A clay vase sits in the center of a circular table, with an extruder in contact with the top surface. The extruder has a tube containing clay on the right side, with a motor mounted above an auger over the main nozzle.

Clay Extruder Enables Printable Pottery

July 11, 2026 by Aaron Beckendorf 32 Comments

Ceramic 3D printers, despite using the same fundamental mechanism as standard FDM printers, are much harder to find. Part of this comes down to the material properties of fired ceramics versus thermoplastics, but they’re also significantly harder to build; for example, in his ceramic printer build, [Joshua Bird] had to deal with severe material shrinkage, collapsing bridges, and the surprisingly abrasive effects of clay.

The centerpiece of the printer is the clay extruder: an air compressor pushes clay along a tube into the extruder, which uses an auger to squeeze the clay through the nozzle, while a gap at the top lets trapped air escape. The extruder has enough control for successful retractions, but rheology remained a challenge: the clay needed to be soft enough to flow through the nozzle, but stiff enough to form bridges without collapsing. [Joshua] thus pressurized the clay as much as possible, making it possible to use stiffer clay mixtures. The extruder’s greatest challenge was longevity: [Joshua] tried many 3D-printed plastic augers, but the clay abraded them all much too quickly, often in under an hour of use; a 3D-printed stainless steel extruder solved this.

Printing in ceramic isn’t a simple process: for each part, [Joshua] had to mix the clay, load it into the tube, clean the extruder, actually print the object, let it dry, fire it, apply glaze, and fire it again. The clay’s shrinkage during drying and firing destroyed many prints, but [Joshua] was nevertheless able to print a double-walled cup, a decorative climbing-themed cup, and even a chain-mail mesh.

The 3D printer’s motion system is a polar design, an adaptation of his earlier non-planar 3D printer, which might eventually make it easier to print overhangs. We’ve previously seen a similar auger-based clay extruder, an approach reminiscent of direct-granule FDM printing.

Is Now The Time For Volumetric 3D Printing?

July 7, 2026 by Ian Bos 26 Comments

Of all innovations adopted by the maker community within the past couple of decades, one stands among the rest on top for anything regarding manufacturing. It goes without saying here at Hackaday how many projects have been reliant on using the technology to turn their ideas into reality. 3D printing has been a maker community invention and, in return, has expanded this hacky community into something that anyone with an imagination can get into. It also goes without saying that the layer-based tech imposes limits on what we can actually create: think overhangs and layer adhesion. However, there’s a possibility that a recent offshoot of this scrappy community has the power to eliminate some of these faults.

Volumetric additive manufacturing (VAM) is a young technology that has a similar start to many new tech toys, including the original SLA of the first 3D printers. That is expensive and completely stuck in the laboratory… Fortunately, that’s not where 3D printing as a whole stayed, as the RepRap project managed to bring the obscure technology to the hobbyists’ main stage. An entire group of people formed and spent countless hours until the useless pieces of poorly extruded plastic could form parts impossible to make with anything else. A cool quirk of history is that it likes to repeat: examples spur recreation, and this appears to be happening with the technology found within VAM printing.

Continue reading “Is Now The Time For Volumetric 3D Printing?” →

The Teenage Angst Of 3D Printing: Solidoodle, Printrbot, And Bridges

June 29, 2026 by Al Williams 42 Comments

Bridges are a part of our constructed landscape that we take for granted. And bridges by themselves aren’t especially important. What is important is that bridges let you get from one place to another. Technology is often the same. We get from point A to point B through some bridge technology that, probably, most normal people never even notice.

Years ago, point A was commercial 3D printing. Industry had stereolithography, selective laser sintering, fused deposition modeling, and other rapid-prototyping technologies. These were not toys. They were expensive industrial systems used by companies that needed prototypes badly enough to pay serious money for them.

Fast Forward to Today

Today, you can go to a big box store and buy a 3D printer for well under $1,000, and often far less. Modern machines are almost plug-and-play and tend to do all the hard parts for you. That’s point B. How we got between points is a story of hackers who had a dream, and many Hackaday readers lived through it and even played a part in that bridging.

