Re: [rp-ml] International Terminology Standards

Is true my friends.

José Joaquín

El 16/01/2009, a las 4:31, Rackley, Jonathan escribió:

> Dear all,
>
> I work with, and occaisionally teach, the technology, I 'vote' for
> additive manufacturing. I think it is clearer.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Jon
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi [mailto:owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi]On
> Behalf Of Scott Schube
> Sent: 15 January 2009 21:16
> To: kbv@iip.kth.se; rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi
> Subject: RE: [rp-ml] International Terminology Standards
>
> Wow, nice summary/argument.
>
> I'm on the application side (using the fundamental technology rather
> than creating it). I vote for rapid manufacturing - not technology-
> specific, already in use, and catchy enough - and if we used this we
> could potentially avoid having to use different terms for technical
> and lay audiences. "Digital manufacturing" I'd like even better
> because it's more catchy ("direct digital manufacturing" has too
> many words), but if it's not already being used, may not make
> sense. 3D printing is a third choice - catchy but the least correct.
>
> Another potential concern with "3D printing" - sorry if this was
> already discussed somewhere earlier in the chain, I'm losing track -
> is that I believe the term is trademarked by one of the 3D printing
> companies. If that's the case, it's unreasonable and naive to
> expect other industry participants to back this description as
> "standard".
>
> Scott Schube
>
> > Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 20:45:33 +0100
> > From: kbv@iip.kth.se
> > To: rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi
> > Subject: Re: Fw: [rp-ml] International Terminology Standards
> >
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > To those of you with little time and/or patience:
> > For reasons stated below I support “Additive Manufacturing” as a
> general
> > technical term for the processes and “Additive Manufacturing
> Technologies”
> > as a general technical term (family name) for the process
> technologies.
> >
> > Those of you with more time and patience, please continue reading…
> >
> > This last round in the terminology discussion has brought up a
> number of
> > interesting and relevant points. However, I believe that we might
> need to
> > make a distinction between a precise technical terminology, used for
> > example in academics and for international standards, and a more
> popular
> > terminology for everyday conversation. Terminology for academics and
> > international standards must be precise, unambiguous and all-
> inclusive for
> > its topic, while the popular terminology can be more or less
> anything that
> > is generally understood by people with basic knowledge in the
> area. This
> > separation is not uncommon and functions nicely in a number of
> technology
> > areas. (For example: in everyday use most people prefer to use the
> term
> > “Teflon” instead of the more technically correct
> “Polytetrafluorethylene”
> > or the abbreviation PTFE.) The popular terminology will, as Adrian
> and
> > others on several occasions has pointed out, be (or perhaps is
> already)
> > defined by those who communicate the technology to the wider parts
> of
> > society outside our community, and may very well be based on trade
> names
> > and/or abbreviations, meanwhile the precise technical terminology
> must be
> > defined by us in the professional community as a means for
> communicate
> > more profound and detailed understanding of the technology, as is
> needed
> > for an international standard or writing scientific papers.
> (However in
> > the present situation, we do not presently seem to have any problems
> > understanding each other within our community even with today’s
> several
> > different “not really defined but active” terminologies.) Still it
> is
> > desirable, even if not necessary, that in the future the different
> > terminologies are kept as close and compatible with each other as
> > possible.
> >
> > Since it is the important and urgent issue of international
> > standardization that brought this discussion to life this time, it
> is the
> > precise technical terminology that is most in need of definition
> and also
> > most within our control to define, I believe that it is there we
> should
> > focus our attention this time.
> >
> > In order for the terminology to be precise and inclusive it has to
> focus
> > on what makes this technology unique compared to other
> technologies; what
> > is characteristic of this technology. To me the most significant
> > characteristic of our technology area is that it shapes tangible
> artifacts
> > by successive addition of raw materials. It is also quite clear
> that the
> > process used for this materials addition will determine which
> materials
> > that can be used, and in addition to this, that the properties of
> the
> > final part will be determined not only by what material is added
> but also
> > by the process parameters that are used to control the process
> step and
> > phase transformation that fuses the raw material to the part. Thus I
> > support to include “Additive” (or something else that high-light
> this
> > critical and determining step of the technology) to be a part of the
> > precise technical term as a “family name” for this technology, (-
> or group
> > of technologies, if you prefer).
