From: Marshall Burns (ListMail@fabbers.com)
Date: Fri Dec 30 2005 - 02:10:53 EET
Hi Bob,
> as exciting as it is, rp is largely used in the manufacturing realm.
Yes, yes, YES!!! And that's the problem. "RP" is locked in the
old industrial manufacturing paradigm. Fabbing is a whole new way of digital
manufacturing that breaks out of all the reasons that manufacturing is
boring and unattractive.
> There could be single courses in many areas - dental and medical
> schools, art and design departments, and so forth - but Fabricator
> Science as a degree may be a hard sell
Look at what is included in a computer science curriculum.
Medical, artistic, gaming, and many other applications are all drawn in and
covered, sometimes in separate courses, sometimes in combined application
courses, and often in partnership with the relevant other departments to
draw on the appropriate expertise.
You don't start a fabber science curriculum with a full
complement of courses and a shiny, new FS department. You start it with two
or three courses and a commitment to build on that as demand and experience
grows. You start it inside a department that already has two or three
faculty members doing world-class research in labs that interested students
can intern in.
The most important ingredient is a vision for the future.
Is it a hard sell to established academia? Yup. I wasn't saying
it would be easy to sell to academia. It's kicked my ass, and I'm not a bad
salesman. I was saying that if there is a school somewhere with the vision
to commit to creating such a program, that it would attract wide-eyed
students and benefactors. I believe it would succeed, but it would be a lot
of hard work.
> Many of the problems seem more like technology than science.
Excuse me? Are you going to tell me that computer science is a
science, like physics or chemistry? CS is pure technology. Actually,
fabricator science would have more of a base in the scientific disciplines
because it requires a great deal more underpinning in physics and chemistry.
But in my view, an FS curriculum would be largely focused on engineering. It
would be mostly about designing and improving the processes, materials, and
control systems at work in fabricators and scanners, as well as the
computational issues at work in CAD, FEA, etc. It would also cover how
fabbers are used in disparate fields like the ones you mentioned. And it
would explore intimate connections to allied technologies, like computers,
networking, and virtual reality. And a full FS curriculum would include
courses in the entrepreneurial aspects of fabbing, where students would
write business plans for the 21st-century businesses that will deliver
products electronically right into people homes.
> Are there currently any Fab Sci degrees at the undergraduate or
> grad school levels?
I doubt it, although there may be schools that offers degrees
with an emphasis on that antiquated field called rapid prototyping.
Marshall Burns
www.fabbers.com <http://www.mburns.com/>
_____
From: Bob Crangle [mailto:rcltd@nckcn.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 15:21
To: 'Marshall Burns'; 'Al Hastbacka'; 'RP-ML'
Subject: RE: [rp-ml] Where are the Universities?
On the other hand, as exciting as it is, rp is largely used in the
manufacturing realm. As you imply, Marshall, how many universities have how
many classes and how many degrees in any of the manufacturing sciences?
There could be single courses in many areas - dental and medical schools,
art and design departments, and so forth - but Fabricator Science as a
degree may be a hard sell to the academic community. Many of the problems
seem more like technology than science. Are there currently any Fab Sci
degrees at the undergraduate or grad school levels?
Bob Crangle
Rose & Crangle, Ltd
117 N. 4th Street
PO Box 285
Lincoln, KS 67455-0285
785 524 5050 (fax -3130)
_____
From: owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi [mailto:owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi] On Behalf
Of Marshall Burns
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 4:20 PM
To: 'Al Hastbacka'; 'RP-ML'
Subject: RE: [rp-ml] Where are the Universities?
Okay, I'll jump back in on this note. Clemson, I believe has closed its RP
lab and Elaine has retired from Clemson.
Why should universities be interested in rapid prototyping? By and large,
students and benefactors are not interested in manufacturing. That's old
school. Who wants to make prototypes?
What we need is for a school to create a curriculum on FABRICATOR SCIENCE. I
once met the guy who created the first curriculum in computer science at
UCLA in the 1960s. That was groundbreaking at the time, and look at how it
has spread around the world! Imagine if people in those days had called
computers "rapid arithmetic" !! Who would have shown up for that?
I know some people on here are tired of hearing me harp on about
terminology, but I just remain astounded that we are sitting on the most
exciting field of technology on the planet (much more exciting than nanotech
because it's real today) and people still go around talking about
prototyping.
Barf.
To sign up students and benefactors, you have to paint a grand vision that
turns them on and gets them excited. We are in the 21st century, for
chrizakes.
_____
From: owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi [mailto:owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi] On Behalf
Of Al Hastbacka
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 12:51
To: RP-ML
Subject: [rp-ml] Where are the Universities?
We get the feeling that the university interest in RP has really dwindled
over the past several years. Is this observation unique to us, or has there
been a major downsizing in RP efforts at the colleges and universities that
others have also observed? ( e.g, Clemson used to be a major contributor to
the list, but now it is difficult to discern any interest in RP at that
school).
REL
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Mon Jan 02 2006 - 08:09:25 EET