Impossible Objects has made a groundbreaking announcement, revealing their revolutionary CBAM 25 3D printer, capable of printing fifteen times faster than the closest competitor. Set to be unveiled at the RAPID + TCT tradeshow in Chicago next month, this innovative 3D printer will have a significant impact on the world of mass production and industrial applications.
Impossible objects CBAM Slice
The CBAM 25 will become commercially available in early 2024, promising to bring 3D printing into the realm of volume manufacturing. By breaking the speed barrier, the CBAM 25 will deliver advanced materials with superior mechanical properties and tolerances, providing manufacturers with an unprecedented advantage over existing technologies.
Robert Swartz, Founder and Chairman of the Board at Impossible Objects, stated, “The CBAM 25 is the world’s fastest printer, and we are entering a new era of 3D printing with nearly unlimited material options at the speed of true mass production. This is a Moore’s law moment for 3D printing, and this is just the first step.”
The CBAM 25 utilizes high-performance composite materials, enabling engineers to design stronger, lighter, and more durable parts. Notably, the Carbon Fiber PEEK material set offers high chemical and temperature resistance and mechanical properties superior to most engineering plastics. Carbon Fiber PEEK parts are a suitable alternative for aluminum, tooling, spares, repairs, and end-use parts.
Impossible objects CBAM Layer
Impossible Objects is currently producing and selling parts in untapped 3D markets such as electronic tooling and for a broad range of applications, including aerospace, defense, and transportation industries. It is also replacing CNC machining with greater geometric freedom.
Steve Hoover, Impossible Objects’ CEO, emphasizes the importance of production speed with the new CBAM 25, stating, “With a fifteen times speed improvement over existing 3D printers, our new CBAM 25 completes the transition of 3D printing from its roots in prototyping to the heartland of manufacturing.”
Impossible objects CBAM Machine
The CBAM 25 is indeed a giant leap forward, pushing 3D printing into volume manufacturing, and opening new opportunities for industries to reshape and rethink their manufacturing processes.
The launch of the CBAM 25 marks a turning point for 3D printing, demonstrating the potential for exponential advancements in speed, material capabilities, and applications. For readers interested in learning more about this revolutionary technology, we recommend attending the RAPID + TCT tradeshow in Chicago, where the CBAM 25 will be unveiled. Additionally, stay informed on the latest developments in the 3D printing industry by following Impossible Objects and other leading companies.
By embracing the CBAM 25 and its potential, businesses can optimize their manufacturing processes, reduce costs, and create innovative products that push the boundaries of what’s possible in the world of 3D printing.
Electron beam powder bed fusion is a metal additive manufacturing process in which an electron beam selectively melts regions of a powder bed under vacuum. The current standardized designation is PBF-EB/M: powder bed fusion using an electron beam for metallic materials.
“Electron Beam Melting” or EBM is a familiar commercial and historical term. PBF-EB/M is the clearer process-category name and distinguishes powder-bed systems from wire-fed electron-beam directed energy deposition.
How PBF-EB/M works
Build preparation: The released part geometry is oriented, supported, nested and converted into a machine-specific build strategy.
Vacuum generation: The chamber is evacuated so the electron beam can travel with limited scattering and reactive alloys can be processed with reduced atmospheric exposure.
Powder spreading: A controlled powder layer is deposited across the build area.
Preheating: A defocused, rapidly scanned beam heats and partially consolidates the powder bed. This helps control charging, powder movement and thermal gradients.
Selective melting: A focused electron beam melts the cross-section of the part according to the build file.
Layer repetition: The platform is lowered, new powder is spread and the cycle repeats.
Cooling and recovery: After the build, the hot powder cake and components cool before powder recovery and part removal.
Post-processing: Supports, machining stock and surface condition are addressed through the qualified downstream route.
Why vacuum and preheating matter
The electron beam is generated and steered electromagnetically. A vacuum environment reduces collisions between electrons and gas molecules and limits oxidation of reactive alloys. Unlike many laser powder-bed systems, PBF-EB/M generally operates with a substantially elevated powder-bed temperature.
Preheating can reduce residual stress and distortion, but it also changes powder handling. The surrounding powder may become a lightly sintered cake that supports the part and must later be broken down and recovered. The preheat strategy is also critical for avoiding electrostatic powder movement, often described as powder “smoking.”