> >
> > “Additive” is inclusive for all processes in this technology area,
> but
> > further precision is needed if the terminology is to be
> definitive. In the
> > invitation for participation in the standardization the term
> “Additive
> > Manufacturing” is predominately used, whereas Terry and other
> heavy weight
> > names, (such as for example Ed Grenda), have supported “Additive
> > Fabrication”. After consulting a number of dictionaries (English
> is not my
> > first language, perhaps obvious for the patient reader that has
> come this
> > far), I still have to support “Additive Manufacturing” as the more
> precise
> > and inclusive term;
> >
> > Manufacture comes from Latin manu factum “made by hand” (The Concise
> > Oxford Dictionary of Word Origins), -or manu “by hand” + factus
> “made”
> > (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language) which
> also
> > defines Manufacturing as “To make or process a product or raw
> material
> > into a finished product especially in large quantities or by
> industrial
> > machines.” Oxford Concise Dictionary defines manufacture as “bring
> > material into form fit for use, produce (articles) by labour or by
> > machinery especially in large scale.” Webster’s New 20th Century
> > Dictionary defines manufacture as 1) the making of goods and
> articles by
> > hand or especially by machinery often in a large scale and with
> division
> > of labour. 2) Anything made or manufactured product. 3) The making
> of
> > something in anyway especially when regarded as merely mechanical.
> > Manufacturing is defined as 1) “employed in the making of goods; a
> > manufacturing company” 2) “relating to manufacture; manufacturing
> > interests.”
> >
> > Fabrication is defined by the Oxford Concise Dictionary as “1)
> construct,
> > manufacture, especially production in final shape from semi-
> finished metal
> > stock. 2) invent (story) forge (document).” Webster’s defines
> fabrication
> > as “a making, framing, from (Latin) fabricato to make.” 1) A
> fabricating
> > or being fabricated construction, manufacture. 2) What is
> fabricated or
> > manufactured especially a falsehood or forgery.”
> >
> > The term “manu-“ hand, clearly implies that “manufacturing” produces
> > tangible objects, whereas “fabrication” not necessarily do so. (It
> would
> > be a long shot, but from these definitions it would seem that even
> writing
> > a novel could be described as “additive fabrication”, but only the
> actual
> > printing of the book could be called “manufacturing”.) It is also
> seem so
> > me that “manufacturing” does not necessarily have to be end use
> goods in
> > large quantities (even if it is a common usage of the term),
> prototype and
> > small scale manufacturing is also possible according to these
> definitions,
> > especially if it uses industrial and/or automatic machines, -which
> is
> > typical of our technology area.
> >
> > Terry argues that “manufacturing” is an application and not a
> technology,
> > but so is “fabrication” since it apparently in the relevant
> meaning can be
> > used synonymous with “manufacturing”. Really, both the terms
> “Additive
> > Manufacturing” and “Additive Fabrication” are descriptive for a
> family of
> > processes and it would require the addition of “-technology” to
> define the
> > technologies for these processes. –And to me the term “Additive
> > Manufacturing Technology” is the most precise and all-inclusive
> term to
> > define this topic.
> >
> > Several have supported using the term “Layer-” or “Layered-“ but
> as others
> > have pointed out that this term is rather restrictive and would
> exclude
> > not only historical processes such as BPM as well as possible future
> > developments, but also prominent present technologies such as LENS
> (from
> > Optomec) DMD (from POM) and Laser Consolidation (from Accufusion)
> and
> > other similar processes that not necessarily adds the materials
> layer by
> > layer.
> > Likewise, 3D printing may be an excellent analogy to describe what
> these
> > technologies are doing to the layman, (I often use it myself,) but
> neither
> > Stereolithography, (selective) laser sintering, extrusion of melted
> > filaments (FDM), or micro welding of metal powders have any
> likeness to
> > traditional printing technologies. As a general term in a technical
> > terminology 3D printing is too restrictive and misleading.
