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

From: Steven (themissinglink@eznetinc.com)
Date: Wed Dec 16 1998 - 22:46:58 EET


I dont know if the ability to make complex pieces out of unibody
construction will be the ultimate benefit of RP or more accurately,
Rapid Manufacturing. When I see my kids toys that need assembly and I
imagine the size differential between the box with the unnassembled toy
and what the volume of the box would be if it were assembled, I wonder
why they went to the trouble. I mean, they had to manufacture all those
components separately and design them to interlock, it seems like
foolishness just to save a few cubic inches of storage space.

When is the last time you bought a tricycle? They are in 20 different
pieces all interlocking and special bolts, etc. Why not just ship the
stupid thing complete?

Steven Pollack

Brock Hinzmann wrote:

> Ben,
>
> It certainly seems like consolidating several components into one
> would be a good argument, but the same argument has been made for
> plastics and polymer matrix composites for decades, with only very
> gradual, painfully-gained headway. Replacing an existing technology
> and known engineering materials with new processes and materials takes
> a long time. I agree that progress seems inevitable, but the vision
> needs some details filled in. The steel and aluminum folks aren't
> going to just roll over and die.
>
> Brock Hinzmann
>
>
> Halford, Ben wrote:
> >> Phil
> >>
> >> I would hope that the use of additive systems will not only prove
> to be an
> >> economic solution for certain components while permitting highly
> evolved
> >> free form designs, but will also enable previous assemblies of
> separate
> >> components to be manufactured in single units thus much reducing
> the total
> >> part count within designs. Perhaps this factor itself will
> significantly
> >> skew the economies and arguments for the use of RP in higher volume
>
> >> instances ?. Naturally this assumes the same rate of advance in
> materials
> >> and processing that has taken place in the last 10 yrs will be
> sustained
> >> in the future - but I see no reason why this should not be the
> case.
> >>
> >> I would also argue that the current cost of these systems (lets say
> that
> >> this is 10 times their manufacturing value) will fall dramatically
> once
> >> the financial outlay of the companies and investors involved is
> secured
> >> and the multi nationals put their economies of scale behind the
> operation.
> >> The current system user base will also shift towards the individual
> (not
> >> necessarily home but certainly small business for everyday use
> rather than
> >> just prototypes) as computing power and CAD become cheaper and more
>
> >> intuitive (look at the capabilities and price of the next
> generation of
> >> gaming consoles coming from Japan !).
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Ben Halford
> >> PERA Technology
> >> England
> >> ben.halford@pera.com
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Prof P. M. Dickens [SMTP:pdickens@dmu.ac.uk]
> >> Sent: 15 December 1998 16:32
> >> To: 'lblasch@opw-fc.com'
> >> Cc: rp-ml@bart.lpt.fi
> >> Subject: RE: Re[2]: Future of RP Re:Further Comments
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: lblasch@opw-fc.com [SMTP:lblasch@opw-fc.com]
> >> Sent: 14 December 1998 10:29
> >> To: rp-ml@bart.lpt.fi; themissinglink@eznetinc.com;
> >> michel.gilio@mail.mech.kuleuven.ac.be
> >> Subject: Re[2]: Future of RP Re:Further Comments
> >>
> >>
> >> Michel,
> >> Steve,
> >> List,
> >>
> >> There may be many products that one could produce using RP machines
> as the
> >> manufacturing process, you only need to look at the plastic-ware
> isle of
> >> any
> >> department store to find 10,000 different designs of containers for
>
> >> storing
> >> things...these tend to be one or two piece products, and RP can
> handle
> >> them
> >> rather well.
> >>
> >> The big problem with personal manufacturing is dealing with
> assembly and
> >> fine
> >> tuning of a product to acheive the desired function. Products that
> do not
> >> require this activity could and would be the first step in adopting
> such a
> >> fabrication device at the supplier or even the consumer level.
> >>
> >> Question: Would you buy a car made by a process that required you
> to
> >> return
> >> to
> >> the manufacturer for all repairs? What if you move away, trade in
> the car?
> >>
> >> There are custom car builders now that hand build to your specs.
> but it
> >> takes
> >> time and costs a lot and replacement parts are a problem.
> >>
> >> The existing manufacturing processes would be more likely to
> incorporate
> >> RP
> >> as a
> >> production method if the materials and properties of the RP parts
> were
> >> exploited. We are presently trying to get the RP machines to
> replicate
> >> existing
> >> materials and processes much the way PLASTICS were applied in the
> >> 1950-60's.
> >>
> >> Instead of designing the products and or parts to be made with RP,
> we try
> >> to get
> >> RP parts to replicate other processes. Once engineers discovered
> that
> >> there
> >> were
> >> different design methods and processes that needed to be used when
> working
> >>
> >> with
> >> plastics, the plastic market exploded.
> >>
> >> The way a manufacturing process is applied is much more important
> then
> >> what
> >> it
> >> can do.
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >*****************************************************************
> >****
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >*****************************************************************
> >*******
> >> *****
> >> Larry,
> >> Steve,
> >>
> >> I think the automobile was not that good an example for explaining
> what
> >> Steve
> >> meant.
> >> But I'd like to stress the fact that industry is heading towards a
> >> complete
> >> on-demand production. Producing on demand means that you can shrink
> your
> >> stocks of finished products, and thus your immobilized capital.
> Now, if
> >> your
> >> customer also wants the product delivered as soon as possible, RP&M
> is the
> >> solution for decreasing total throughpout times for more and more
> products
> >>
> >> made
> >> on smaller and smaller scales.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Michel
> >>
> >> --
> >> Michel Gilio
> >> Research Engineer
> >> Division PMA - K.U.Leuven
> >> Celestijnenlaan 300 B
> >> B-3001 Heverlee
> >>
> >> tel: +32 16 32 27 72 fax: +32 16 32 29 87
> >> e-mail: michel.gilio@mech.kuleuven.ac.be
> >> http://www.mech.kuleuven.ac.be/pma/pma.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/
> >
> >
> >RFC822 header
> >-----------------------------------
> >
> >Status: U
> >Return-Path: <owner-rp-ml@ltk.hut.fi>
> >Received: from bart.lpt.fi ([193.166.66.1]) by mgw-mp.sric.sri.com
> > (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAA534E;
> > Wed, 16 Dec 1998 03:28:06 -0800
> >Received: from major by bart.lpt.fi with local (Exim 1.90 #2)
> > for rp-ml-outgoing@bart.lpt.fi
> > id 0zqEXA-0000g3-00; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 10:50:24 +0000
> >Received: from [194.202.242.224] (helo=exchange-mm.pera.com)
> > by bart.lpt.fi with esmtp (Exim 1.90 #2)
> > for rp-ml@ltk.hut.fi
> > id 0zqEX6-00010S-00; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 12:50:20 +0200
> >Received: by EXCHANGE_MM with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
> > id <YNZVHT6X>; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 10:41:35 -0000
> >Message-ID: <4D0B266A4EBFD1119A42006008815B98207801@EXCHANGE_MM>
> >From: "Halford, Ben" <ben.halford@pera.com>
> >To: rp-ml <rp-ml@ltk.hut.fi>
> >Subject: FW: Re[2]: Future of RP Re:Further Comments
> >Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 10:41:34 -0000
> >X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
> <4D0B266A4EBFD1119A42006008815B98207801@EXCHANGE_MM>
> >MIME-Version: 1.0
> >X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
> >Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
> > boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01BE28E0.A6DBBBDA"
> >Sender: owner-rp-ml@ltk.hut.fi
> >Precedence: bulk
> >

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