• Beehive Industries Invests $70M in Ohio to Support Its Advanced Manufacturing Buildup for Propulsion

    Beehive Industries and the state of Ohio have each been killing it in the metal 3D printing game. Naturally then, it was only logical for Beehive and Ohio to combine forces, with Beehive announcing last month that it would be acquiring the assets of two machine shops in the Cincinnati area.

    Now, in partnership with the workforce development nonprofit JobsOhio and the similar organization REDI Cincinnati, Beehive has announced that the company will be investing $70 million to expand its operations there, a move that will create over 200 new jobs. As the company noted in its previous announcement about the acquisition of assets from the two machine shops, Beehive will stand up a Production Machining Center of Excellence (CoE) in the Cincinnati area, at the same time as it’s establishing a Production AM CoE in Knoxville, Tennessee.

    Beehive has been signaling that a major buildup of its production capacity is in the works, first with the announcement earlier this year of a $29.7 million Air Force contract, which it followed up with in June when it announced that it had placed the largest publicly-disclosed single order of EOS machines in history, worth $50 million. Via the latter deal, Beehive will purchase 30 EOS machines over the course of this year, which would push the total number of EOS machines in the company’s fleet to 50.

    According to Beehive, the moves that the company has been making are part of an overall strategy aiming to deliver over 8,000 engines annually, aligning with a shifting defense acquisition environment in the US that has led to the Pentagon’s seeking out more work with startups that can provide new generations of weapons systems. Ohio has been a leading beneficiary in this emerging landscape, thanks in no small part to AM-friendly organizations including America Makes and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL).

    In a press release about Beehive Industries’ $70 million investment in Ohio, the state’s governor, Mike DeWine, said, “Beehive Industries’ decision to grow in Southwest Ohio demonstrates once again that our state is the best place in America to do business and the best place to strengthen our national defense. This investment puts our state at the forefront of building the engines our military needs, and we’ll be doing it faster than anyone thought possible.”

    Darius Ehteshami, Chief Operations and Finance Officer of Beehive Industries, said, “We are deeply grateful to Governor Mike DeWine, JobsOhio, and REDI Cincinnati for their exceptional collaboration and confidence in Beehive Industries. Their proactive economic tools and regional talent prove that when visionary state leadership aligns with modern defense manufacturing, it creates a model that other states – from the Midwest to the Mountain West – would be wise to emulate.”

    The last time that I wrote about a JobsOhio announcement like this, the subject was a partnership with another Colorado-based, metal AM for propulsion specialist, Ursa Major, back in 2024. So Ohio indeed appears to be positioning to become the epicenter of 3D printed engines, which, again, is logical for a state where both America Makes and the AFRL are headquartered. Still, it represents a big win for the idea that historical centers of US manufacturing can be revitalized to support a new hardware tech buildup.

    Given the fact that Anduril is spending over a billion dollars to build a manufacturing site in the Columbus area, around 100 miles away from where Beehive will be located, it will be interesting to see just how much the choice of Ohio for Beehive has been influenced by targeting Anduril as a customer. In any case, there seems to be plenty of drone and missile funding to go around, and all the new weapons systems in development will no doubt give rise to all sorts of different customer/supplier combinations in the years ahead.

    Meanwhile, when will the sectors of the economy that aren’t just about killing people get in on the action? Does the lethality of the technologies at hand have to be “validated” first before that happens? If so, the horizon for diversification of metal AM adoption growth beyond the military could be getting closer.

    And not a moment too soon! The prospects for reshoring in the US still seem to be getting bleaker all the time, but it’s nice to see a startup like Beehive responsible for creating over 200 new jobs that appear far less likely than those in service industries to be automated out of existence with AI at some point in the near future. I’d love to see a similar company pop up with a business model tailored specifically to turbines for the power grid.

    Images courtesy of Beehive Industries

  • Is This the End of One-Size-Fits-All Braces? LightForce Thinks Every Patient Deserves a Different Bracket

    For decades, braces have followed a pretty simple formula. Manufacturers make millions of identical brackets, orthodontists bond them to patients’ teeth, and then spend months making adjustments to get each smile exactly where it needs to be. According to orthodontist and early LightForce advisor Dr. Bryan Lockhart, that process has remained largely unchanged because the brackets themselves were never designed for the individual patient.

    “Historically, it didn’t matter who the patient was. Two patients could have completely different teeth, but they would get the exact same bracket,” Lockhart told 3DPrint.com. “That meant much of an orthodontist’s work happened after the braces were already in place. As teeth gradually straightened, doctors often had to reposition brackets, bend wires, and make other adjustments to fine-tune the final result. Now, companies like LightForce are trying to change that by turning every bracket into a custom-made medical device.”

    Instead of manufacturing one standard design, the company creates a unique bracket for every tooth of every patient using digital treatment planning and metal or ceramic 3D printing.

    “It’s really moving from an average prescription to a personalized prescription for every patient,” Lockhart said.

    LightBracket. Image courtesy of LightForce.

    A Digital Workflow From Day One

    The process begins with a digital scan taken at the orthodontist’s office. LightForce accepts scans from virtually any major intraoral scanner, allowing practices to keep the equipment they already use.

    After receiving the scan, the company creates a digital treatment plan that shows how each tooth should move throughout treatment. Orthodontists then review the plan, make any adjustments based on their own preferences, and approve it. Only then does manufacturing begin.

    Rather than producing a box of identical brackets, LightForce manufactures a complete set designed specifically for that patient’s teeth. The approach changes more than manufacturing. According to Lockhart, it also changes how treatment progresses.

    Dr. Bryan Lockhart. Image courtesy of LightForce.

