An article in a well-known news magazine spurred MMS editor Pete Zelinski to renew his interest in Twitter and see what others had to say about #AdditiveManufacturing.
This photo taken at Morris Technologies in Cincinnati, Ohio illustrates one the design possibilities of additive production—curving internal channels.
The news magazine The Economist surprised me several weeks ago by running a cover story about a topic near to Modern Machine Shop’s heart—additive manufacturing. After the article appeared, I encountered exchanges in social media referring to it. I recently used Twitter to offer some of my own thoughts on additive manufacturing. Every post on Twitter is limited to 140 characters, so here is the form those thoughts took (including the abbreviations and shortened URLs that are so typical of Twitter):
Thots on additive mfg. Buzz on this since Economist story (http://econ.st/h8tjOL). Cited 3D printing of clock & violin. Good article. But...
Really vital mfg isn’t objects we play with or look at, but objects we rely on. Even tighter accy than clock. 3D printing doesn’t do this.
In fact, that’s why additive production still needs subtractive CNC machine tools
It’s also unfair to give undue attn to excess material in subtractive production. What about excess motion in additive production?
Mark Albert offered idea on add+subtractive. “Focus should be on creative freedom enabled by combination.” http://bit.ly/hfF6sx
Some parts 2 always be machined. Freight still moves by rail. Certain ideas need books. Fallacy to expect new tech to fully replace the old.
For vital mfg, point of additive is not to replace subtractive. Point is better products. Explore the expanded range of what can be made.
I got very busy recently and didn’t use Twitter for a while. I’m back there now. It is a great way to keep up an exchange of content with people who are connected to me either through LinkedIn. Join me on LinkedIn here.
.jpg;width=70;height=70;mode=crop;format=webp)
.png;maxWidth=300;quality=90)
