From: Brock (bhinzmann@sric-bi.com)
Date: Thu Sep 18 2003 - 01:34:22 EEST
Scott,
I haven't looked at the details of the current Web site, but my understanding
is that a mobile demonstration unit, on a trailor as you describe it, was the
result of Phase I. It had lots of problems as a mobile unit, in terms of
quality of parts and the need to recalibrate after each move. Phase II was
supposedly based on a LENS machine, to make metal parts, and a 5-axis machining
system, which fit into standard-size (ISO) shipping containers. Phase II
lessons are being evaluated and will result in a new design next year, if the
funding can be maintained.
Brock Hinzmann
Scott Tilton wrote:
> Yep . .it exists.
>
> Army Mobile Parts Hospital.
>
> http://www.mobilepartshospital.com/welcome/docs/browser.php
>
> That's not the page I've seen before.
>
> The page I've seen before actually had the tractor trailer setup with a
> Sinterstation and a CNC machine it.
>
> 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