Re: Parts Hospital

From: Brock (bhinzmann@sric-bi.com)
Date: Thu Sep 18 2003 - 04:45:56 EEST


George,

My understanding is that the participants in the project are the U.S. Army’s TACOM
(Tank-automotive and Armament Command) National Automotive Center (Warren,
Michigan), the Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute (Warren,
Michigan), Focus: HOPE (Detroit, Michigan), and CAMP (Cleveland, Ohio). I don't
know what CAMP is. In the recent article by Mike Wendland in the Detroit Free
Press, he interviewed Todd Richman, who I believe heads the project for TACOM.
Perhaps one of them has more recent info to share.

Brock

Sachs wrote:

> I think a first version of the parts hospital was actually deployed to Iraq
> a few weeks ago. I believe it is mostly focused on quickly machining parts
> using high speed CNC, but RP may also be involved in some steps. Data for
> parts is sent by satellite to the unit. Size of parts able to be made is a
> limitation for now. Focus Hope (a jobs training program) here in Detroit is
> stongly involved in making it a reality and the first parts hospital will be
> a test bed. There was a recent article about it in the Detroit Free Press I
> believe.
>
> George Sachs
>
> At 03:34 PM 9/17/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> >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