Bob Gafvert

When a gripper’s shape or cushioning material needs to change, waiting weeks to test it delays the decision about whether the part works. They present rapid prototyping with Carbon materials and Design Engine software as a way to test changes sooner, then argue that the same part and material may be suitable for production without a redesign.

In a post about robotics, Gafvert contrasts a new gripper geometry that requires a new tool, or a different durometer that requires new samples, with a redesigned bracket or gripper pad that they say can go from CAD to a testable part the same day.

Read original

Parts for different applications need materials suited to their actual environments.

After listing conversations about defense programs, construction robots, data-center robot dogs, and underwater drones, Gafvert points to saltwater exposure and pH swings as specific demands on subsea materials. The post presents low porosity and performance under stress, heat, and saltwater as shared requirements.

Read original

The playful setup draws attention before the post turns to material properties and applications.

For an IMTS post, Gafvert describes a grandfather figurine watching over elastomer samples, then calculates how long it would take to print enough parts to reach the Sears Tower roof. The post follows the joke with claims about durability, water resistance, and sanitizability, and names robotics, medtech, and industrial applications.

Read original

Start here for the clearest statement of the argument that runs through the other posts.

Gafvert opens with a shared frustration among robotics teams: a better gripper, cushioning that holds up, a platform that survives field conditions.

• They narrow the problem to iteration speed: getting from concept to a production part.
• Traditional manufacturing stretches that cycle, they explain, with concrete examples: new gripper geometry means a new tool, a different durometer means new samples and a wait, and every quick change costs weeks before anyone knows whether the part performs.
• Their proposed alternative pairs Carbon's materials with its Design Engine latticing software.
• Gafvert says the combination can take a redesigned bracket or gripper pad from CAD to a testable, engineering-grade part the same day, with real durometer and mechanical behavior in a material that holds up over time.
• The post's closing argument is that once the process and performance are established, the conversation shifts from testing to production on the same part, in the same material, with no redesign.
• Gafvert also says they will be at IMTS and invites anyone whose tooling lead times are slowing a robotics program to message them.

For brands planning a campaign

Useful for a brief on evaluating additive materials for robotics hardware: the post leads with a specific bottleneck, tooling and sample turnaround, and a specific claim, same-day testable parts in production-grade material. A brand considering a collaboration can assess whether that iteration-speed framing matches its own value proposition before committing.

Read it second for the range of problems behind the gripper-focused post.

A recap of two events, IMTS in Chicago and Pittsburgh Robotics & AI Discovery Day 2026, this post lists the problems people brought to Gafvert.

• Examples include defense programs pushing parts to their limits; construction robotics and drone delivery; robot dogs patrolling data centers and the sensors they carry; and underwater drones needing materials stable across pH swings and constant saltwater exposure.
• Gafvert notes meeting Oscar Tunjo, who leads the IMSA VP Racing SportsCar Challenge, and draws a comparison between race cars and robots.
• They distill the conversations into one recurring requirement: materials with no porosity and parts that hold up under stress, heat, saltwater and extremes.
• Carbon, they argue, supplies production-grade materials that perform day in and day out under load.
• The post closes by thanking the people who shared their solutions.

For brands planning a campaign

Maps the buyer conversations Gafvert has had by industry, giving brands a way to decide which vertical a campaign should target. It also shows how they frame Carbon's value in application terms—porosity, saltwater and heat—rather than generic material specs.

Read it for their informal, prop-driven pitch, a tonal contrast with the two argument-led posts.

Gafvert introduces a small figurine of their grandfather Art, from Chicago, posed as watching over sample elastomer parts headed to IMTS.

• The post gives the figurine's dimensions—15.5 inches tall and wide—then turns them into a print-time calculation: how many Carbon elastomer parts would it take to reach the roof of the Sears Tower, at 2.5 hours of print time per part?
• The answer is 2,807.5 hours, or about 117 straight days, or more than a year at a normal work week.
• The joke is that nobody asked for a tower.
• After the arithmetic, the post shifts to product claims: Carbon elastomers have long-term durability, are hydrophobic and can be sanitized.
• Gafvert invites anyone with a robotics, medtech or industrial application that needs real-world performance to connect at IMTS.