    “Instead of relying on repeated bracket repositioning and wire bending near the end of treatment, much of that planning is built into the customized brackets from the start. When we finish the initial alignment, we don’t have to do all of those tricks we traditionally used,” he said. “The details have already been built into the treatment plan. For patients, that can mean fewer appointments and shorter overall treatment times.”

    Lockhart adds that customized brackets also reduce the time patients spend in the chair because all brackets can be bonded to the teeth at the same time using a custom tray, rather than placing each bracket individually.

    Manufacturing Millions of Different Parts

    While traditional manufacturing is designed to produce identical parts, LightForce’s production line does the opposite: it makes every bracket different.

    Katie Doran, Vice President of Physical Operations at LightForce, tells me that changes almost every part of manufacturing.

    “Every single one of our products looks unique,” she said. “That means our manufacturing systems and our quality control systems also have to be customized.”

    The company manufactures both its ceramic and newly introduced metal brackets in-house at its facility in Wilmington, Massachusetts. Unlike some metal dental manufacturing processes that use 3D printed molds or casting patterns, LightForce prints its metal brackets directly. “There are no molds,” Doran said. LightForce is printing metal directly, thanks to its intellectual property protecting its core manufacturing processes.

    “Precision is one of the biggest technical challenges,” Doran noted. “We work to achieve tolerances of roughly 12 microns while producing customized parts at scale. We’ve had some really brilliant engineering minds solving different process challenges.”

    More Than Just Metal

    LightForce recently introduced LightBracket Metal after hearing repeated requests from orthodontists and patients. For years, the company focused on customized ceramic brackets, which remain available. The decision to introduce metal wasn’t simply about aesthetics. According to Doran, metal allows the company to produce “thinner, lower-profile brackets while meeting growing demand,” particularly among younger patients who increasingly prefer the traditional look of metal braces.

    Lockhart says doctors had also been asking for a metal option for practical reasons: “Metal brackets are smaller, familiar to orthodontists, and remain the most widely used type of braces. The addition of metal also expands the number of patients who may choose customized treatment. There was demand from both practices and patients.”

    Doran says she does not expect ceramic to disappear. Instead, she believes orthodontists may eventually combine both materials depending on each patient’s needs.

    LightForce Orthodontics releases LightBracket Metal. Image courtesy of LightForce Orthodontics.

    Although the new metal brackets have received most of the attention, both Lockhart and Doran believe a much bigger change is happening. Orthodontics is starting to move away from one-size-fits-all treatment toward personalized manufacturing.

    In fact, Lockhart compares it to earlier changes in the profession: “Years ago, orthodontists bent nearly every wire by hand. Later, manufacturers introduced brackets with built-in prescriptions, making treatment easier. Customized brackets are simply the next step. We’re just moving from average prescriptions to personalized prescriptions.”

    Metal brackets may be the company’s newest product, but both Lockhart and Doran see something bigger happening. As more of orthodontics becomes digital, they believe customization will become less of an exception and more of the standard.

    This is Part I of a two-part series. In Part II, we explore how customized brackets changed the treatment experience for the first patient to receive LightForce’s new metal braces.

  • 3D Printing News Briefs, July 22, 2026: Delisting, Wind Turbine Blades, & More

    We’re covering business and energy news in today’s 3D Printing News Briefs. Würth Additive Group has closed its doors, and BigRep delisted from the Frankfurt Stock Exchange. RA Wind received a grant for robotic 3D printing of wind turbine blades. Finally, Ampera has completed production on a 3D printed microreactor module.

    Würth Additive Group Business Unit Announces Closure

    The Würth Group, a multinational conglomerate headquartered in Germany, manufactures and sells assembly and fastening materials. It started working with additive manufacturing (AM) in 2017, and opened its Würth Additive Group (WAG) business unit in 2021. In addition to distributing 3D printing materials and hardware through reseller partnerships, WAG’s main goal was to support customers with inventory management solutions, and the unit introduced its AM-driven Digital Inventory Services (DIS) platform at AMUG 2024, officially launching it at AMUG 2025. Things seemed to be going well for WAG, at least from the outside looking in. The company held a Demo Days tour around North America in 2024, co-produced a white paper about AM and digital inventories with Additive Manufacturing Research, and even announced a strategic partnership with B9Creations at AMUG 2026. Then, last week, WAG confirmed that it was closing via a brief LinkedIn post.

    If anyone was following along on LinkedIn, maybe you saw the closure coming. Two months ago, AJ Strandquist, Würth Additive’s CEO, posted that he was leaving, “officially closing one chapter and starting another.” Then, three weeks ago, Mikhail Gladkikh, Director of Global Technology and Technical Projects, shared that he’s “actively exploring my next chapter,” citing the “wind-down” of the WAG division. This wind-down was then made official with WAG’s 50-word statement on LinkedIn. As far as I can tell, no reason for the closure has been publicly shared; the post simply said that the company “is committed to an orderly closure of all operations.” In response to every LI comment on the post, WAG has expressed its gratitude, and called the closure “a carefully considered business decision.” Stakeholders with active accounts, or outstanding arrangements, will be contacted directly by the company’s Closing Office. Those with other inquiries should email [email protected]. I, for one, will miss Würth Additive Group. I like what they were doing with DIS, I think it was important. But we’ll have to find our digital inventories elsewhere.

    BigRep SE Delists from Frankfurt Stock Exchange, Liquidates Parent Company

    ONE.5 at work. Image courtesy of BigRep.

    And the hits just keep on coming, as large-format 3D printing leader BigRep GmbH will be sold and delisted from the Frankfurt Stock Exchange. This is another SPAC casualty, as BigRep is one of many AM firms that went public through a deal with a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC). When it merged with SMG Technology Acceleration SE in 2024, the company (now BigRep SE) said the public listing would allow it to carry out a buy-and-build strategy to benefit shareholders. Part of the deal included BigRep’s acquisition of competitor HAGE3D from Austria, which would supposedly set the company up for major market expansion. Since then, the company has made strides forward, forming a partnership with Phillips Federal, entering the auto aftermarket, and even launching a new 3D printer at this year’s RAPID. But sadly, it doesn’t have a lot else to show for its buy-and-build strategy, posting annual losses and even attempting a reorganization last year.

