Moble Parts Hospital

From: Scott Tilton (stilton@protoprod.com)
Date: Wed Sep 17 2003 - 23:56:31 EEST


Getting closer

http://home.att.net/~edgrenda/pow/pow9.htm

Ah . . found it:

http://www.mobilepartshospital.com/docs/mph_images.shtml

Scott Tilton

 -----Original Message-----
From: Charles Overy [mailto:cwho@lgmmodel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 1:27 PM
To: rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi
Subject: RE: HP getting ito the rapid prototype printer business

Reflecting on this idea of having a RP machine at a retail parts service
bureau:

Does anyone have any knowledge or experience with what I believe was being
called something like the " mobile army parts center". The idea that some
sort of sintering machine was going to be deployed in a trailer to produce
military replacement parts close to the point of need. Also, I thought that
some of the early RP money came from DARPA grants looking at putting the
same sort of technology on aircraft carriers.

Was anything like this ever successfully implemented?

Charles

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi [mailto:owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi]On
> Behalf Of PENQUAKR74@aol.com
> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 1:44 AM
> To: sheba@bathsheba.com; rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi
> Subject: Re: HP getting ito the rapid prototype printer business
>
>
> Bathsheba:
>
> If you consider the advancements in the RP technology and the
> progression of
> how the products have been delivered to the public, then you will
> see that in
> 1987 the first machines were large and required, and still do,
> very expensive
> lasers. Because of the cost of these machines, just as
> mainframes were costly
> and required sharing (anyone recall GE's timesharing business?), service
> bureaus were the best means for small and medium sized businesses
> and for large
> businesses with the occasional need for models, to have access to these
> expensive machines. RP machines cost approached the $100,000
> mark and less, and
> Z-corp's 50-60K machine forced many to respond to the market
> which is heavily
> driven by form and fit. But as Z-Corps processes became more
> useful through
> postprocessing developments, such as metallization and other
> infiltration techniques
> created by its users enabling molding and casting, it began to
> compete for
> more of the business normally reserved for the larger SLAs.
> Stratasys has beco
> me a force because it has developed lower and lower cost
> machines, selling into
> markets where service bureaus were the main option for designers and
> manufacturing engineers. The materials developed have become
> well-known and their
> shrinkage properties tabulated to enable dimensional and quality
> control beyond
> what was possible a mere 5 years ago. From the equivalent of a
> mainframe to a
> desktop RP machine capable being shared over a network has
> occurred in less 15
> years (1987-2002). The drop in 3D market value is not a surprise
> given its
> entrenchment for so long in the large machine market. Companies
> like Z-Corp
> and Stratasys now dominate the desktop market, with maybe Objet
> and potentially
> Envision Technologies which also uses DMD technology in its
> machines, getting
> ready to make a big splash. So, while you may have a certain insight or
> perspective as a user, the trends are easily seen that
> paraphrasing Andy Grove's
> observation, Grove's Law, as it's popularly known: RP Technology
> will double
> it's capability to produce products less expensively every 18
> months. Along with
> that is the fact that materials technology, the "ink" if you
> will, will also
> advance to match the machines technical progression. Step back, create a
> timeline and you will see this clearly. The only thing holding
> these advancements
> back has been the endless lawsuits and bickering in the courts over
> infringing patent rights. 3D's solution was to acquire its
> competitors which stretched
> it too thin and got it involved in too many battles, decreasing the
> investment it should have been making in smaller footprint, user
> friendly machines. As
> for a cleaner part and a smoother part or introduction of color,
> those are
> simple problems to solve based on variable layering, faster curing, and
> in-machine post processing. Remember the first xerographic
> processes were extremely
> dirty and it took almost 15 years for Xerox's predecessor, Haloid
> Corp, to
> clean it up in the 50's.
>
> Finally, in rebuttal to the durability and aesthetic look of a
