release products quickly, we at R3 kept beta systems running in customer environments for nearly two years before launching commercially. We could have launched with our beta units, but they just weren’t quite ready, and we decided to hold off until they were.”

    Sieradzki added that  “These are people’s livelihoods. In the case of medical, these are sometimes people’s lives. There’s an ethos now where the customer becomes the beta tester. We say no. The beta tester is the beta tester, and the customer is the customer.”

    Today, R3 offers two systems. The R3 Printer, released earlier this year, targets engineering-grade materials such as nylon, carbon fiber composites, and PPS. A second system, the R3 Ultra, is scheduled to begin shipping at the end of August and expands into ultra-high-performance polymers, including PEEK, PEKK, and ULTEM, via a 150°C-heated chamber and a higher-temperature build platform.

    R3 Ultra printer. Image courtesy of R3.

    The company has also focused heavily on reducing the barriers traditionally associated with industrial equipment. One example of this is the machine’s footprint. Drawing on lessons from operating a service bureau in Manhattan, where every square foot mattered, the team designed a printer capable of producing parts larger than those from some much larger industrial systems while maintaining a rather space-saving design.

    The duo also looked at power requirements. Many industrial high-temperature printers require an industrial three-phase power connection, but R3 designed its system to run on a standard outlet while still reaching industrial temperatures.

    “We kept asking ourselves, ‘Can you achieve these temperatures with a standard 120-volt outlet?’” Sieradzki said. “It turns out you can. You have to innovate, integrate the system very tightly and have good controls, but it’s possible.”

    That whole “customer-first philosophy” also shaped R3’s software and materials strategy. Instead of having users buy only proprietary materials and software, R3 allows customers to choose from a wider range of engineering polymers and open-source slicing platforms.

    Wood said many industrial systems are still designed around the manufacturer’s needs rather than the customer’s: “They lock customers into the materials, the software and service plans. We wanted customers to choose the materials they want and the software they want while still getting an industrial machine. And that flexibility is becoming increasingly important as new engineering polymers continue to enter the market.”

    Sieradzki believes materials innovation will be one of the biggest drivers of industrial additive manufacturing over the next several years.

    “I think we’re going to see a lot of very interesting polymers come out,” he said. “That’s where having a printer with open materials becomes really important. The moment you lock something down, and a new material comes out, you can’t participate in that innovation.”

    R3 Ultra printer. Image courtesy of R3.

    While aerospace and defense are major markets for R3, the company sees demand growing across many industries. Robotics, medical devices, prosthetics, automotive, and product development are just some of the areas where industrial polymer 3D printing is finding new uses. At the same time, both founders say prototyping remains just as important as end-use production.

    “I think prototyping is a little underrated,” Wood said. “People love hearing about end-use parts, and those are very important. But prototyping is still incredibly important. Try prototyping something using only CNC machining.”

    R3 already has its sights set on what’s next. The company’s ambitions extend beyond individual printers. Wood said R3’s long-term goal is to automate the entire 3D printing process, adding new products over time while continuing to improve its existing printers. For now, however, the company’s focus is on establishing itself in the market.

    After nearly eight years of development and an unconventional fundraising journey, R3 has gone from building prototypes to delivering commercial printers. With growing interest in American-made manufacturing and high-performance polymers, the company believes the timing couldn’t be better.

  • Lithoz Revenue Up 40% as Customers Scale Ceramic 3D Printing

    Lithoz says that its materials revenue has risen 40% year on year. This is a good sign pointing towards higher utilization and production volumes by its customers. Service bureaus and medical firms boosted Q2 revenue growth. The company also says that 20% of its customers run 50% of all the CeraFab systems worldwide. On the one hand, this is a supplier concentration, but on the other hand, it also points to efficient production partners who are growing into specialized 3D printing ceramics manufacturing firms. The three most significant growth areas for the firm are in aluminum nitride, silica-based ceramics, and calcium phosphates. With calcium phosphates used in medical applications, silica in casting, and nitride in electronics applications, this shows a clear split between three very different industries. This multi-industry growth will be a significant advantage to the firm going forward. It also contrasts with the usual dependence the market has on mainstays alumina and zirconia.

    Traditionally, many LPBF-based firms were highly reliant on titanium, specifically orthopedic implants. It’s a great industry, a good application, and it has good economics. But a shift away from 3D printing would have a hugely detrimental impact on laser powder bed fusion (LPBF). Lithoz, meanwhile, can grow in things like bone replacement and patient-specific resorbable implants more generally while also gaining exposure to consumer electronics, semiconductors, and aerospace through heat management for electronics. That industry in and of itself is potentially huge, but the firm could also grow in casting cores. This is a nice position to be in, especially as the entire rest of the industry piles into defense. That focus and concentration could be very detrimental as well should defense departments somehow sour on 3D printing. The company also points to continued expansion of its installed base, with existing customers adding more LCM printers to production fleets.