    The company’s management and supervisory boards made the decision to sell and delist BigRep, and liquidate its holding company. Shareholders held an extraordinary general meeting to approve the sale and liquidation, and the sale was structured to close at fair market value, based on an independent valuation of BigRep GmbH, and subject to customary closing conditions. Shares will be sold to De Krassny GmbH, Koehler Invest GmbH, and Hage Holding GmbH, and the purchase price was not disclosed. Any surplus proceeds or assets will be distributed to shareholders. If the sale goes through as planned, BigRep is set to keep operating under new management. No details have been made public yet about personnel or structure, so we’ll have to wait and see how this plays out.

    RA Wind Gets Grant for Robotic 3D Printing of Wind Turbine Blades

    Manufacturing wind turbine blades is a demanding application, with large fixed molds, labor-intensive composite layup, and complex logistics to move them to the installation site once they’re complete. That’s why Energy Transition Norway (ETN) member RA Wind AS is using 3D printing to address these issues. The company, founded in 2023, develops rotor and nacelle technology for offshore wind energy, and just received a 500,000 NOK (nearly $52,000) grant from Innovation Norway for a project about onsite, robot-controlled 3D printing of wind turbine blades. The funding will support commercial and technical clarifications, including 3D printing, process simulation, and analysis of small composite material prototypes. By using large industrial robotic 3D printing to fabricate blades onsite, RA Wind hopes to enable site-specific blade design, get rid of long-distance transport, and even usher in lighter, possibly reusable materials. Even more broadly, the company wants to use a patented modular turbine design to lower installation, operations, and maintenance costs for offshore wind by 50%.

    RA Wind CEO Lars Raunholt said, “Execution of the Innovation Norway project is a deciding factor for moving this innovative project into the prototype stages.”

    The company also completed a capital increase from local investors to match the Innovation Norway grant. The next step is a pilot factory project with up to four large additive robots.

    Ampera Completes Full-Scale 3D Printed Nuclear Reactor Module

    Ampera CEO Brian Matthews unveils the first module (Image: Ampera)

    Florida-based Ampera is working to develop subcritical thorium-based, energy dense microreactor systems that don’t need to be refueled, using neuron-source technology, a proprietary tri-structural isotropic (TRISO) fuel platform, and advanced AM. It’s achieved a major milestone by completing production of what it says is the first full-scale 3D printed nuclear reactor module. This winter, Ampera submitted a formal letter to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to indicate its desire to begin the pre-application process for its containerized microreactor. By April, it had entered a strategic collaboration with Monaco shipping company Scorpio Tankers Inc. to jointly make and commercialize advanced microreactors for shipping, marine, and related maritime applications. The reactor module, unveiled this month at the company’s innovation center in Palm Beach Gardens, includes the pressure vessel and a spherical monolithic gyroid core, printed out of silicon carbide and designed to work for up to 30 years without refueling. Ampera’s ultimate goal is to deliver factory-built, scalable, deployable, emission-free power for applications like defense, maritime, industrial, and data centers.

    “This next-generation nuclear core and pressure vessel sets the foundation for factory-built, mass-produced nuclear energy. The advanced technology and additive manufacturing used demonstrate a clear commercial path for new nuclear technology coming to market in an accelerated manner,” said Ampera’s Founder and CEO Brian Matthews.

    “Our reactors are built for the markets that need power the most: AI data centres, defence, industrial and maritime. We expect to be the first company to industrialise factory-built nuclear power with near-term deployment timelines.”

  • Forty-Five Years After Alvin Toffler Coined “Prosumer,” Could AI and 3D Printing Make It a Reality?

    Every major technology wave comes with big predictions about how it will change the world. Today, many of those predictions center on artificial intelligence (AI). Futurists like Ray Kurzweil and Michio Kaku argue that AI and future technologies will put very powerful tools into the hands of individuals. Most of today’s AI headlines are about chatbots, coding assistants, or the future of work. Manufacturing is rarely part of the story.

    So what happens when AI meets manufacturing? Well, the answer could have less to do with futuristic robots and more to do with an idea proposed more than four decades ago by futurist and author Alvin Toffler. In his 1980 book The Third Wave (Chapter 20, The Rise of the Prosumer), Toffler introduced the idea of the “prosumer,” a blend of producer and consumer. He believed society would gradually move away from centralized mass production and toward a future in which individuals would participate in creating the products and services they consume.

    Alvin Toffler. Image courtesy of Toffler Associates.

    At that time, Toffler’s idea sounded pretty ambitious. Making products required factories, expensive machinery, and engineering know-how. Most people were consumers who bought products designed and manufactured by companies.

    Forty-five years later, the combination of AI and additive manufacturing (AM) may be bringing Toffler’s vision closer to reality. But not because factories are disappearing. And not because AI is replacing engineers. Instead, AI is making it much easier to design products in the first place.

    The Promise of AM

    In the late 2000s, desktop 3D printers became more common, and so did the idea that manufacturing could move beyond factories. Instead of buying everything from large companies, people could print some products themselves. That possibility helped fuel the maker movement and projects like RepRap.

    For a while, it looked like 3D printing might change manufacturing. It changed a lot, though not in the way many people expected. Desktop printers became popular among hobbyists, educators, and makers, but few people began designing and manufacturing their own printers. Most people downloaded files that someone else had already created, and most consumer products continued to come from the same factories and production lines as before. For many people, one of the biggest barriers was knowing how to design a product.

