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.
Medical additive manufacturing includes several very different activities: anatomical models, surgical guides, standard implants, patient-matched devices, prosthetics, instruments and early-stage bioprinting research. Each application has a different risk profile, evidence burden and manufacturing route.
A material described as biocompatible is not automatically a safe medical device. The intended use, finished geometry, manufacturing process, cleaning, sterilization and clinical performance must be evaluated together.
Medical AM application map
Application
Typical value
Main controls
Anatomical models
Visualization, education and surgical planning
Image segmentation, dimensional accuracy and intended-use labeling
Surgical guides
Transfer a digital plan to the patient during a procedure
Fit, guide geometry, sterilization and procedural validation
Patient-matched implants
Geometry adapted to a patient’s anatomy
Imaging data, design boundaries, mechanical performance and traceability
Standard porous implants
Repeatable lattice or porous structures for fixation
Process validation, fatigue, residue removal and biological evaluation
External prostheses and orthoses
Customization, comfort and rapid iteration
Fit, load capacity, skin contact and durability
Instruments and fixtures
Complex geometry and low-volume production
Cleaning, sterilization, strength and lifecycle testing
Drug and biologic research
Novel dosage forms, scaffolds and laboratory models
Application-specific drug or biologic regulation
Bioprinting research
Cellular constructs and research models
Cell viability, biology, vascularization and translational evidence
Standard designs vs patient-matched devices
Not every medical AM part is patient specific. Many commercially manufactured spine cages, orthopedic implants and instruments are produced repeatedly from standard designs. Patient-matched devices use imaging or anatomical data to create a defined variation within an approved design envelope.
Personalization increases the importance of software validation, segmentation review, design rules and data traceability. A unique geometry does not remove the requirement for controlled manufacturing or device testing.
The patient-specific digital workflow
Acquire patient data: CT, MRI, optical scan or another validated source is collected at appropriate resolution.
Segment the anatomy: Relevant structures are separated from the medical image and reviewed for artifacts or missing information.
Create the device or model: The design is generated within approved rules, offsets and anatomical interfaces.
Clinical and engineering review: Qualified personnel confirm intended use, fit, orientation and critical features.
Prepare the build: Orientation, supports, nesting and process parameters are released.
Manufacture and post-process: Printing, cleaning, heat treatment, machining, finishing or curing are performed under controlled instructions.
Inspect and test: Identity, geometry, material and functional requirements are verified.
Clean, package and sterilize: The validated route is completed where required.
Release and retain records: The part is linked to patient, design, software, machine, material and processing history.
The FDA describes a similar chain covering device design, software workflow, material controls, printing, post-processing, validation and testing.
Process and material selection
Process
Common medical role
Important limitations
Metal laser powder bed fusion
Titanium, cobalt-chromium and selected implant or instrument applications
Residue, surface condition, fatigue, heat treatment and NDT
Electron-beam powder bed fusion
Selected titanium implants and porous structures
Powder-cake removal, feature resolution and platform-specific material routes
Polymer powder bed fusion
Models, instruments, orthoses and selected devices
Powder reuse, moisture, porosity and sterilization compatibility
Vat photopolymerization
Models, guides, dental devices and selected patient-contact products
Resin identification, washing, post-cure, extractables and aging
Material extrusion
Models, prosthetics, fixtures and research devices
Anisotropy, porosity, dimensional accuracy and cleaning
Material jetting
Multi-color or multi-material anatomical models
Material aging, support removal and limited structural performance
Bioprinting platforms
Research constructs, tissues and disease models
Biological complexity and early translational maturity
Design and manufacturing controls
The FDA’s final guidance on additively manufactured medical devices organizes technical considerations around design/manufacturing and device testing. A practical control plan should address:
Device orientation and build location
Minimum feature capability and dimensional compensation
Support removal and inaccessible surfaces
Feedstock or resin specifications and lot control
Machine, software and parameter validation
Heat treatment, HIP, washing, post-curing and machining
Process monitoring and change control
Worst-case geometry and build configuration
Part identification and patient-data linkage
Supplier and production-site controls
Cleaning and residue removal
Complex AM geometry can trap powder, uncured resin, support material, solvent or process debris. Cleaning validation should consider the actual device geometry rather than an easily accessible test coupon.
