Making compex pieces out of unibody construction is very attractive, but
it also has the following disadvantages, among others:
(1) hard to maintain. If part of the construction is out of order, this
failure may lead to a complete new replacement of the old construction.
Therefore, when people buy unibody constructions, they might consider this
extra cost. In order to compete with the traditional assembly
constructions, unibody constructions built by RP technologies should have
a price attraction.
(2) Mr. Morgan's argument is very correct. Assembly constructions need
some time and some work to be put together, but they are convenient for
transportation and storation.
(3) From another point of view, it is fun to put those components
together. This experience is helpful to educate our children, activate
their space imagination.
For the future of RP, we might put our efforts to improve the
product quality, to enhance productivity and increase material
adaptability. If we could come up with a technology that manufacture
products with a real "Rapid" way while at the same time keep the high
accuracy and good ethetics, RP would be the real standard in the industry.
Jianpeng
Real estate is expensive.
Shelf space in stores is highly coveted by toy manufacturers.
Warehouse space and handling is an expense for the toy stores.
Space inside shipping containers is an expense especially when
those containers are coming across the ocean from Asia.
I am happy to pay the toy stores $10 or $15 bucks a piece to assemble
the fleet of bikes and trikes I have purchased.
Ken Morgan
On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, 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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 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
> > >
>
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_ Jianpeng Dong Phone: 650-723-1138(office) \_
\_ Research Assistant 650-725-2031(lab.) \_
\_ Rapid Prototyping Lab. email:jdong@stanford.edu \_
\_ Mechanical Engineering Dept. WebSite:rpl.stanford.edu \_
\_ Stanford University, CA94305 \_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
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