    Creating a part isn’t just about its shape. It also has to work, so engineers have to think about materials, making sure it holds up to everyday use, and designing the part so it can actually be made. Clearly, turning an idea into a production-ready part isn’t easy, even for experienced designers.

    AI Enters the Design Process

    AI has quickly found its way into engineering and product design. At first, it was used mainly for generative design, with software creating multiple design options based on goals set by the engineer. Companies like Autodesk helped popularize the technology, giving engineers new ways to explore and refine designs instead of starting from scratch.

    MJK Performance used generative design technology to create a set of lighter and stronger triple clamps for a drag bike. Image courtesy of Autodesk.

    Recently, AI-powered engineering platforms have expanded into topology optimization, simulation, materials selection, and workflow automation. Perhaps more important is the rise of text-to-CAD systems. Although the technology is still evolving, users can describe a product in natural language and have AI generate an initial 3D model. Of course, the technology is not yet perfect. Engineering oversight is still important. But the way people interact with design software is becoming much simpler.

    The same thing happened with computers in the 1980s and 1990s. Back then, computers required users to type commands to get anything done, making them difficult for most people to use. Graphical interfaces changed that by replacing lines of code with windows, icons, and menus. Suddenly, computers became accessible to millions more people.

    AI could have a similar effect on engineering. Instead of learning complex CAD software from the ground up, users can simply describe what they want to create in plain language and let AI handle much of the initial work.

    The Missing Piece of Toffler’s Vision

    This is where Toffler’s idea starts to make sense. His vision was never just about giving people access to manufacturing. It was about giving them the power to create. For consumers to become producers, they needed access to both production and design capabilities. 3D printing made manufacturing more accessible. AI is now starting to do the same for design.

    Take 3D printed prosthetic hands, for example. Not long ago, getting a prosthetic usually meant relying on a manufacturer to produce a standard device. Today, people can download open-source designs, adjust them to fit the user, and print many of the plastic components on a desktop 3D printer. The result is a more personalized, lower-cost device.

    E-Nable Uses 3D Printing to Give Prosthetic Hands

    Traditional manufacturing is built to produce millions of identical products as efficiently as possible. Meanwhile, one of 3D printing’s biggest strengths has always been customization. Whether it’s one part or one thousand, every print can be different without the need for new molds or tooling.

    AI could make that advantage even more useful. Instead of spending hours creating each new variation, designers can use AI to adapt existing models or generate new ones much more quickly. That could make personalized products easier to produce across industries where every customer is different.

    Dental aligners are one of the earliest examples, because every patient receives a unique treatment plan done with digital workflows and AM. Other consumer products doing this already include eyewear, footwear, sporting goods, ergonomic tools, gaming accessories, and home products, designed around individual users instead of the average customer. Together, they could make large-scale customization much easier.

    The Rise of the Manufacturing Agent

    Another idea getting plenty of attention is the AI agent. In manufacturing, it could become more than just a chatbot or digital assistant. Instead of moving between CAD software, simulation tools, optimization programs, and slicers, users could eventually depend on a single AI system to deal with much of that work. A user could simply describe what they need. And since drones have been on our minds lately (following our recent drone report and webcast), they’re a good example. Imagine typing something like: “I need a lightweight drone bracket that can withstand vibration and outdoor use.” An AI system could then generate several design concepts, optimize the geometry, suggest ideal materials, run simulations, prepare the manufacturing files, and recommend the best production method.

    So instead of replacing engineers, these systems can boost productivity and extend engineering capabilities to a much bigger group of people, not to mention the impact this could have for small businesses, entrepreneurs, educators, and hobbyists.

    Why Factories Are Not Going Away

    It’s all very exciting really, but it’s still important to keep things in context. AI can make designing products much easier, but that doesn’t mean traditional manufacturing is going away. As MIT manufacturing expert Dr. John Hart has argued, high-volume manufacturing will remain the most efficient and cost-effective option for many products.

    “Additive manufacturing will not make everything in the future. It won’t make close to everything. But it will touch the life cycle of nearly every product that’s designed and made. That can be prototyping, tooling, service parts, or volume production of at least some of its components,” Dr. Hart predicted.

    Cost is another factor. Injection molding remains the cheapest way to produce millions of identical parts. Many consumer electronics, cars, packaged goods, and other high-volume products still depend on large factories and established supply chains. For those industries, traditional manufacturing will continue to make the most sense, as Hart described.

    Regulations are another reason. Medical devices, aerospace parts, and other safety-critical products must meet strict certification requirements. As AI becomes part of the design process, companies and regulators will also have to answer new questions about validation, liability, and who is ultimately responsible for the final product.

    And yet another challenge is intellectual property. If AI creates a replacement part for an existing product, who owns the design? The answer isn’t always clear, and manufacturers, software developers, and regulators are still trying to figure it out.

    Quality is another concern. An AI-generated design isn’t automatically safe or ready to manufacture. It still needs to be tested, reviewed, and, in many cases, approved before it can be used. Of course, none of this means AI and 3D printing won’t change manufacturing. They certainly will. But they’re more likely to expand where and how products are made than replace traditional manufacturing altogether.

    A Future That Looks Familiar

    For years, the AM industry has talked about distributed production, digital inventories, and on-demand manufacturing. Those ideas haven’t changed. What has changed is how much easier it may become for people to participate. 3D printing made manufacturing more accessible. AI is beginning to do the same for design. That doesn’t mean factories are going away or that everyone will become an engineer. But it could mean that many more people, from entrepreneurs and small businesses to hobbyists and makers, can turn an idea into a product. More than 40 years ago, Toffler imagined a future where the line between producers and consumers would begin to blur. AI and AM could one day deliver that vision.