Define internal passages, pores and lattices that can retain residue.
Validate the cleaning process at worst-case locations.
Measure extractable or recoverable residue using appropriate methods.
Control cross-contamination between materials and patient-specific jobs.
Confirm that cleaning does not damage surface, dimensions or material properties.
Retain evidence linking cleaning parameters to the released device.
ASTM F3335 provides guidance for assessing residue removal from powder-bed-fusion medical devices and is recognized by the FDA.
Biocompatibility and material claims
Biocompatibility is assessed for the finished device in its intended contact condition. Relevant variables can include:
Base chemistry and additives
Powder reuse or resin aging
Build orientation and surface area
Heat treatment, post-cure and cleaning
Residual particles, monomers, solvent or support material
Coatings, polishing and machining
Contact type, location and duration
A resin or alloy cleared or used for one application should not be assumed acceptable for another indication or contact type.
Sterilization and dimensional stability
Sterilization can alter polymer dimensions, mechanical properties, surface condition and residual chemistry. Metal devices can also be affected by packaging, cleaning or repeated processing. The selected method—such as steam, radiation or gas—must be compatible with the finished device and its intended lifecycle.
Measure dimensions and function after the complete sterilization route.
Evaluate repeated cycles for reusable devices.
Confirm that packaging permits effective sterilization and protects the device.
Control time between manufacturing, cleaning, sterilization and use.
Use the same post-processing condition for performance and biological testing.
Mechanical and functional testing
Test methods should represent the actual device, loading and manufacturing route. Depending on the application, evidence can include:
Static strength and fatigue
Wear, corrosion and fretting
Porous-structure characterization
Dimensional and fit verification
Pressure, flow or leak performance
Sterilization and shelf-life effects
Usability and procedural performance
Biological evaluation and clinical evidence as required
ASTM F3604-23 provides a framework for validating laser-powder-bed-fusion production systems used for medical devices, including machine qualification, software, raw materials and IQ/OQ/PQ concepts.
Point-of-care manufacturing
Hospitals and clinical centers may use 3D printing for models, guides or other devices. Point-of-care location does not remove manufacturing responsibility. Governance should define:
Who is the legal manufacturer?
Who approves segmentation and design?
Which software, printer and material combinations are validated?
How are maintenance, environmental conditions and operators controlled?
How are patient data, cybersecurity and privacy protected?
How are nonconformances and adverse events handled?
Which records are retained and for how long?
Bioprinting: promising research, different maturity
Bioprinting uses cells, biomaterials or biologically active materials to create research constructs. It should not be grouped with commercially mature metal implants or surgical guides. Major challenges include cell viability, vascularization, tissue maturation, reproducibility, immune response and long-term function. Claims about printing complete transplantable organs remain research-stage rather than routine clinical manufacturing.
Medical AM readiness checklist
The intended use and regulatory classification are defined.
Design inputs and patient-matching boundaries are controlled.
The exact material, machine and post-process route is validated.
Worst-case geometry can be cleaned and inspected.
Finished-device biocompatibility and sterilization are addressed.
Mechanical and functional testing represents final condition.
Software, imaging and segmentation are verified.
Traceability links patient, design, build, material and processing records.
Changes to site, machine, software or material trigger defined review.
Clinical claims match the available evidence.
Conclusion
Medical additive manufacturing is already mature in selected areas such as hearing aids, dental workflows and porous metal implants, while other areas remain developmental. Success depends on matching the process to a defined medical need and validating the complete finished-device route—from patient data and design through cleaning, sterilization, testing and traceability.