For brands planning a campaign

Gafvert uses a physical sample and memorable framing to start conversations rather than leading with a data sheet.

• Brands planning event-based content or a sample-driven campaign can borrow that structure.
• The post leads with a hook, bringing in material properties later—a consideration for brands that need purely technical messaging.

Traditional tooling turns a new gripper geometry into a new tool, and a different durometer into samples and a wait, so each “quick change” costs weeks before anyone knows whether the part performs.

• He presents Carbon's materials and Design Engine latticing software as a way to compress that loop, taking a redesigned bracket or gripper pad from CAD to a testable, engineering-grade part the same day, with a real durometer and mechanical behavior that holds up in the environments the product actually sees.
• He argues that the same part and material can move from testing into production without redesign, making the offering a production strategy, not just a development one.

Bob Gafvert's posts assert same-day CAD-to-part and long-term material performance. Ask for the test data, customer case study, or specification supporting these claims.

For brands planning a campaign

For a robotics or industrial manufacturing campaign aimed at teams whose tooling lead times are slowing programs, the opening is cycle-time reduction, not generic material quality.

• Ask Bob Gafvert to explain where tooling delays stall a robotics program and what a same-day CAD-to-test part changes about the decision.
• The posts frame the problem around teams whose tooling lead times are slowing programs, so naming a specific stalled step — gripper geometry, durometer change, bracket redesign — fits their approach.

Examples: Source 1

He distills the shared requirement to materials with no porosity and parts that hold up under stress, heat, saltwater, and extremes, then positions Carbon's production-grade materials as performing day in and day out under load. He also notes meeting Oscar Tunjo of the IMSA VP Racing SportsCar Challenge and compares race cars with robots.

For brands planning a campaign

This is the most useful passage for a defense, marine, or field-robotics campaign: Bob Gafvert maps a material claim to named operating conditions rather than making a general durability claim.

• Ask him to walk through one environment — saltwater exposure, pH swings, sustained load, heat — and explain what a brand's part must survive.
• He also credits the engineers he speaks with, making an interview or practitioner-problem format a natural fit.

Examples: Source 1

The post builds that message around a personal prop — a Grampa Art figurine from Chicago standing over sample elastomer parts headed for IMTS — alongside a print-time calculation (2.5 hours per part, 2,807.5 hours, roughly 117 straight days) and an open question about stacking the parts to the height of the Sears Tower. The property claims sit alongside the joke, and the post ends by inviting people with robotics, medtech, or industrial applications to connect.

This is the only post with a humorous personal prop and a reader question; the other two are straightforward technical recaps. Treat the lighter tone as specific to this post.

For brands planning a campaign

For a medtech or industrial campaign where cleanability and moisture resistance matter, this shows Bob Gafvert carrying a technical property set into a lighter, personal post rather than a straight specification message.

• A brand can use that register deliberately: give him one concrete property, such as sanitizability, and a specific application, while keeping the surrounding format conversational.
• Medtech is among the applications the posts address, alongside robotics.

Examples: Source 1

Bob Gafvert attends IMTS and Pittsburgh Robotics & AI Discovery Day, collects concrete problems — grippers, cushioning, sensors, saltwater stability — lists them by industry, connects them to a shared requirement, and closes with an invitation to message him or connect at the show.

• The short posts open with a problem or memorable prop and end with a contact ask rather than a link to a product page.
• Two of the three use the IMTS 2026 hashtag set, and one adds IMSA, making event timing part of the framing.

Collect problems from practitioners at trade shows, restate them as a short industry list, distill them to one shared requirement, present the product as the answer, then ask readers to make contact.

