The next version of the Apple Watch Ultra will feature some mechanical titanium parts produced using additive manufacturing (AM)

According to a Medium post by financial analyst Ming-Chi Kuo, who covers Apple for Hong Kong investment bank TF International, the next version of the Apple Watch Ultra will feature some mechanical titanium parts produced using additive manufacturing (AM). Kuo expects the second-generation Apple Watch Ultra to launch sometime before the end of 2023, following the product’s initial release in September, 2022.

Kuo typically gets his data, including the intel regarding the 3D printed parts, from “his contacts in Apple’s Asian supply chain”, according to the online publication MacRumors. That website also notes that Kuo’s “[predictions] are accurate enough to make him one of the most reliable sources for Apple rumors.” Kuo named three companies that will be used by the world’s largest corporation in its AM operations for Apple Watch Ultra parts: IPG Photonics is supplying the laser components, while Chinese original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) Farsoon and Xi’an Bright Laser Technologies (BLT) are providing the platforms.

The fact that Apple is using Chinese platforms, in particular, is especially interesting, given that the company has been perhaps the most oft-cited corporation in the last couple of years as an example of Western companies diversifying their manufacturing operations out of mainland China. The use of Chinese AM platforms in this case would highlight something I’ve mentioned frequently in the past few months, in the context of “de-risking” related to China: the emergence of distributed supply chains could allow the world’s largest manufacturers to limit the growth of physical economic connections by substituting them with digital connectivity.

While the use of Chinese hardware would still of course require shipment of printers, Farsoon and BLT already have customers around the planet, with Farsoon having both American and European offices in addition to its Hunan headquarters. BLT, moreover, just recently signed a deal to sell its products in Japan, which could similarly fit the concept of spreading out the manufacturing footprint of Western companies more evenly across Southeast Asia.

In any case, shipping printers should, in the long run, lead to much less global traffic than perpetuating the supply chains necessary to ship millions of tiny consumer goods across opposite ends of the planet. As Kuo writes in his Medium post, “If shipments go well, I believe more Apple products will adopt 3D printing technology, which will help improve production cost and ESG performance in Apple’s supply chain…”

Things could start to turn heavily in that direction very quickly, as, less than a month ago, Apple held its first “Smart Manufacturing Forum” for small and medium enterprises in South Korea. In addition to South Korea, India could also eventually be a major beneficiary of any 3D printing-driven smart manufacturing strategy. Apple is eager to ramp up its India operations, even amid news last week that Foxconn — the main manufacturer of Apple products — had pulled out of a nearly $20 billion semiconductor factory in Gujarat. Despite that, Foxconn is still planning on going forward with other new factory sites in India.

Above all, I think this sends a clear signal that diversification out of China is much more about supply chain flexibility than it is about imperialistic grandstanding. It is by no means a cut-and-dry issue with a one-size fits all solution that can be ushered in sweepingly, but a generational project that will require myriad approaches tailored to individual cases: a project which can only be built up bit by bit by precisely the interests responsible for supergluing the US and China together in the first place.

Explore What’s New in 3D Printing

• Pushing the Boundaries 3DCERAM’s Additive Manufacturing Technology Empowering New Space.
• Guide to Understanding SLA (Stereolithography) 3D printing
• Join us at RAPID + TCT
• Ashkhen Ovsepyan, speaker at the NNCI Nano+Additive Manufacturing Summit
• Farsoon SRS (Support Free) Technology: reduce support up to 99.8%
• Discover the Latest Advancements in Material Quality Control for Additive Manufacturing
• 3D Printing Sales Engineer (3D Store LLC – Sherman Oaks, CA)

The post Parts in the New Apple Watch Ultra to Reportedly be 3D Printed appeared first on Dev.

As the range of available technologies continues to expand, it’s natural that more questions arise. That’s why the Additive Plus team is here to provide you with guidance on when to use SLA technology for your projects.
SLA technology, also known as Stereolithography, is a well-established method for prototyping and low-volume manufacturing.