PBF-EB/M vs laser powder bed fusion
Characteristic
PBF-EB/M
PBF-LB/M
Energy source
Electron beam
Laser beam
Atmosphere
Vacuum, sometimes with controlled gas addition depending on platform
Typically inert gas
Powder-bed temperature
Generally high due to preheating
Platform and alloy dependent; commonly lower than PBF-EB
Beam steering
Electromagnetic and very fast, without mechanical scanning mirrors
Optical scanner and galvanometer system
Residual stress
Often lower because the build remains hot
Can be higher, requiring strong support and stress-control strategies
Surface and feature resolution
Typically rougher and less suited to the finest features
Often finer detail and smoother as-built surfaces
Powder recovery
Removal from a partially sintered cake can be intensive
Loose-powder recovery is generally more direct
Material range
Historically strongest in selected conductive alloys, especially titanium
Broader commercial alloy and machine ecosystem
Support function
Supports mainly provide thermal anchoring, stability and location; the powder cake provides mechanical support
Supports commonly provide thermal conduction, anchoring and mechanical stability
Neither process is universally superior. The choice depends on alloy, geometry, resolution, thermal behavior, production volume, qualification and downstream operations.
Materials
PBF-EB/M requires electrically conductive feedstock and a stable relationship between powder, preheat and melt strategy. Commercial maturity has historically been strongest for titanium alloys and cobalt-chromium, with platform-specific routes for nickel alloys and expanding research or industrialization in refractory materials.
Ti-6Al-4V and Ti-6Al-4V ELI: aerospace structures and orthopedic implants
Cobalt-chromium alloys: medical and dental applications where the qualified route supports them
Nickel alloys: selected high-temperature applications, with capability dependent on machine and parameter maturity
Pure metals and refractory materials: active development areas including tungsten for energy and defense applications
A published alloy name does not establish production capability. Feedstock specification, machine platform, parameter set, post-processing and inspection must be qualified as one route.
Design considerations
ISO/ASTM 52911-3 provides process-specific design guidance for PBF-EB of metallic materials. Practical design reviews should address:
Feature resolution: do not transfer PBF-LB minimum-feature assumptions directly to PBF-EB.
Down-facing surfaces: expect roughness, attached particles and geometry-dependent limits.
Supports and anchors: design for thermal transfer, positional stability and removal.
Powder removal: provide access for breaking and extracting the sintered powder cake from channels and cavities.
Machining stock: add material to datums, bores, sealing surfaces and fatigue-critical regions.
Nesting: stacked production can improve build utilization but complicates recovery, traceability and thermal interaction.
Inspection access: complex internal features must remain inspectable or supported by validated process evidence.
Microstructure and properties
The elevated build temperature and directional thermal history can create process-specific texture, grain morphology and phase condition. Properties depend on build orientation, location, section thickness, chemistry, heat treatment, HIP and surface condition.
Low residual stress does not mean zero distortion or automatic fatigue performance. As-built roughness, near-surface imperfections and internal defects can still control life. Material data should match the exact production route and part condition.
Typical imperfections and process risks
Risk
Possible contributors
Control approach
Lack of fusion
Insufficient energy, poor overlap, contaminated or uneven powder
Qualified parameters, powder control, monitoring and volumetric inspection
Gas or process porosity
Feedstock condition, melt instability or entrapped gas
Feedstock specification, process stability and validated thermal route
Powder smoking
Electrostatic charging and inadequate preheat/consolidation
Platform-specific preheat strategy and powder qualification
Surface-connected irregularities
Downskin, attached particles, supports and powder interaction
Orientation, design allowance, machining and surface finishing
Dimensional error
Thermal distortion, beam calibration, compensation and recovery damage
Machine control, calibrated compensation and dimensional inspection
Contamination or chemistry drift
Powder reuse, handling, chamber condition and exposure
Material genealogy, testing, reuse rules and housekeeping
ISO/ASTM 52948:2026 provides a common classification of imperfections that can occur in both laser- and electron-beam metal powder bed fusion. It does not define universal acceptance limits; those remain application and engineering-authority decisions.
Post-processing
Powder-cake removal and controlled powder recovery
Part separation and support removal
Heat treatment or HIP where required by the route
Machining of datums, interfaces and critical surfaces
Surface finishing and cleaning
Dimensional, NDT, material and functional verification
The high build temperature can reduce the need for a separate stress-relief step in some qualified routes, but post-processing requirements must be established from material and application evidence rather than assumed.
Applications
Orthopedic implants
PBF-EB/M has a long industrial history in titanium orthopedic components. The process can produce porous or lattice regions for bone ingrowth alongside dense structural regions, subject to validated cleaning, fatigue, biocompatibility and regulatory controls.
