re: Why are manufacturers still hesitant to buy Arcam machines?
I've read about bulk buys of 70 SLM Solutions machines so I'm asking the same question, but maybe we should ask, does laser additive have an advantage in regard to producing interchangeable parts, or is there an automation advantage?
Laser does not have the capabilities that powder EBM has in terms of microstructure, mechanical properties, and dimensional stability after leaving the build chamber. On the other hand, (sit down, I'm going to use that word again), how much of what is involved in an EBM build is art? That is, two individuals with the same training can get different results in a build. This comes from somewhere way back in my reading, from chasing down about every video and every paper written by Jack Beuth, and others, where it was said that about 6 months of training was required to run an Arcam machine, and at that time there was concern about how to document an EBM or LBM manufactured part especially for aviation authorities. An example given of the range of outcomes from machine operators was that there was one individual (of legend?) that could take an Arcam machine and print a part with a smooth surface.
Industrializing EBM is about the automated manufacture of interchangeable parts, parts with standardized dimensions and properties guided by computer algorithm. That's pretty clear from looking at GE's website.
That's not so easy. It took about a century of work, and war, to generate interchangeable parts on a large scale starting with Jean-Baptiste Vaquette de Gribeauval around 1760 pretty much suggesting it. In 1801, Eli Whitney demonstrated interchangeable parts by disassembling 10 guns, mixing the parts, then assembling them in front of congress. In my opinion, real proof that it was practical came with the manufacture of interchangeable parts for rail transportation. Source: Wikipedia
So, my guess at this point is, how does one justify a machine that costs a half million to a million and takes 6 months to train the individuals to run it? Think of taking that idea to a board meeting and arguing for many machines, a manufacturing facility, and maybe a campus.
But Avio Areo has proven the concept of using Arcam machines. Why aren't we hearing about several others engaging the technology on this scale?
Is it easier to run a SLM Solutions or Concept Laser machine than an Arcam? So, it's easier to suggest buying 70 SLM Solutions machines than 70 Arcams?
Or, does one not need as many Arcam machines. Are Arcams more productive? Does one Arcam do the job of 10 SLMs?
