Send a text

In this episode of the AM Insider podcast, hosts Justin Hopkins and Dustin Kloempken sit down with Stefan Joens, a second-generation business owner of Elnik Systems. The conversation explores the critical but often misunderstood role of thermal processing in metal additive manufacturing, particularly for binder jetting and other sinter-based technologies.

Key Discussion Points

• Redefining Sintering: Stefan argues that sintering should be viewed as an in-process step rather than "post-processing" because a metal part is not truly complete until it has undergone this thermal cycle.
• The Science of the Furnace: The episode explains how furnaces vaporize polymer binders at low temperatures before heating metal particles just below their melting point to fuse them together. This process involves a significant shrinkage of 10% to 20%.
• Batch vs. Continuous Furnaces: For companies deciding on equipment, Stefan notes that batch furnaces offer high flexibility for various alloys and runs under 200,000 parts, while continuous furnaces are the "unbeatable" choice for high-volume, consistent production.
• The "Glass Box" Approach: Stefan shares his mission to turn the "black box" of furnace technology into a "glass box," focusing on educating users so they understand the metallurgy and physics happening inside the chamber.
• Industry Evolution: The group discusses moving past the initial industry "hype" toward a more mature phase focused on alloy development—such as titanium, copper, and Inconel—and actual production-ready parts.

Expert Recommendations

Stefan strongly advises that before making a major capital investment, companies should benchmark their parts. He encourages sending full loads of printed parts to experts, such as his sister company DSH Technologies, to prove the process works before buying a furnace. He also recommends resources like the Metal Injection Molding Association (MIMA) and the Formnext and Rapid + TCT trade shows for continued learning.

Send a text

This episode of the AM Insider podcast is hosted by Justin Hopkins and Dustin Kloempken. It is part of a miniseries focused on the beginnings of additive manufacturing (AM), aiming to share experiences from industry veterans.

The guest is Darin Everett, who is referred to as an industry "longtimer". He joined Stratasys in 1999 when the company was relatively small, starting at $28.5 million. Darin agreed with the common observation that the industry’s start-up era was "darn fun" and dynamic.

Career and Focus at Stratasys

• Darin studied mechanical engineering but transitioned into sales to better communicate with his typical customers (mechanical engineers). Before joining Stratasys, he worked in demanding traditional manufacturing environments like oil refineries, requiring him to wear fire retardant clothing and steel-toe boots daily.
• His passion and specialty during his 16 years at Stratasys was manufacturing, production, and tooling.
• He began in direct sales of large frame systems ("big boxes"). In January 2009, he moved to the first segment team (starting with aerospace) to develop applications such as composite layout tools, jigs, fixtures, and drill guides. After the Objet merger in late 2012, he helped resellers worldwide sell these manufacturing applications through channel management.
• After a sabbatical (2017 to 2020), he returned to work in St. Louis, motivated to be part of the push to bring manufacturing back to the US. He currently focuses on the metal side of AM, specifically refractory metals using electron beam powder bed fusion.

Selling and Production Challenges

• Selling "Black Magic": In the early 2000s, selling AM felt like selling "black magic" as engineers were highly skeptical.
• Focus on Solutions: Darin stressed that the industry sells solutions, not machines, and the only relevant output is the part. Sales must address the customer's pain or the losses they are preventing.
• High Stakes: Production cannot stop, as a shutdown in high-requirement environments (like a refinery) can cost $1 million to $3 million a day. High-requirement applications must justify the entire system cost (machine, people, floor space) with a one-to-two-year ROI.
• Certification Hurdles: Material qualification and certification are lengthy and expensive. The effort to fly the first 3D-printed part stalled for over five years due to the multi-million dollar cost of obtaining burn data and allowables. Currently, a hurdle for newer processes, such as electron beam powder bed fusion of tungsten, is that there is no US-certified lab that has a standardized process to prepare and test the required specimens.

Future Outlook and Advice

• Future Outlook: Darin believes AM has a great future but anticipates an overdue "squeeze" on the number of OEMs. He expects growth tied to critical items returning to US manufacturing, especially in defense, energy, and nuclear fusion.
• Key Advice: The second sale (the repeat sale) is the true test of a company, the machine, and the relationship, as it requires proving oneself after the initial battle.
• Recommended Resources: Darin advised watching "How Things Are Made" to understand traditional manufacturing (casting, forging, molding), reading the Wohlers Report annually, and attending AMUG for real feedback. He also recommended resources on sales and marketing, including Chris Harris’s book Phase Selling.

Send us a text

This podcast episode of "AM Insider" features an interview with Ryan Kircher, a principal additive manufacturing engineer at RMS Company, a medical device contract manufacturer. The discussion centers on the adoption of additive manufacturing (AM), specifically within the medical device industry. Kircher shares his 20 years of experience in the field, detailing the challenges and successes of using AM for medical implants, including the complexities of FDA regulations, process validation, and quality control. The conversation also explores the economic considerations and the integration of AM with traditional manufacturing processes, highlighting how these factors influence the widespread use and future of additive manufacturing in medicine.

1. Significant Investment Required for Medical AM: Establishing additive manufacturing capabilities for medical devices demands substantial upfront investment, often in the realm of millions of dollars, and takes years to develop the necessary qualifications, validations, and a robust quality system. Many companies tend to underestimate this significant financial and time commitment.
2. Evolution of Regulatory Landscape and FDA Guidance: Early pioneers in medical additive manufacturing faced the daunting task of creating new terminology, standards, and process validations from scratch, often having to adapt existing standards for conventional materials. However, the FDA has since published guidance documents, such as "Technical Considerations for Additively Manufactured Medical Devices," which have helped clarify requirements and streamline the clearance process, making it easier today for those who understand the process.
3. Additive Printing is a Small Fraction of the Total Process: While the actual "additive portion" of manufacturing a medical device might only take 2-3 days for a build, the entire process from initiating the print to shipping a finished device can span 6-8 weeks. This highlights the extensive pre- and post-processing, quality control, and other complementary steps that are crucial for medical device production.
4. Integrated Manufacturing Capabilities are Essential for Success: Being a successful medical device manufacturer using additive processes requires much more than just a "print shop." It necessitates comprehensive in-house capabilities, including downstream processes like CNC machining, thorough powder removal, and advanced inspection techniques. Companies that already possess a strong manufacturing infrastructure (like contract manufacturers) are better positioned for success.
5. Strategic Application Drives Value in AM: Additive manufacturing should be leveraged for the unique value it can add, such as creating complex porous lattice structures that promote osseointegration or eliminating secondary manufacturing steps (e.g., coating processes). Simply using AM to replace an existing conventional manufacturing method for a part that could be made cheaper or better otherwise is often a struggle. It's crucial to objectively determine if AM is the right fit for a particular part or feature.
6. Medical AM is a Large-Scale Success Story: Despite common misconceptions, additive manufacturing has achieved significant scale and success in the medical device industry. For example, RMS company alone has sold over 1 million off-the-shelf additively manufactured medical implants, and other major companies like Stryker operate at even larger scales. Spinal fusion cages, in particular, represent a major success story for AM due to their part volume and design requirements.
7. Economic and Incumbency Barriers Can Hinder Adoption: While hip cups were one of the first applications for AM (circa 2008-2009), they serve as a cautionary tale. Only a small percentage of hip cups