  • How the US-China Trade War is Changing the 3D Printing Market

    Western governments don’t really have a coherent view on how to engage China on trade, and how could they? They vacillate between intimate economic cooperation and antagonistic bluster, depending on the issue and the day, and there is very little in terms of a united front that connects all the various countries that comprise ‘the West’.

    Meanwhile, Western businesses are, if anything, worse — and again, how could we expect otherwise? While we’re all quite sick of talking about Elon Musk, the admiration for him in the Western tech world is a perfect example. Consider that an entire defense tech boom built largely around SpaceX alumni and, more broadly, Musk admirers, is being built up in no small part thanks to fear-mongering about Chinese hegemony. Meanwhile, Musk owes the foundation for much of his entire fortune on Chinese manufacturing supply chains.

    There’s no way to spin that into a logical position, so everyone more or less just ignores it, and that’s fair enough. The US is involved in a trade war with China while simultaneously dependent on China for the supply of a countless number of strategic goods, so perhaps there’s no need to be logical.

    I, for one, think there’s very little difference between the US and China on the world stage, in the sense that China is acting precisely how the US acted when it still had the credibility to dictate terms to the rest of the world. China is simply following that blueprint on a scale that reflects the demographic scale of China, and is working with a toolbox tailored to the cutting-edge of the 21st century. Let’s say you picked out some member of the American governing elite known for having the harshest possible views on China: perhaps I’m mistaken, but I think if that person could snap his or her fingers and instantly transform the US into an American version of China, that is what would happen.

    So, when you delve into Western views on China, you are bound to tread in the muddiest of waters. On the other hand, there is mounting evidence that this could be in the process of changing: that a dividing line is being drawn. Interestingly enough, shifting national policies on additive manufacturing (AM) are one of the pieces of evidence of that.

    The 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) prohibits DoD from owning or operating 3D printers and 3D printing software from a list of covered countries, the most notable of which is China. DoD also cannot own or operate machines that connect to networks based in those countries. This applies to new contracts entered into a year after the bill’s passage. There are exceptions, including 3D printers used for intelligence purposes, research, training, and electronic warfare, which at least in part seems to be a way to ensure DoD stays apprised of the latest Chinese technology.

    However, US defense contractors still aren’t banned from using 3D printing technology from the covered countries, which is a pretty important caveat. If contractors are using restricted 3D printers, they must be completely air gapped, though we may well find out at some point soon that this measure isn’t sufficiently effective, and I think it’s likely that an eventual ban on buying parts made with restricted equipment is inevitable.

    Soldiers assigned to Hunter Army Airfield Innovation Center, 3rd Combat Aviation Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division, Savannah, Ga., work with subject matter experts to assemble drones made from parts that were 3D-printed using the Expeditionary Manufacturing Cell. Image courtesy of Army 1st Lt. Decean Brown, 3rd Infantry Division.

    Meanwhile, the FCC also banned last year the purchase of new drones from covered countries:

    “As specified below, today’s decision does not impact a consumer’s ability to continue using drones they previously purchased or acquired. Nor does today’s decision prevent retailers from continuing to sell, import, or market device models approved earlier this year or previously through the FCC’s equipment authorization process. By operation of the FCC’s Covered List rules, the restrictions imposed by today’s decision apply to new device models.”

    As Joris Peels noted in his post on the topic, this is a playbook that was originally used for network equipment providers like Huawei and ZTE, and I think the same can be said about the ban on 3D printing technology. That ban also started out in piecemeal fashion and evolved into a blanket prohibition, a once extraordinary step that seems to have gradually become more commonplace.

    The drone ban and the ban on 3D printing technology, of course, aren’t unrelated. With drones being one of the product categories most likely to be made with inexpensive Chinese 3D printers, restricting both simultaneously helps incentivize the buildup of domestic US drone production capacity, which is one of the principal strategic objectives of current US industrial policy.

    Finally, there has also been a developing trend of state-by-state bans on 3D printed firearms. This doesn’t explicitly target Chinese 3D printers but, because of the specific nature of the market, makers of inexpensive 3D printers from China are the most negatively impacted by the trend. While there isn’t a federal ban yet, it’s not impossible for me to imagine that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) has leaned on state governments to address the problem. It’s also a useful way for all parties involved to appear that they’re cracking down on guns without actually doing so.

    Collectively, then, it is becoming more difficult to use products originating in the Chinese AM ecosystem in the US. That is the stick, and the carrot comes in the form of increased federal spending on preferred AM technologies. To my earlier points about US stakeholders attempting to create an American version of China, all of these actions are along the lines of things that Western nations used to love when they dominated international manufacturing supply chains, and only grew to dislike after they’d relocated those supply chains to China. Thus it is not the actions themselves that anyone seems to dislike; rather, it is the source of the actions that anyone protesting has a problem with.

    All of this could certainly come to nothing, and the US and China could reach some arrangement, which has tended to be the pattern over the last couple of years. But that’s not guaranteed, and an important date to keep in mind is November 10 of this year, when the pause on China’s expanded rare earth controls is set to end. As I’ve noted before, this seems to be the unspoken catalyst for all the geopolitical tensions that seemingly arose out of nowhere in 2026.

    The thing to think about is, which nation has more to lose? If the answer is the US, I think we should only expect further changes in the direction of decoupling US and Chinese strategic sectors.

    Featured image courtesy of Stratasys

  • Who’s Asking the Questions? A Look at Additive Manufacturing’s Financial Analysts

    Every earnings season, executives at publicly traded additive manufacturing (AM) companies face questions from Wall Street. While the companies change strategies, launch new products, or enter new markets, many of the voices asking the questions stay the same. A rather small group of analysts follows the sector quarter after quarter, helping shape how investors understand the industry’s progress.