> replacement
> part for a consumer product, the parts that were made by SRI's
> process were
> silicon nitride ceramic that were tested by Allied Signal at high
> temperatures,
> approximately 1000 C. That is durable. And it could be done in
> plastic also.
> If one wanted to have all the knobs match on a stove range, make
> a new set.
> But, in my opinion, just having a replacement knob that slightly
> different,
> instead of pliers, is far better than having none at all. It
> won't be too long
> before you will find a machine for the consumer market. The
> first ones will be
> at Kinko's.
>
> Scott Taper
> Technology Commercialization Consulting
> TCC has joined with Andreé Driskell Associates
> (www.andreedriskellassociates.com) to add proposal and business
> plan preparation services for responses to
> commercial and Government RFPs and other funding opportunities.
> TCC accepts
> selected innovations for technical and market assessment and licensing.
>
>
>
> In a message dated 9/16/2003 9:50:34 PM, sheba@bathsheba.com writes:
>
> << On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 PENQUAKR74@aol.com wrote:
> > But this could have been a ceramic knic knac, jewelry model, a
> toy, an iron
> > temperature dial, some other personal item or discontinued
> replacement part.
> >
> > RP machines will follow the same market progression that
> personal computers
> > and computer printers have followed with apparently greater speed of new
> > product development. From 1955 to 1980, computing systems moved from
> mainframe to
> > mini to micro, a period of 25 years to go from millions of dollars to
> > thousands. It took a mere additional 10 years to get to under 1,000
> dollars. If the
> > analogy continues to hold up, we can expect a 1,000 dollar
> machine in 2005,
> > about half the time it took to get to the same point for
> personal computers
> > because the prior advancements in computing power translates to the RP
> market.
> >
> > I welcome any comments on the foregoing.
>
> I guess I'm pessimistic about that analogy. Going from a $20k
> computer to a $1k computer was mostly a matter of incremental
> improvements to existing technology, and making the marketing decision
> to put it in a cute plastic box. But for RP the technology doesn't
> exist: no machine is near, in ease of operation or usefulness of
> output, to the level that would open a consumer market. Cute plastic
> boxes abound, but most people aren't fooled.
>
> I tend to think the biggest hurdle is the material science. Your
> stove knob is an excellent example: it's not useful unless it's as
> tough as my old injection-molded knob (preferably tougher, since the
> old one broke!), a good color match to my other knobs, including fine
> detail for the calibrations, and without visible layering. It also
> must not require any postprocessing.
>
> No process I'm aware of comes near these requirements. Only Sanders
> has fine enough layers, almost. Only SLA has enough material
> strength, maybe. Only ZCorp has color, if you like pastels. Fill in
> your favorite here. All are wildly deficient in those areas where
> they don't excel, and all require cumbersome postprocessing.
>
> So my bet is that big breakthroughs are needed before that consumer
> machine is foreseeable. Of course it's possible that they've already
> been made, under a bushel somewhere...I feel like it would be an awful
> lot of progress to be hiding.
>
>
> OTOH, I wouldn't be surprised if a sub-$5000 concept modeler, based on
> a combination of existing technologies, did appear in the next several
> years. Probably looking more like SLA than anything else. There's
> nothing about what these machines do that is inherently expensive,
> they just haven't been exposed to economies of scale. HP, or a
> handful of other companies, could do it.
>
> But I don't expect a household appliance that would appeal to Joe
> Sixpack, even though he has a digital camera these days. My crystal
> ball is showing a tool for well-heeled 3D shops, with a price point
> and market similar to the Microscribe arm.
>
> It would still be a giant step forward -- if it can build the model at
> the top of this page, http://www.bathsheba.com/misc/preview.html, I'm
> standing in line to write that check. Knock wood....
>
> -Sheba
> --
> Bathsheba Grossman phone (831)429-8224, fax (831)460-1242
> Sculpting geometry bathsheba.com
> Solidscape prototyping protoshape.com
> Protein crystals crystalprotein.com
>
>
>
>
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat Jan 17 2004 - 15:18:07 EET