Discussion

By Joe Treacy on Nov 22, 2024

Frank, that argument makes perfect sense.

Amazing how some nomenclature or best practices can seem so right at their moment of inception, and then seem misguided later.

Rant on!

Joe Treacy
Director of Typography
Treacyfaces.com

By John Eldridge on Nov 22, 2024

The first 3D printers used a #10 HP black ink jet cartridge to jet the layers of clear binder onto a fine powder surface in multiple layers(additive) to form an object. The black ink from the cartridge was purged before jetting(printing)the clear binder, hence 3D printing. We had one of the first 3D printers in the Digital Publishing Center in the School of Printing at RIT.

By Pete Basiliere on Nov 22, 2024

Well! I agree that the process of building items layer-by-layer is not “printing as we know it.” Because items are built, often ones that cannot be made with any other technology, many professionals use the term “additive manufacturing.” AM encompasses all of the processes, of which inkjet-based manufacturing is one.

But we may have ourselves to blame.

From MIT (2019): “Emanuel Sachs, professor of mechanical engineering, invented a process known as binder jet printing. In binder jet printing, an inkjet printhead selectively drops a liquid binder material into a powder bed – creating a three-dimensional object layer by layer. Sachs coined a new name for this process: 3D printing. ‘My father was a publisher and my mother was an editor,’ explains Sachs. ‘Growing up my father would take me to the printing presses where his books were made, which influenced my decision to name the process 3D printing.’”

According to the European Patent office (2023), 3D printing patent filings increased at an average annual rate of 26.3% between 2013 and 2020. “Patent filings in 3D printing grew eight times faster than average of all technologies in last decade.”

I imagine the number of printing as we know it filings grew less than 3%. Indeed, reportedly “Most of HP’s patents are for its 3D printers, supporting the company’s proprietary Multi Jet Fusion and Metal Jet technologies.”

But the term 3D printing, no matter what you think about it, spurred interest in the field. Again from the EPO: “Around 12% of these filings came from universities and public research organisations, almost double their typical share for other technologies.” It’s fair to say that today’s students and professors, who were exposed to the hype surrounding 3D printing when they were younger, are driving the development of additive manufacturing technologies.

By HARVEY LEVENSON on Nov 22, 2024

I apologize for two posts on successive days. However, the discussion of 3D printing is relevant to yesterday’s comment on “Frank’s Radio Daze.”

Perhaps our agreement is simply from two octogenarians from Brooklyn of about the same age, with “thinking” as a hobby.

I’ve agreed since I first heard the term “3D printing,” that it does not describe “printing” as we know it. I’ve contended that “3D manufacturing” would be more appropriate and a better fit for the Industrial Technology industry. For example, ScienceDirect, a database that provides access to scientific, technical, and peer reviewed journals and e-book, defines manufacturing as “…the science and technology by which material is converted into final shape from raw materials with the necessary structure and properties for intended use.“

In me, this better describes 3D printing, than what we call “printing” today. Here is how my point relates to yesterday‘s discussion.

Under the NEED FOR NEW THINKING, I noted a need for new areas of printing that would encourage more print advertising, and that our industry associations should address this issue. If our industry committed to becoming expert in 3D printing and made it part of its own marketing and sales offerings, perhaps then the term “3D printing” would be justified.