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

From: Brock Hinzmann (bhinzmann@sric.sri.com)
Date: Wed Dec 16 1998 - 23:47:06 EET


Steven,

I think most people will agree with you. Of course, some financial wizzard will point out how much he saved the company in shipping charges or packaging materials.

An additional advantage of an RP type of manufacturing, which I think Phill mentioned in his message, is the ability to build functionally gradient materials, thus tayloring the desired properties of the materials you want, where you want them. In that way, your tricycle will have very strong materials where you need them, at the joints or other points of flex, and you can have less material where you don't need it or more material where you want some aesthetic form added. It might not change the overall cost, but it might make the product more appealing, safer, or more functional than the old tubes and lugs. Some racing and mountain bike manufacturers have already taken advantage of such designs, but it still costs more, apparently.
Brock Hinzmann

Steven wrote:
>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(http://www.mech.kuleuven.ac.be/
>pma/pma.html)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For more information about the rp-ml, see >http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/(http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/)
>>>
>>>
>>> For more information about the rp-ml, see >http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/(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
>>
>
>RFC822 header
>-----------------------------------
>
>Status: U
>Return-Path: <themissinglink@eznetinc.com>
>Received: from chicago.eznetinc.net ([208.208.41.2]) by mgw-mp.sric.sri.com
> (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA290A
> for <bhinzmann@sric.sri.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 12:33:04 -0800
>Received: from [208.208.41.77] by chicago.eznetinc.net (NTMail >3.03.0014/4c.aan4) with ESMTP id fa454875 for <bhinzmann@sric.sri.com>; Wed, 16 Dec >1998 14:22:18 -0600
>Message-ID: <36781C41.130E1ABE@eznetinc.com>
>Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 14:46:58 -0600
>From: Steven <themissinglink@eznetinc.com>
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; U)
>X-Accept-Language: en
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: Brock Hinzmann <bhinzmann@sric.sri.com>
>CC: "Halford, Ben" <ben.halford@pera.com>, rp-ml <rp-ml@ltk.hut.fi>
>Subject: Re: FW: Re[2]: Future of RP Re:Further Comments
>References: <7718EA937F6.AAB1ADB@mgw-mp.sric.sri.com>
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="------------855144CD3813A58EFB154AA4"
>

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 - 22:47:42 EEST