Greetings from Hong Kong

From: Ian Gibson (University of Hong Kong)
To: RP-ML
Date: Monday, February 20, 1995
Subject: Greetings from Hong Kong
Okay, here goes

The current debate seems to revolving around the 'advertising on net' 
problem. If you are interested in my view - and I dont suppose you are - 
I would prefer to see one message describing a potentially useful process 
compared with ten discussing whether it should be there or not. However, if 
I dont tell you something potentially useful now, I will have shot myself 
in the foot - wont I?

Hong Kong is at present in the awakening phase of RP (dont worry about the 
name, just read the journal). There are 4 SLA machines here, which actually 
represents a significant number on a 'per capita' basis (UK has 70 million 
people and 20 machines, HK has 12 million people). However, at the moment 
they are all in the hands of the academic and technology transfer 
institutions (I am currently not one of these system owners but watch this 
space). 

There has been a vast amount of interest in the topic here from 
industrialists, but so far I have not spoken to one company who feels 
confident enough to buy one. This raises the question - and the main reason 
for my mailing - why is Hong Kong industry reluctant to get its feet wet? I 
have 3 reasons

1. Cost (obviously) - thanks to some of the manufacturers for 
addressing this point already - lets see those prices come rolling down.

2. Surface quality (or more generally, part quality) - my feeling is that 
tumbling, filling and hand finishing all have the desired effect but at the 
cost of overall part accuracy. I'm currently working on a project to 
integrate a robot or NC system that will try and overcome some of these 
problems. The idea is that if we already have a CAD description of the 
model, why not use it to drive a robot to perform operations like removal 
of support structures and surface treatment. Does anyone have any views on 
this? I can elaborate if required.

3. System selection - an interesting side effect of the famous copywrite 
debate is that many HK companies rely on dubious copies of AutoCAD. 
RP involvement therefore requires attention to both CAD and RP system. 
There is so much vendor hype out there that they are genuinely confused. I 
know that you can get good RP results from AutoCAD but it is a little like 
putting a 50bhp engine in a Rolls-Royce. It may get you there but it lacks 
a little in performance. To help, I would like to run an extensive 
case-study based project (call it a benchmark if you wish but I think it is 
a bit more than that). This would take the form of testing a range of CAD 
systems against a range of RP systems for a range of industry sectors. What 
is the view elsewhere in the world - would this represent valuable 
information or has it all been done before? What are the issues involved? 
Would anyone like to participate?

Ive already gone on too long and will sign off - but expect to hear from me 
again.

Ian Gibson