Elaine:
You are right on the money with this one. While RP&M was making great
strides in accuracy, throughput, materials, and applications,
conventional methods were not standing still. N/C machining has
progressed to a point where it is considerably easier to tool path a CAD
model than it was 5 years ago. Today, starting with the same solid
model, we can 1) make an RP model and verify design intent, then make
manufacturing tooling using 2) an N/C or 3) RP tooling without much
difficulty.
So, while we all like to take calculated risks, conventional methods
using stable, industry accepted materials, are a sure bet for success
while RP&M always has a caveat limiting application. Money talks and BS
walks.........and we all know there has been a lot of BS and over-hype
on RP tooling. Exciting at first, but the excitement is short lived
when applications are limited. RP&M in its current state has small
niches of appropriate application.
So, my tool box is filled with product development tools I use
sporadically and I have to remember they are there so I can employ them
at the appropriate time. Cheer up, life is better because we have more
options than ever before.
____________________________________________________
Steve Deak e-mail: sdeak@hasbro.com
Manager-Rapid Prototyping voice: (+1) 513-579-3270
Hasbro, Incorporated fax: (+1) 513-579-3250
615 Elsinore Place
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 USA "Our Business is FUN!"
> ----------
> From: Elaine Hunt[SMTP:elaine.hunt@ces.clemson.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 9:41 AM
> To: rp-ml@bart.lpt.fi
> Subject: Technologically Challenged
>
> Since the only change one can achieve is within one's self then
> technology's usefulness becomes a personal risk decision.
>
> Maybe the reason RP&M seems to be losing steam is due to the fact that
> one
> can achieve personal productivity through traditional methods with
> fewer
> risks.
>
> Also with industrial cutbacks in both research and employees, why
> should
> the individual employee risk productivity in order to change something
> they
> have little influence upon. Taking a chance on an unproven technology
> does
> not seem to be apart of the industrial culture anymore. If it were
> then we
> would see the TI Protojet, the Dupont Solid Imager, and the 3M KelTool
> along with the IBM Genisys.
>
> It seems to be easier to pass the buck than take the risk.
>
>
>
> *******************************************************************
> Opinions, suggestions, and other controversial matter VOID where
> prohibited.
> ******************************************************************
> Elaine T. Hunt, Director
> Clemson University Laboratory to Advance Industrial
> Prototyping
> 206 Fluor Daniel Bldg. Clemson, SC 29643-0925
> 864-656-0321 (voice) 864-656-4435 (fax)
> elaine.hunt@ces.clemson.edu
> http://chip.eng.clemson.edu/rp/persall/elaine.html
>
>
>
> For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
>
For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 22:45:13 EEST