    Lithoz CEO Johannes Homa stated that,

    “We are not only continuously improving and revalidating our materials. We’ve even developed a good number of customized materials for customers now persistently scaling their production to greater volumes. Reaching ISO 13485 certification for our quality management in material production was a big milestone and proved to be a powerful door opener to many demanding industries; even the most tightly regulated industries that can profit off our technology.” 

    Lithoz Casting Core Range on build platform. Image courtesy of Lithoz.

    The company hopes that future significant growth will come from resorbable implants. This area has huge potential, allowing for implants to not remain inside the body but essentially disappear when no longer needed. Some of these implants are also patient-specific, which could be a high-value growth area. The adoption of resorbable ceramic implants will take time. It took 3D printed titanium 30 years to become commonplace in spinal, knee, and hip implants. So the company may have a long road ahead there. But adoption in these kinds of high-value applications can bring in billions of revenue for implant companies in critical parts. Manufacturers will do well off them as well, as will Lithoz.

    Semicon, on the other hand, is a different story. They’re spending like drunken sailors at the moment. If you’re having a bad quarter in Semicon, maybe you should go do something else. What’s more, many players in semicon are cognizant of the cyclical nature of their industry. This means that there are firms investing now in fundamentally more efficient and new ways of doing things. Similarly, the firm talks about data center cooling. Now, this at the moment is a bit of a money-no-object game. You can read more about this in our report on the matter. But the market for six-toed cat pictures and AI slop is an unbridled one at the moment. This gallop can not continue infinitely but is nonetheless a nice place to play.

    The casting application may seem ho-hum by comparison, but builds on Safran Aircraft Engines‘ use of Lithoz for the cores for single crystal turbine blades. Continued adoption there could drive real growth for the firm in precision casting applications. So great news for Lithoz all around. Here is a firm with a series of ceramics 3D printing technologies that is really moving into production. Through enabling large manufacturers across several materials, applications, and industries, the firm is building a bright future for itself.

  • Beyond Thermoplastics: Why JuggerBot Is Betting on Hybrid AM

    For years, thermoplastics have been the workhorse of additive manufacturing (AM). They are pretty easy to process, available, and compatible with many of today’s industrial 3D printers. From prototypes to production tooling, thermoplastics have helped push 3D printing into factories across aerospace, automotive, defense, and consumer products. But as the industry takes on larger and more demanding applications, manufacturers are beginning to run into the limits of what thermoplastics can do.

    Some applications demand more from materials. Parts used in aircraft, defense systems, and other harsh environments often need to withstand high temperatures and heavy use over long periods. That is leading researchers and manufacturers to take a closer look at thermosets, a type of material that has been used a lot in traditional manufacturing for decades.

    Unlike thermoplastics, thermosets are designed to hold their shape once they are cured and cannot be melted down and reshaped. That makes them useful for applications where parts need to withstand heat and maintain their performance over time.

    Project ACME (Advanced Composite Material Extrusion) Technology Development Graphic. Image courtesy of JuggerBot 3D.

    The challenge is that thermosets have traditionally been difficult to integrate into large-scale AM systems. But that is where Ohio-based JuggerBot 3D saw an opportunity. The Youngstown company built its reputation around large-format pellet extrusion systems designed for industrial applications. And through a multi-year research effort, it set out to combine thermoplastic and thermoset processing within a single platform.

    That work resulted in a large-format machine called the H6-106 hybrid system, developed through an America Makes project funded by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and managed through the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). The project grew out of a $4 million AFRL award that JuggerBot received in 2024 to advance this technology.

    Large-format rail-grade polycarbonate inside the JuggerBot 3D printer build chamber. Image courtesy of JuggerBot 3D.

    According to JuggerBot, the project addresses a growing need in aerospace and defense for materials that offer greater durability and thermal performance than many conventional additive manufacturing materials.

    Built on the company’s Tradesman platform, the H6-106 combines pellet-fed extrusion technology with a two-component resin delivery system. The machine can process both thermoplastics and thermosets and includes a fully enclosed, heated chamber designed to create stable conditions during printing.

    For JuggerBot, the larger goal is to expand the range of materials available for large-format AM. If manufacturers can successfully print with both thermoplastics and thermosets, they could have more options for tooling and other applications that demand higher performance.

    Mississippi State University Advanced Composite Institute Team with JuggerBot 3D at RAPID + TCT 2024. Image courtesy of JuggerBot 3D.

    But developing new materials is only part of the challenge. Manufacturers also need to know that those materials can be used well in real production environments, not just in research labs. That is one of the main goals behind the project. JuggerBot plans to use the hybrid platform to produce aerospace tooling and demonstrate that the technology can meet industry requirements while delivering constant results.

    JuggerBot has been working on large-format AM for years. The company has collaborated with researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) on projects involving pellet-fed printing, process automation, and software tools designed to make industrial adoption easier.

    We are seeing manufacturers seeking to make larger, more demanding parts, and material options are becoming just as important as printer size or speed. If systems like the H6-106 can expand the range of materials available for AM, they could help open the door to new applications in industries where performance is critical.