For a long time, RepRap was synonymous with hobby-level 3D printing. The project, started by [Adrian Bowyer] at the University of Bath in 2005, was built around a powerful idea: a machine that could print many of its own parts, thereby helping make more machines. RepRap Darwin reached its early self-replicating milestones in 2008, and the movement produced a thicket of descendants, variants, and arguments about rods, belts, bearings, extruders, firmware, and what “self-replicating” really meant. Of course, the machine could only print some of the parts you needed, but it was still impressive how much of a printer you could make with one printer.

Without RepRap, the desktop 3D printer boom would have looked very different. It created a common pool of ideas: Cartesian frames, printed brackets, hobbed bolts, heated beds, RAMPS boards, Marlin firmware, and a whole common vocabulary. It also created the expectation that a 3D printer was something you could understand, modify, repair, and improve. That expectation would not survive everywhere, but it defined the early culture.

Continue reading “The Teenage Angst Of 3D Printing: Solidoodle, Printrbot, And Bridges” →

Status Display Keeps Eye On Your Prusa Fleet

June 23, 2026 by Tom Nardi 1 Comment

Whether you’ve been dragging an old MK2 or MK3 kicking and screaming into the present through the available upgrade paths, or recently picked up a CORE One, pretty much any of the 3D printers still being actively supported by Prusa are able to connect to the network for the purposes of remote monitoring and control. Although their printers can work entirely offline, Prusa offers a smartphone application as well as web interface that makes it easy to keep tabs on all the hot plastic action.

If you’ve got a few Prusa printers on the net and would like a dedicated interface for controlling them, check out this custom firmware for the BigTreeTech K-Touch and Panda Touch devices. These touch screen gadgets were originally intended for controlling printers running Klipper, but thanks to [Nomads Galaxy], they can now talk to Prusa printers either directly over the local network or through the Prusa Connect cloud API with a user interface that mimics the aesthetics of the official offerings.

Continue reading “Status Display Keeps Eye On Your Prusa Fleet” →

Investigating Annealing As Fix For Poor CF Adhesion In 3D Prints

June 22, 2026 by Maya Posch 7 Comments

After recently publishing a few videos covering research into the poor adhesion between chopped carbon fiber (CCF) and the thermoplastic filaments as used with FDM 3D printing, some of the feedback received by [I built a thing] included the idea that the missing step to make CCF additives work was post-print annealing. Naturally this claim had to be investigated, both through the resulting physical characteristics as well as on a microscopic level in the same scanning electron microscope (SEM) as before.

Post-annealing SEM scan, showing clear voids. (Credit: I built a thing, Youtube)

Theories as to why annealing the parts would help here seem to focus on increased bonding and filling of voids in the printed CCF-infused material, while there are the typical worries with annealing such as parts warping and shrinking to also take into account as potential downsides of this treatment.

For the sample materials PETG and PETG-CF, as well as PLA and PLA-CF filaments are used, with each filament type featuring an annealed and not annealed version. These were then tested for tensile strength, stiffness and failure type, as well as dimensional accuracy and warping, before being examined under the SEM. A total of 160 samples were used, with 20 samples per material and annealing state.

Perhaps the biggest surprise here was how much PETG benefits from annealing, making it much more resilient to breaking, whereas neither PLA nor PLA-CF seemed to see much benefit. Shocking was how much worse PETG-CF performs than PETG, with the former being worse than both PLA and PLA-CF here.

In terms of dimensional accuracy, annealing caused a Z direction expansion while shrinking the samples in the other directions. The CCF addition here actually prevented much of the shrinking and expansion, showing the first clear benefit of this additive. Yet despite annealing at right above the glass transition temperature as is proper, this would seem to be the limit of this approach in terms of practical benefits.