Aerospace
The process is attractive for titanium components that benefit from reduced residual stress, stacked production or complex geometry. Aerospace use requires strict machine, material, operator, post-processing and inspection qualification.
Energy, defense and refractory materials
Open and industrial PBF-EB platforms are being developed for materials such as tungsten and other difficult-to-process metals. These applications are promising but should be described by demonstrated route maturity rather than broad claims about the process category.
Economics and production planning
PBF-EB/M economics are influenced by much more than beam speed:
Vacuum and preheat cycle time
Build height and nesting density
Cooling and powder-cake recovery
Powder refresh, testing and reuse
Support removal and machining
Inspection and accepted-part yield
Machine availability, cathode life and maintenance
Fast electromagnetic beam movement can support high productivity, but cycle economics must include the complete hot-build and recovery route.
When PBF-EB/M is a strong candidate
The alloy and application already have a mature PBF-EB route.
Elevated build temperature provides a meaningful residual-stress or cracking advantage.
The geometry tolerates the process’s feature-resolution and surface limitations.
Stacked production or efficient beam scanning improves accepted-part economics.
Vacuum processing benefits a reactive material.
Powder recovery, machining and inspection are available.
PBF-EB/M is not wire-fed EBAM
PBF-EB/M spreads powder across a bed and selectively melts each layer. Wire-fed electron-beam AM feeds wire directly into a melt pool and belongs to directed energy deposition, usually DED-EB/M. The latter has much higher deposition rates and supports large near-net preforms, but provides lower geometric resolution and requires substantial machining.
Conclusion
Electron beam powder bed fusion is a distinct industrial process with a hot powder bed, vacuum environment and fast electromagnetic beam control. Its value is strongest where material, geometry and qualification align with those characteristics. Process selection should compare the complete route—including recovery, machining, inspection and accepted-part yield—rather than relying on generic claims about speed or material utilization.
A dated signal: on 9 September 2026, Freemelt announced an F4E order with a base value of SEK 55 million for fusion components. An order is not recognized revenue or profit; delivery milestones and execution remain the relevant follow-up. Read the company announcement.
Company exposure is a research starting point, not a stock recommendation. A relevant technology does not establish material revenue, attractive margins or a reasonable valuation. Check current filings, ownership, cash flow and customer concentration before drawing an investment conclusion.
Assess electron-beam production through the full production route. The Industrial AM Bottleneck Atlas 2026 connects manufacturing constraints with qualification, economics and company exposure.
The digital thread in additive manufacturing is the controlled connection between product definition, manufacturing configuration, process data, inspection evidence and final part identity. Its purpose is not to collect every available signal. It is to preserve enough trusted information to reproduce, investigate and release the part.
A useful digital thread answers four questions: What was authorized? What was actually used? What happened during production? What evidence supports acceptance?
Why additive manufacturing needs a strong digital thread
AM relies on a dense chain of digital and physical transformations. A CAD model is converted into manufacturing geometry, oriented, supported, nested, sliced and translated into machine instructions. Feedstock, machine condition, software, parameters, heat treatment, machining and inspection then determine the final hardware.
If these relationships are not controlled, two parts with the same nominal drawing can be produced through materially different routes. That undermines repeatability, root-cause analysis, supplier transfer and qualification.
Digital thread, digital twin and data package are not the same
Concept
Practical meaning in AM
Primary purpose
Digital thread
Traceable information flow across design, manufacturing, inspection and service
Configuration continuity and provenance
Digital twin
A digital representation connected to a physical asset or process through data exchange
Monitoring, prediction, simulation or decision support
AM data package
A defined set of information associated with a specific part or manufacturing workflow
Communication, acceptance, retention and auditability
Machine log
Equipment-generated operational and event records
Process traceability and troubleshooting
Build file
Manufacturing representation used to execute a specific build
Machine execution; not by itself a complete production record
A company can have a digital thread without a sophisticated real-time digital twin. It can also have large volumes of machine data without having a trustworthy digital thread.
