RE: Re[2]: Future of RP Re:Further Comments

From: Brock Hinzmann (bhinzmann@sric.sri.com)
Date: Wed Dec 16 1998 - 20:31:06 EET


Phill,

Regarding aesthetics, I don't think you need to count the current RP
technology out on that. The current technology already has an aesthetic appeal
that is different from, say, a smooth surface of an injection-molded
part, but can be nonetheless attractive.

Mass customizatin is more problematic, because it's not really available
on a cost-effective basis for most people (any more? did it used to be,
before the industrial revolution?), but if it were, we don't know how many
people really want it and for which products.

I really agree with the point that the advantage of RP/autofab will be to
say to the designer not to worry about how it will be made. That would
really open up the design envelope and lead to new product ideas we cannot
now predict.

Brock Hinzmann

Regarding
Prof P. M. Dickens wrote:
>Larry has some very good points here. I think we need to take a step
back
>and try and think where we are going with this.
>
>Large Numbers
>It is very unlikely that we will use these additive techniques for
making
>parts in large numbers (e.g. hundreds of thousands or more) as we have
many
>conventional processes that have been developed for this.
>
>Mass Customisation
>I believe that we will see quite soon the existing additive techniques
>being used to manufacture real parts. This is most likely going to be
for
>applications where the parts are purely functional and not for aesthetic

>applications. Aesthetic parts will come later.
>
>Medium Volume
>This is the really interesting area because there is more of a challenge

>here be cause the economics become more critical. I see no reason why we

>will not be using the existing techniques to manufacture functional
parts
>in volumes up to tens of thousands within the next few years.
>
>Design Implications
>I agree with Larry that we should not be trying to do what other
processes
>are already doing successfully. There may well be economic advantages of

>using the additive processes to replace injection moulding for low to
>medium volumes. The main benefit though will be in the effect on the
design
>process. As Marshall Burns said we are now in a 'Fabber revolution'.
This
>is important because we now have a set of manufacturing processes that
are
>not limited in terms of the geometry that can be produced. This will
have
>an enormous effect on the design processes of the future. We have
>undertaken a vast amount of research into techniques such as Design for
>Assembly, Design for Manufacture etc. These were largely necessary
because
>of geometry limitations. We are getting close to the point where as
>manufacturing engineers we can say to designers 'stop worrying about how
we
>will make it just design it as you want it'!
>
>Material Implications
>It is clear from the work presented at the Texas Symposium that we will
>have a new wide range of materials - plastics, ceramics, metals. These
will
>include:
>New materials (especially composites)
>Controlled porosity (shape and amount - filters)
>Graded materials
>
>Manufacturing Implications
>For the first time we will have true flexible manufacturing systems
where
>we can change product geometry randomly without affecting efficiency.
There
>will be less tooling and hence shorter lead times and lower investment
in
>tools. There is the possibility of producing everything Just in Time,
which
>will lead to less work in progress and less storage requirements. This
will
>lead to easier production planning. The reduction in tooling will lead
to
>random product scheduling and easy changes to production schedules.
>
>Sales Implications
>It will be possible to make custom products cheaper with shorter lead
times
>from order to delivery and the customer can be more involved in the
design.
>
>I would be very interested in other peoples thoughts on this.
>
>Prof. Phill Dickens
>De Montfort University
>Leicester
>England

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 - 22:47:41 EEST