    That wasn’t always the case. During the surge in investor interest in AM in the early 2020s, publicly traded 3D printing companies attracted plenty of attention from Wall Street. Capital flowed into the sector through traditional IPOs and SPAC mergers; new companies entered the public markets, and earnings calls had a pretty big mix of analysts who wanted to understand where the industry was headed.

    Today, the industry is in a different place. AM has found its footing in markets like aerospace, defense, healthcare, and dental, and investors are paying close attention to where companies are actually growing.

    Featured Illustration courtesy of 3DPrint.com: Earnings calls offer one of the clearest views into what Wall Street wants to know about additive manufacturing. 

     

  • 3DPOD 307: Wire Arc AM with Peter Richards, Deep Manufacturing

    Peter Richards is the CEO of Deep Manufacturing, a supremely ambitious company deploying DED to build underwater habitats. Additionally, the company makes pressure vessels and large certified metal structures for clients. He tells us how Deep scaled so quickly, what the company wants to do, what roadblocks were in the way and how it hopes to grow. Some of the things he tells us are quite surprising, such as whose robots he is using and their open approach to partnering and collaborations. Other things Deep does very much like the rest of the industry. We also delve deeper into certification, quality and the future of the technology.

    This episode of the 3DPOD is brought to you by HeyGears, an innovation-driven 3D printing solution company devoted to taking digital manufacturing to the next level for individuals and businesses around the world. HeyGears’ extensive expertise and self-developed resin, 3D printing hardware, software, materials, and service platforms mean they can offer complete, easy-to-use, and reliable 3D printing workflows for all types of users, from beginners to advanced professionals looking to get things made. Learn more about them at HeyGears.com.

  • Beyond Generative Design: Can AI-Driven 3D Printing Truly Deliver on Precision?

    Artificial Intelligence (AI) has brought a new look to the hardware engineering domain. Using generative design algorithms, engineers put performance parameters and weight constraints together and the program generates complex, natural-looking topologies that are strong but lightweight. But when these designs become tangible parts, challenges arise: AI is great for creating the perfect design but without state-of-the-art fabrication systems these geometries cannot be made.

    Traditional manufacturing methods, such as standard milling, struggle with deep undercuts, internal lattices, and complex cavities in generative structures. While 3D printing provides the geometrical freedom to replicate organic contours layer by layer, industrial-grade applications demand high-precision performance. Navigating this transition requires tight integration of additive technologies with smart post-processing workflows.

    Engineers evaluating an AI-generated digital twin before advancing to physical production. Image courtesy of LS Manufacturing.

    Unlocking Geometric Freedom: The Power of Advanced 3D Printing

    If industrial AI-designed products have to go through mass production, industrial additive manufacturing capabilities need to be utilized as fully as possible. Advanced rapid prototyping technologies, like Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) and Stereolithography (SLA), offer the ability to create products with internal channels, honeycombed lattices, and consolidated assemblies that used to be impossible to manufacture.

    On the other hand, it is best to note that printing the raw near-net shape is just the first stage. Modern high-tech industries impose extreme tolerance demands, so the only way additive manufacturing would meet these is if it is complemented with precise finishing tasks. An example is that pairing 3D printed engineering plastics with high-velocity CNC machining services is one way to guarantee that critical functional interfaces, threaded inserts, and mating surfaces are manufactured in micro-precision with tolerances up to +/- 0. 005 mm as well as retain the weight-saving benefit of an original AI design.

    An industrial 3D-printed component showcasing intricate generative design features. Image courtesy of LS Manufacturing.

    The Multi-Process Synergy: Balancing Complexity and Micro-Precision

    By bypassing the upfront tooling costs associated with traditional setups, modern industrial additive manufacturing allows hardware teams to remain completely agile. If the AI model undergoes further optimization, the digital file can be updated instantly. However, the ultimate success of these parts relies on how seamlessly the additive and subtractive phases communicate.

    Instead of viewing these processes individually, an integrated manufacturing process guarantees that the coordinate systems of the 3D printer and the CNC milling machine match up perfectly. This precise integration allows the toolpath of face milling, drilling, and reaming to be followed precisely when the part is taken from the 3D printer to the CNC milling process, keeping the design intent as created by the AI algorithm intact.

    A batch of identical components featuring lightweight internal lattices after an industrial production run. Image courtesy of LS Manufacturing.

    Scaling Up: From Prototyping to Bridge Production

    Hardware teams that are responsible for developing next-gen devices must be aware of partner companies that can support them with the help of scalable 3D printing services. These partner companies are key for hardware teams to go from proving a concept in initial development stages to the actual production of the final product.

    Production Lifecycles for AI-Optimized Components:

    Concept Proofing

    Primary Process: Desktop SLA / FDM Printing

    Core Benefit: Low cost, fast geometric validation

    Typical Batch Volume: 1 – 5 units

    Functional Prototyping

    Primary Process: Industrial SLS / SLA Printing

    Core Benefit: Isotropic mechanical properties, complex cavities

    Typical Batch Volume: 5 – 20 units

    Bridge Production Run

    Primary Process: Hybrid (Industrial 3D Printing + CNC)

    Core Benefit: Zero tooling costs, high-precision mating features

    Typical Batch Volume: 50 – 500+ units

    Thanks to the efficiency gains of this hybrid approach, a business can do fast product redesigns or redesigns that will not cause the parts to be assembled wrongly. Working closely with a specialized team that offers the combination of industrial 3D printing and advanced post-machining will keep your hard-wares cycle of development going smoothly, cheaply and effectively from the first printed layer to the last manufactured one.

    Functional components undergoing strict dimensional inspection to guarantee tight tolerances. Image courtesy of LS Manufacturing.

    Empowering Adaptive Innovation with LS Manufacturing

    When the lifespan of industry products is constantly getting shortened, the engineering teams that stand out the most are the ones that link AI-generated digital designs with top-tier physical production. To thrive in this environment means that we need to go beyond regular desktop printing and embrace high-end, industrial-grade manufacturing solutions.

