What's in a Name - Continued

From: Geoffrey Smith-Moritz (CAD/CAM Publishing , Inc.)
Date: Friday, January 6, 1995

From: Geoffrey Smith-Moritz (CAD/CAM Publishing , Inc.)
To: RP-ML
Date: Friday, January 6, 1995
Subject: What's in a Name - Continued
     I am afraid that all of this hoo-haw about a new name for rapid prototyping is a waste of effort. "Rapid prototyping" has gained common usage. Some people are offended because they try to place
too rigid a definition on the word prototype. They say rp models aren't true prototypes because they aren't testable. Others are offended by the term because they say it is too limited. They argue that these
systems do not just make prototypes but will eventually replace all manufacturing. When that happens, I agree that we should look for a new name. Right now, however, rp systems are not in many cases manufacturing production parts. Calling pre-production versions of parts "prototypes" isnt' that bad. As to whether "rapid prototyping" should be replaced with "layered fabrication," "autofab," "solid freeform fabrication," "FFF," or "FFFF," it just ain't gonnna happen.  Sure other names might be better (although I don't really think any of the above have any real panache). Possible names are unlimited: "digital building," "solid proofing," "three-dimendsional proofing," "computer-controlled fabricaton," "tool-less manufacturing," etc. I think, in the long run, the industry will cease to be called anything but "manufacturing." It is only now in search of a name because people don't know much about it. Stereolithography, LOM, SLS, SGC, FDM et al, will simply join investment-casting, machining, die-casting, and N/C milling, as different ways to make things.   

Geoff Smith-Moritz
RP Report

[excerpt: I think, in the long run, the industry will cease to be called anything but "manufacturing."]


Previous message | Next message
Back to 1995 index