In the ongoing laser war between powder bed fusion (PBF) system manufacturers, we’ve discussed various multiple laser configurations and high build speeds across systems from companies ranging from Bright Laser Technologies and EPlus3D to Nikon SLM Solutions and Velo3D. Farsoon is now introducing a variant of its eight-laser metal 3D printing system FS721M. The new FS721M-8 CAMS system is a continuous system designed for series production. It features a conveyor belt that transports a build to a breakout station while a second build begins. This approach, reminiscent of Additive Industries and the Concept R Line, aims to increase throughput and machine utilization.
I joked before that PBF machines should be called recoating machines because they often spend two-thirds of their time recoating. Farsoon is now examining the core economics of the process to understand how it can transform the cost of parts and machinery. The new system has a build volume of 720 x 420 x 390 mm and the company says it can build 300 cubic centimeters per hour. The company has improved its scanning strategies and parameters to optimize productivity, including the use of multiple lasers in overlapping print zones. Additionally, the company has made changes to its recoater and gas flow.
Many years ago, some machines experienced downtime of up to eight hours between construction jobs, making it difficult to generate significant revenue. Any form of automation benefits our market by increasing the value of the machines, making them more worthwhile to purchase and reducing the cost per part. These improvements can significantly increase the number and profitability of 3D printing business cases.
We are moving from lab-oriented to more manufacturing-oriented systems. For the actual production, high machine utilization and yield are of utmost importance. It may seem silly that machines spend so much time heating and cooling assemblies, that so much time is spent recoating, that we cannot run continuously, and that so much time is spent on post-processing. The “box” is getting better and better at manufacturing, but it also does more.
Additive Industries and others have previously paved the way with a more production-ready approach. Renishaw’s Tempus approach also represents a significant optimization and reduces construction times by half. At the same time, AddUp’s incremental and meaningful machine improvements represent another path forward through modularity and production-based iteration. Many companies are also focusing on greater in-process monitoring and “softwareizing” the 3D printing challenge. Better post-processing equipment also helps.
All of these approaches together will help reduce part costs and support the industrialization of 3D printing. I don’t think it’s a question of “who wins” or which way is best for now. All these avenues need to be explored for significant improvements in machines. More lasers alone will only go so far, as will automation in the machine, software-based optimization and modularity. I’m very excited about these developments because it means everyone needs to step up their game and we’ll all win.
Different business models are emerging. For example, AddUp works with AZO on powder handling, while most providers continue to focus primarily on the machine itself. In the future, the decision whether to make just a simple “box” or to develop a more complex machine with comprehensive handling capabilities will be crucial. Incorporating more automation could make the device highly efficient but also more expensive. If you only produce the basic machine, other equipment could outperform your machine in cost per part. Alternatively, implementing better software could be a more cost-effective solution than adding more lasers.
In fact, we have reached a point where visionary thinking, partnerships and self-awareness will significantly shape the future of the 3D printed metal market. If you only consider yourself a 3D printer manufacturer, your focus may still be on making the best printer possible. However, if you see yourself as a pioneer of future manufacturing, you could follow Seurat’s path and offer a parts manufacturing service. Conversely, embracing your role as a full-service metal solutions provider could lead you to selling additional equipment such as screens and vacuum cleaners.
Until now, most companies have competed based on parts or specifications. In the future, we will see which companies have the most effective strategies and realize that some may not have a strategic approach at all.