    By pairing cutting-edge additive manufacturing processes with precise CNC machining services, LS Manufacturing empowers innovators to transform their most complex generative pixels into market-ready precision parts.

  • The State of the Desktop Filament Market 2026, Part 1: Facehugging AI

    As many as ten million desktop 3D printers may be sold this year. This makes the desktop filament market potentially a significant business. I’ve interviewed key participants in this industry, users, and OEMs to develop a consolidated picture of the current market. I’ve made tables of major filament producers, compared pricing, and done analysis on the materials, prices, speed of delivery, marketing, resellers, and more. Then I used a stealth-mode deep-research AI business intelligence tool to index all pages of filament producers worldwide and all shop pages of 3D printer vendors. The tool indexed all forum mentions and blog posts, discussions, comments, and more about filament. This tool consolidated, analyzed, defined trends, and looked at the market as a whole. The research tool I’m using has capabilities way beyond publicly available LLMs, and delves much deeper into analysis and data. But this kind of capability is sure to become available more broadly.

    So I did my analysis, listened to others to gather their views, and then separately looked to the AI tool for validation afterward. I would not recommend relying solely on indexing, crawling, or business intelligence software to do this. It’s only useful if you can spot errors, understand calculations, and have your own informed opinion. It’s also important to delve deeper when using any AI tool to understand why it makes certain assumptions and performs certain calculations.  And in my opinion, it’s important to form your own opinion in advance in order to make the right query and understand if the tool is feeding you, and itself, the right information. I then sliced and diced the consolidated information in another tool, Google’s Notebook LM tool. I edited the information, removed some sources, and added others. Then I asked Notebook to generate a PowerPoint deck of some of the relevant information. This article was written entirely by me, and it demonstrates what someone can do with AI as a useful research tool. I’d never want AI to be my co-pilot; I want to land the plane, and I need to understand where and how we’re flying. Anyone who relies on AI to run your processes, intelligence, analysis, or judgment in the background without you understanding what you’re doing is an idiot. So I don’t want a co-pilot, nor do I want to cease doing critical thinking and run myself on autopilot. But I wouldn’t mind an AI Loyal Wingman. I mean, it’s not going to fly my plane, but it could take a bullet for me. As well as update you on the Desktop Filament Market today, this article will show you the ability of cutting-edge AI tools to aid and imperil research.

    The Desktop Filament Market State of Play

    Some of the initial filament players, low-cost Chinese brands, have entered into a killer competition with one another. eSUN seems to be weathering the storm somewhat, but other names have disappeared. Generally, we have smaller players, such as local 3D printing shops and national 3D printing-specific retailers, still shipping their white label filaments. In lockstep, the fortunes of Mitsubishi and Keene Village (now Toner) have waned, as they have had to secure new revenue sources and new ways to sell directly. The stores and retailers used to be a large market segment, but have stagnated and dwindled of late. One big player was initially responsible for this: Amazon, which brought in low-cost, semi-reliable filament. Then we have US and European premium brands such as colorFabb, which, through high quality and innovation, are trying to stay ahead. Other lower-priced brands, such as Spectrum in Europe and Protopasta and Atomic in the States, are pushing affordable but locally made filament with high-quality signifiers.

    Prusa has a high-end, incredibly good brand and sells it to its community. Meanwhile, Elegoo (through SLA resin revenue), Creality (via the runaway success of High Speed PLA and Hyper), and Bambu (with ease of use) have shown incredible growth across the budget-to-premium segments. These players are now defining the market. BASF and the other polymer majors, meanwhile, are on the retreat, or have forgotten about us entirely by now. Stratasys has a portfolio of industrial filaments but does not seem to be engaging the desktop market. Evonik and Arkema are also going the specialty route. Another form of specialty is flexible, in which Recreus and NinjaTek have strong brands, and no one has really managed to make amazing TPU work well. 3D4Makers and others, meanwhile, sell high-end filaments for space and defense.

    The above is a Notebook-generated slide based on my scraping data. Now, I agree with the segmentation. But. I completely disagree with the “completely different buyers” part. Sometimes, people, companies, and schools buy cheap filament. Some people use inexpensive draft filament most of the time, but buy expensive engineering materials as well. Some people use draft filament and then buy premium filament for nice things that they will keep for a long time. Also, many people and companies buy filament from multiple sources. I may purchase material from a local store, but will buy from 3D4Makers if I need PCL, from colorFabb if I need foaming, from Spectrum if I need a lot of something, and sometimes from Bambu if I have a great deal. Meanwhile, most of what I use every day is Prusament. So I think that the assertion at the bottom is wrong. What’s more, I have looked through my data, and I have no idea where the LLM got this from. I don’t have a single piece of information that implies this is true, that the filament is so elastic, or that buyers are so consistent. Also, I do agree that the segmentation is nice, but there are lots of firms that buy aerospace materials and cheap PETG. And there are lots of firms that buy PEEK and other premium materials such as PC. So I think that the segmentation does not at all “obscure five separate markets.” So, this nicely presented slide has some order to it, but could be completely misleading.

    Market Segmentation

    The dragons have given us many splendored colors and rainbow filaments. We’re getting more “safer” filaments, recycled ones, and ones fit for purpose, such as rail-certified materials with Fr. Companies like Tectonic 3D are engineering incredibly high-performance materials designed to work on desktop systems. We’re seeing more non-NatureWorks PLA and lower-cost feedstocks emerge, as people turn to commodities to keep margins alive. Some are working more with larger compounders, while still others are vertically integrating more. Chinese players are expanding their distribution and manufacturing operations in (or to) Europe due to tariff concerns. Many European players are turning towards defense applications. PLA Plus and High Speed PLA are profitable but often a mirage, not really delivering meaningful performance in many cases. Filled materials will become more prevalent, and interesting eco-filled materials will do well. Whether the algae, coffee, or whatever actually conveys environmental benefits remains to be seen.