So, what exactly is SLA technology? It’s a 3D printing technique that was developed by 3D Systems in the 1970s, and it was the first industrial-grade approach to 3D printing. The maturity of this technology is crucial, particularly given the numerous alternatives
available for different materials. Its greatest strength lies precisely in its maturity.

Resolution and precision

SLA is a printing process that is known for its high resolution and precision. This makes it the perfect choice for printing designs that require fine details and smooth surfaces.

FFF, on the other hand, generally offers lower resolution compared to SLA. As a result, the surfaces may be rougher, and the details may be less defined.

SLS, another popular printing process, provides good resolution and precision, although it may vary depending on the machine’s setup. Generally, it offers better resolution than FDM but may not be as high as SLA.

FDM

SLA

SLS

Printing time

SLA: It can have faster printing times and achieve more details due to its high resolution and quick curing process. More lasers can be added to the process to achieve higher printing speeds while maintaining high resolution.

FDM: Generally, it has longer printing times due to its layer deposition process, and depends on 1 extrusion head for all the process.

SLS: Printing times can vary depending on the size and complexity of the part but tend to be in the mid-range compared to SLA and FDM. More lasers can also be added to this process to improve printing speed. However, the productivity of SLS is unbeatable thanks to the possibility of printing without supports and the ability to nest as many parts as the build volume allow to.

Post-processing

SLA: Printed parts typically require minimal post-processing in terms of support removal and sanding, as the surfaces are usually smooth directly from the printer.

FDM: Often requires more post-processing to remove layer marks and supports, which may require sanding and additional finishing.

SLS: May require less post-processing than FDM but more than SLA, as parts may have arougher surface texture.

The post Guide to Understanding SLA (Stereolithography) 3D printing appeared first on Dev.

Iconic PepsiCo Brand Finds Best Alternative to Expensive, Time-Consuming Conventional Metal Tooling

PepsiCo products are enjoyed by consumers more than one billion times a day in more than 200 countries and territories around the world. PepsiCo generated more than $79 billion in net revenue in 2021, driven by a complementary beverage and convenient foods portfolio that includes Lay’s, Doritos, Cheetos, Gatorade, Pepsi-Cola, Mountain Dew, Quaker, and SodaStream. PepsiCo’s product portfolio includes a wide range of enjoyable foods and beverages, including many iconic brands that generate more than $1 billion each in estimated annual retail sales.

Company

PepsiCo Inc.

Industry

Consumer goods packaging, food & beverage

Printer

Nexa3D NXE 400 Printer

Material

xPEEK147 by Henkel Loctite

Application

Applying its patented technology and a hybrid approach, PepsiCo is using additive manufacturing as an enabler in various aspects of bottle development – accelerating and enhancing performance simulation, advanced system analysis and the production of high-quality, functional prototypes.

Advantages

• Compress prototype tooling development time from 4 weeks to 48 hours
• Slash prototype tooling costs from $10,000 to $350 per mold set
• Create durable tooling that can produce more than 10,000 bottles per mold
• Enable multiple design iterations to allow for timely verification of downstream activities

More Than 10,000 Bottles at 96% Reduction in Cost

PepsiCo went with Nexa3D’s xPEEK147 from Henkel Loctite for the 3D printed tool inserts because of its strength and impressive performance features, like its high heat-deflection temperature. This hybrid approach can work with different types of 3D printers, but PepsiCo has found that the super-fast, high-capacity Nexa3D NXE 400 3D printer and its materials are perfect for making the mold parts they need.

A full set of molds can be produced in just 12 hours, with 8 hours of printing and 4 hours of curing. These hybrid molds can then be used for over 10,000 bottles before needing replacement – all at a cost reduction of up to 96% compared to traditional metal tooling.

The post CAD to Part in 48 Hours: PepsiCo Slashes Tooling Costs and Cycle Times with the help of NXE 400 appeared first on Dev.