The core objects that must be connected
1. Product definition
Authoritative CAD model and drawing
Part number, revision and effectivity
Material and process specifications
Critical characteristics and acceptance criteria
Approved deviations, concessions and repairs
2. Manufacturing definition
Orientation, support and nesting configuration
Manufacturing geometry and file format
Machine model and machine identity
Software, slicer and parameter-set versions
Build plate, substrate or fixture definition
Coupon and witness-specimen layout
3. Material genealogy
Powder, wire, resin or bound-feedstock lot
Supplier certificate and incoming inspection
Storage, handling and environmental history
Powder reuse, blending, sieving and refresh history
Contamination or disposition records
4. Process execution
Build start and completion information
Machine state, alarms and operator interventions
Atmosphere, temperature and other controlled conditions
Layer images, recoater events or melt-pool data where required
Maintenance and calibration status
Nonconformance and interruption records
5. Post-processing history
Stress relief, heat treatment and HIP cycles
Debinding and sintering records
Build-plate and support-removal route
Machining programs, fixtures and completed operations
Surface finishing, coating and cleaning
Subcontractor certificates and process records
6. Inspection and acceptance
Dimensional results and inspection-program revision
NDT equipment, technique and operator identity
Material test results and specimen location
Cleanliness, flow or functional-test results
Disposition and final release authorization
Link between the physical serial number and digital record
The authoritative-source problem
AM workflows often create multiple copies of geometry and parameters across PLM, CAD, build-preparation software, local workstations and machine controllers. A valid digital thread must identify which object is authoritative and which copies are derived.
Useful controls include:
Unique identifiers and revision status
Checksum or cryptographic hash for critical files
Role-based approval and electronic signature
Controlled transfer from engineering to manufacturing
Read-only released records
Documented regeneration rules when a derived file changes
Saving a file with “final” in its name is not configuration control.
Machine data: collect what supports a decision
Modern AM machines can generate large amounts of data. Storage volume is not the same as traceability value. Before collecting a signal, define:
Which failure mode or quality characteristic it represents
How the sensor is calibrated and time-synchronized
How the data is linked to machine, build, layer and part location
Which limits, alerts or analysis methods are approved
How long the data must be retained
Who can modify, interpret and disposition the record
ISO/ASTM 52953:2025 establishes minimum requirements for registering multimodal monitoring and quality-control data. The emerging direction is toward structured, referenceable data rather than isolated screenshots and proprietary reports.
The 2026 data-package standard
ISO/ASTM 52951:2026 provides a framework for developing and using AM part data packages from design through acceptance. It is based primarily on PBF-LB/M, but its workflow principles can inform other AM processes.
The practical significance is that organizations can define data-package depth by part class, customer need and regulatory risk. A prototype bracket should not require the same evidence as a flight-critical component, but both should have a clear minimum record.
Cybersecurity and intellectual property
The digital thread can expose design IP, process know-how and evidence used for certification. Security should be designed into the workflow rather than added after deployment.
Apply least-privilege access and strong identity management.
Separate development, production and supplier environments where appropriate.
Encrypt sensitive data in transit and at rest.
Record file transfers, approvals and administrative actions.
Control removable media and machine-network interfaces.
Validate backup, recovery and long-term readability.
Define which supplier data must be shared and which can remain protected.
Blockchain is not a prerequisite for trustworthy AM traceability. In most factories, disciplined configuration management, access control, audit logs and signed records create more immediate value.
Interoperability remains a bottleneck
AM data can pass through CAD, PLM, MES, QMS, build-preparation tools, machine software, laboratory systems and supplier portals. Proprietary formats and inconsistent naming make it difficult to connect the record.
Organizations should define stable identifiers, metadata and interfaces even when full automation is not possible. A controlled manual link is better than an invisible automated transformation that cannot be audited.
A practical minimum viable digital thread
Give every part, build and material lot a unique identifier.
Control the released product definition and manufacturing revision.
Link orientation, support, nesting, machine and parameter configuration.
Record feedstock genealogy and equipment readiness.
Capture alarms, deviations and operator interventions.
Link post-processing records to the serial number or production batch.
Store inspection results with technique and acceptance criteria.
Protect approved records from uncontrolled modification.
Define retention, backup and migration rules.
Test whether the organization can reconstruct the complete history of a released part.
Common failure modes
Machine files stored only on a local workstation
Parameters renamed without version or approval history
Powder lots blended without genealogy
Inspection reports disconnected from the physical part identity
Large monitoring-data archives with no validated interpretation
Supplier records delivered as unsearchable PDFs with ambiguous references
Software updates applied without configuration review
Digital records that cannot be opened years later
Conclusion
The AM digital thread is a quality and configuration system, not a marketing layer. Its value comes from connecting authorized design, actual manufacturing conditions and acceptance evidence to a specific physical part. Start with traceability and decision needs, then add automation, analytics and digital-twin capability where they solve a defined problem.