    Print farms are becoming very important accounts for some filament companies. Some farms already make their own filament. Others get good deals from the big Chinese players. More should work with premium suppliers to unlock ongoing contracts at low costs. Quality has risen precipitously across the board. But many low-cost brands still persist with tolerance issues.

    Fault Modes

    Under-dimensioning filament to reduce clogs still occurs, and many brands still have issues with ovality. Filament dryers and user-made dry boxes, as well as commercial variants, are making life easier for users. Many users have become significantly better at storing filament. Packaging is also improving. There are better bags for storing your filament now, and spools are becoming more sustainable.

    Breakage and nozzle clogs are still issues. In AMS-like units, grooving or feeders digging into the filament are also problems. Higher-speed machines have caused some filaments to perform much worse than others. One of the biggest user fault modes now is winding and tangling issues coming about through user error (unpacking and feeding while pushing filament under another wind) and bad winding coupled with higher speeds. Filament clips and correct user unspooling and insertion were nice to have, but currently are important. Adhesion issues have subsided for many users, but nozzle degradation over time and general filament degradation are still issues.

    As you can see above, the Bambu store visits are very high when compared to pure play filament brands. Bambu has caused a wave of people to, in fact, be better at printing and working with other people’s filament. There is also a real convenience lock-in. Bambu and Creality’s apps and overall software experience increase prints and help drive filament sales. I don’t think that the AMS provides a real lock-in or razor-and-blades model. I think it’s smarter than this. I’ve tried many different novel filaments, both on the AMS and loose, on several Bambu systems, and the printers work very well with them. In many cases, the specific settings can be entered very easily. Instead, they make it convenient. And some users, especially new ones and neophytes, love this. Traditionally, in the filament market, we saw that new users remained with the printer-supplied filament for months before venturing out into new brands. What Bambu is doing is collecting an awful lot of user-specific usage information, filament information on aggregate, and trends. A firm that can monitor downloads to the app to the camera can judge different filaments and see what power users are turning to. They can then white-label the right filaments, sell the colors that work, develop missing colors, and focus on grades that perform poorly. Its more of a gap analysis masterstroke than razor-and-blades to me. Its not that you have to use the Gillette razor for it to work. It’s as if the Gillette razor could scan everyone’s face and then develop blades specifically for your skin and face type. This is the true power of the total control business model. It’s not a razor blade, it’s a facehugger.

  • 3YOURMIND Demonstrates that Distributed 3D Printing is Ready at AM Village 2026

    Given that additive manufacturing (AM) is so closely adhering to the classic industrialization blueprint whereby military adoption pushes a new technology to commercialization, I’ve thought for a long time that much of the AM industry’s potential over the course of this decade will depend on how NATO can integrate AM capabilities across all of its member states. On that front, the progress so far has been pretty slow, but 3YOURMIND may have just demonstrated that this is about to change.

    The US-German software company has steadily refined its platform for years through work with leading AM original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), primarily EOS, and defense customers, most notably various branches of the US military, offering digital repository solutions like parts identification capabilities and distributed manufacturing workflow. 3YOURMIND just released an eBook based on the outcomes from its participation in AM Village 2026, the third iteration of the unique workshop put on by the European Defence Agency (EDA). The document showcases three case studies signaling that distributed 3D printing is no longer theoretical.

    Significantly, NATO was invited to participate in AM Village for the first time, a milestone that 3YOURMIND took full advantage of via one of the case studies, which validated the AM interoperability capabilities of NATO’s RAPID-e digital repository. 3YOURMIND worked with defense representatives of the Finnish and Dutch militaries, as well as the Finnish defense firm Patria, to route a part request from the Netherlands to Finland. A “Dutch micro-factory” requested the Technical Data Package (TDP) for a cable clip assembly, issuing the request through the RAPID-e system. Patria confirmed the request, after which the TDP was transferred via 3YOURMIND for printing in the Netherlands on an Ultimaker S8.

    Another case study involved an exhibition of how parts are printed remotely on naval vessels. In partnership with the Royal Dutch Navy, the exercise involved printers from three different brands: Ultimaker, EOS, and French OEM Cosmyx. Finally, 3YOURMIND showed the viability of sending part recipes from a central repository at a Center of Excellence (CoE) to multiple different end-users, including one located in a NATO-aligned nonmember nation.

    The challenges of deploying distributed AM at scale seem to be not so different from the challenges manufacturers face in adopting AI. That is, the difficulties now lie less in the performance of the manufacturing equipment itself, and have more to do with the cybersecurity and network connectivity infrastructure surrounding the 3D printing hardware.

    Interestingly, if done the right way — from the ground up and across the whole operation in a given enterprise — AI adoption could potentially provide the cybersecurity foundation that helps push distributed manufacturing forward. This means that, as the adoption of AI and distributed manufacturing proceed forward, the potential synergy could accelerate both more than would be possible for each in isolation.

    3YOURMIND’s collection of case studies validates distributed AM from a technological perspective as well as from an organizational one. The technical details of the exercises illustrate that AM software and hardware are equally ready to deliver for users with distributed manufacturing objectives, while the setting of AM Village and the participation of NATO, as well as three different AM OEMs, a defense contractor, and various national militaries, are ready to accept the challenge of adopting distributed AM.

    Users are no doubt still going to move forward cautiously, but the takeaway is that AM-enabled decentralized manufacturing has gone from being unthinkable in cybersecurity terms not so long ago, to being a question of how much risk users are willing to take on. NATO seems to be sending the message that the reward justifies the risk.

    Images courtesy of 3YOURMIND