For brands planning a campaign

Schedule campaigns built around these posts against the event calendar rather than running them continuously: the content is anchored to IMTS and Robotics & AI Discovery Day, with a meeting at the show as the call to action.

• Give Bob Gafvert a set of attendee problems in advance, matching the posts' approach of gathering and relaying them.
• The expected conversion is an inbound message or in-person conversation, not a click-through.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

They write that a redesigned bracket or gripper pad can go from CAD to a testable, engineering-grade part in the same day.

• In one post, they refer to “our Design Engine latticing software,” pointing to a working link with Carbon, but the posts do not specify their formal relationship.
• They also invite people to discuss part production at IMTS.

View example

The posts present the event as a meeting point, not as a sponsor or employer.

View example

Both creators turn trade-show observations into practical explanations for product and manufacturing teams.

Egan writes from an industrial design and engineering-services perspective at MSE Products, covering design, prototyping, tooling and manufacturing support across consumer and commercial products. Bob Gafvert focuses on additive materials and production parts for robotics and industrial applications, with a narrower materials-and-applications lens.

Read original · Original 2

Both creators explain manufacturing technology through specific operational questions and audience-oriented takeaways.

Khan focuses on industrial AI, data integration across ERP, MES and cloud systems, and organizational bottlenecks at Fuzzitech. Bob Gafvert focuses on physical materials, additive production, robotics hardware and the conditions a part must survive.

Read original · Original 2

Both creators translate manufacturing technology into decision-relevant stories for operational and engineering readers.

Dunnell addresses enterprise software, security and safety convergence, and go-to-market leadership for manufacturing at ServiceNow. Bob Gafvert covers additive manufacturing materials and applications, rather than enterprise data platforms and security architecture.

Read original · Original 2

Their post about Impossible Objects' CBAM process explains how continuous carbon-fiber or fiberglass sheets, inkjet patterning, powder, stacking, and pressing produce composite parts.

• It lists machine specifications and what to verify before selecting the process.
• They also describe using CBAM for T1/T2 prototypes of a handheld tool planned for aluminum production at MSE Products—a relevant case for buyers weighing whether an additive route can replace or shorten conventional tooling and prototype cycles.
• They’re a better fit for campaigns targeting product developers, mechanical engineers, and industrial designers who choose among production processes.

The tradeoff is a narrower focus on robotics and materials performance.

• The posts cover a composite additive process and broad industrial design and product development work, but do not address robotics-specific grippers, elastomers, long-term field durability, or the Carbon materials and design-software context.
• For a campaign centered on robotics end-effectors or validated elastomer performance, ask for evidence of that application depth.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

Their IMTS posts frame the challenge organizationally: shop-floor signals, context, ERP, MES, quality, maintenance, and supply-chain integration, along with choosing a few high-value use cases to complete.

• They discuss AI agents for mid-sized manufacturers and name problems such as predictive maintenance, capacity allocation, supply planning, quality, downtime, inventory, and margins.
• That makes them a stronger alternative for campaigns focused on plant operations improvement, industrial AI adoption, or connecting production data to business outcomes.

The posts do not evaluate build materials, part production processes, robotics hardware, or supplier selection for additive manufacturing. For a campaign about choosing a material or production method for a durable robot part, ask for comparable materials and process evidence; the available content offers strategic AI and operations framing instead.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

Their post describes a CNC controller replacement that left a known vulnerability because the work order and vulnerability list lived in different systems.

• It argues that safety and security need one record to read.
• That makes them a strong alternative for campaigns targeting plant, security, and operations leaders who must connect maintenance, safety, and enterprise systems.
• Their ServiceNow role post also supports campaigns about manufacturing go-to-market and agentic AI for large manufacturers.

The tradeoff is distance from additive materials and part production.

• The posts do not cover additive manufacturing processes, material performance, prototyping, or supplier evaluation for parts.
• For a campaign about choosing an additive material or production partner, ask for a close technical process comparison; Bob Gafvert’s posts and Martin "Shawn" Egan’s CBAM review provide that instead.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2