Compared to the previous research that focused on PLA-CF, PETG-CF would seem to make the case even more strongly that there’s no real purpose to CCF additives, especially since you can already account for parts shrinkage during annealing before printing. That there’s no improvement to the CCF and thermoplastic interface adhesion is also no mystery, considering the science behind how e.g. thermoset materials create bonds with CF.

Continue reading “Investigating Annealing As Fix For Poor CF Adhesion In 3D Prints” →

Easily Reuse 3D Printing Photopolymers With Depolymerizable Resin

June 18, 2026 by Maya Posch 19 Comments

Generally the idea with photopolymers as used with resin 3D printing is that the process only works in a single direction as with all thermosets: after polymerization under influence of UV light they become an inert lump of plastic. Being able to turn these lumps back into resin would of course be ideal, as it would make recycling incredibly easy. Here depolymerizable resin turns out to be a thing, with 3Dresyn being one company that sells additives and resin which enable this (found via Fabbaloo).

Irreversible (thermoset), partial and full depolymerization. (Credit: Machado et al., Nature, 2024)

These additives and resins come in essentially two flavors based on which temperature they depolymerize at, which can be at either 80°C or 150°C. This comes at a cost, of course, with the ready-to-use resin coming in at an eyewatering €833.00 for a 1 kg bottle, a factor only slightly helped by the reusability aspect.

From a more technical perspective this depolymerization feature is fascinating, as it addresses the one aspect of thermosets (like SLA and epoxy resins) that thermoplastics have as advantage, especially from a recycling view. This type of circular photopolymer appears to be quite novel, with an article by [Machado] et al. from 2024 claiming to have demonstrated the first resin that can be photopolymerized, depolymerized and subsequently again photopolymerized in a closed loop.

In the demonstration by [Machado] et al. the depolymerization is achieved using dynamic disulfide bonds, with the pulverized printed samples put into a 2-methyl-tetrahydrofuran (MeTHF) solvent. After heating at 80°C for 3 hours with an inert atmosphere, most of the photopolymerized material had returned to its original, pre-printing state. In a more recent 2025 study by [Bo Yang] et al. an approach using catalytic thermal dissociation of dithioacetal bonds was explored.

Based on the available information by 3Dresyns it would seem that their product is closer to this latter approach, with depolymerization requiring putting the part into an oven at the target temperature for up to an hour, presumably in some kind of suitable container. This is said to target elements like sacrificial molds, reusable tooling and jigs that would otherwise be discarded, or need to melt like a thermoplastic instead of acting like a thermoset. Whether a solvent like MeTHF is required as in the two cited studies is sadly unclear based on a quick scan of the site.

Thanks to [SpillsDirt] for the tip.

IKEA Storage Box Just Happens To Make Great Printer Cover

June 14, 2026 by Donald Papp 7 Comments

The Snapmaker U1 3D printer is an impressive machine for the price, but [Beaver Works] found the optional factory-offered top cover a wee bit expensive for his tastes. The solution? 3D print a fixture and use a clear 45 L Samla storage box from IKEA as an effective and affordable cover for the machine.

Why a cover? A cover helps retain heat and block drafts, which can help improve print quality. A cover also keeps the machine’s insides dust and debris-free, not to mention serving as a decent barrier to curious fingers or paws.

This is a great use of an off-the-shelf product that performs at least as well as any bespoke solution. The nature of printer enclosures makes them trickier than one might think, with the size and weight of materials often driving costs up for something that seems relatively simple in concept. Getting one by 3D printing the fixtures and purchasing the bulky part locally and affordably is a great alternative. IKEA even sells the box’s lid separately, so one can buy just the box and isn’t stuck with an unused lid afterward.

Integrating off-the-shelf components into a design is often risky because much of it is outside the designer’s control. Availability can change, and a manufacturer might alter dimensions or design elements without any notice. But IKEA’s storage products are pretty well standardized and work really well for this purpose.

On the off chance you need a design tweak, [Beaver Works] has provided STEP files for the 3D-printed parts, something we always love to see.