Eliane and List,
I agree 100% with the unknown author except for his proposed
solutions.
On more than one ocassion I have been told that I am my own worst
enemy. This is because I find ways to work around failures in the
"push button" processes used to Rapid Prototype objects.
Everyone who has actually worked with the software and hardware for RP
knows that this has never been a Push Button or Turn-Key technology.
In order to sell machines and or software, the RP manufactures promote
their technology as mature and yet all the methods available require
experienced people to set them up and to diagnose problems.
So long as we work around the problems we encounter without forcing the
manufactures to correct them, we will never have machines that allow the
push button fabrication of objects that we seek.
We as a society, we should hold all manufactures to only one standard: They
must be required to truthfully advertize the capabilities and ease of use
of the products and services that they offer.
By our participation in a business environment where you can sell something
and imply things that you cannot demonstrate to be true, we are our own
worst enemy.
I know, this problem exists in every other process too, it's not limited to
RP, so as long as we accept this type of activity from any supplier, we
doom oursewlves to working around the problems.
Sincerely,
Larry Blasch
System Administrator for Engineering Services
OPW Fueling Components Voice: (513) 870-3356
P.O. Box 405003 Fax: (513) 870-3338
Cincinnati, OH 45240-5003 USA
*********************************************************************
Disclaimer...The views expressed are personal opinion and not those
of OPW Fueling Components.
*********************************************************************
______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Fwd: FW: Future of RP
Author: Elaine Hunt <ehunt@ces.clemson.edu> at internet
Date: 12/4/98 12:03 PM
Thought the list might like to hear a dinasaur roar every once in a while.
I did not write this...instead it was written to me.....I removed all
traces of ownership...... this person has a lofty viewpoint so I'm asking
"is he right or wrong?"
>I do not jump into these things on the RPML, but as "old timers" I would
>like your opinions. 3D printers, copiers in the office areas, are a ways off
>as I see it. Cost, maintenance, ignorance (engineers break everything they
>touch), and the fact that half of the files I get are corrupt make this
>whole idea great, but premature. Here are some ideas:
>Better training of the CAD designers to be better house keepers with their
>files.
>Better checkers in the CAD software for corrupt files.
>Better STL translator!!!!!!
>Checkers in the build software to deny bad files (obviously there would be
>thresholds).
>To put this in context, I have been struggling with the printer hooked up to
>my docking station for about three months. I am on my third printer, the
>laptop has been reimaged two times (PAIN!), and these are the experts(?)
>working on this.
>I think we have a ways to go.
*******************************************************************
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 - 22:47:32 EEST