> >
> > The time I have spent on bringing information of Additive
> Manufacturing
> > Technology to industry and other people who are not into this on a
> daily
> > basis, have made me positively hate the “Rapid-“ terminology.
> “Rapid-“ is
> > misleading since it implies that the principal merit and most
> important
> > reason to use Additive Manufacturing is to get the (same) parts
> faster and
> > cheaper than with conventional methods. We all know that this is
> by far
> > not true for numerous present and possible applications,
> especially when
> > we are looking at the production of end use products and metal
> parts. But
> > as long as this terminology still lingers it will be more
> difficult to
> > have outsiders comprehend the unique merits of the additive
> approach to
> > manufacturing than it would be if they were introduced with an
> unbiased
> > mindset. I addition to this “Rapid Manufacturing” has previously and
> > sometimes still is, used for, for example, high speed milling, and
> “Rapid
> > Prototyping” is also a term used in the electronic industry for
> making
> > prototypes of electronic circuits and has nothing to do with
> building
> > physical parts by successive addition of materials.
> >
> > Other names such as “Direct Digital Manufacturing”, “Parts
> Forming” or
> > “Growing Parts” have also been suggested, but to me none of them
> seem
> > precise enough to be satisfactory for a technical terminology,
> tough any
> > of them could serve very well in popular day-to-day terminology.
> >
> > Even if the corresponding terms for, traditional manufacturing
> > technologies such as milling, turning and EDM (Subtractive
> Manufacturing),
> > or casting, forging, and injection moulding, (“Formative
> Manufacturing”?
> > -not really sure if “Formative-“ would be an appropriate term,
> > distributing material stock into a desired shape by application of
> > pressure, anyhow) I don’t think this should stop us from using a
> well
> > considered technical terminology. Until now, with the introduction
> of
> > Additive Manufacturing there has hardly been any reason to define
> and
> > structure the unique characteristics of the traditional
> manufacturing
> > technologies. But I believe it could be a good idea if our
> colleagues from
> > other parts of manufacturing (in particular the professors and other
> > teaching academics) would chose to introduce this kind of
> structure when
> > they describe manufacturing technologies. Not only would this type
> of
> > systematic terminology provide a simple and logic oversight, it
> would also
> > suggest principal differences and how these may affect the
> properties in
> > the final part. (-But perhaps I am dreaming…)
> >
> > Well, I think I have made my argument clear to the patient readers
> (my
> > sincere appreciation to you all!) so I’ll finish here with a quote
> that
> > could encourage the efforts to find consensus over this issue:
> >
> > “You must speak straight so that your words may go as sunlight
> into our
> > hearts.”
> > Cochise, Chokonen Apache Chief
> >
> > Let’s spread enlightenment!
> > Best Regards
> > /Klas
> >
> > Klas Boivie, Ph.D.
> > Researcher
> > IDAM, Geminicenter for Integrated Design and Additive
> Manufacturing SINTEF
> > Norway
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > In keeping with the rules of the rp-ml, I am reporting the
> results of
> > the
> > > input on terminology. Twenty-five individuals provided their
> thoughts,
> > either by sending them to this list or to me privately. I asked for
> > clarification on a few of them. The 25 responses represent nine
> > countries
> > > around the world. Sixteen are from North America, six from
> Europe, and
> > one
> > > each from the Middle East and Asia. The following 13 unique
> terms were
> > offered. The number at the left represents the frequency of each
> term.
> > >
> > > 10 - 3D printing
> > > 2 - additive fabrication
> > > 2 - layered manufacturing
> > > 2 - additive manufacturing
> > > 2 - rapid manufacturing
> > > 1 - layered freeforming
> > > 1 - part growing
> > > 1 - freeform fabrication
> > > 1 - layer-based manufacturing
> > > 1 - RP
> > > 1 - rapid additive manufacturing
> > > 1 - grown parts
> > >
> > > As you can see, our industry is not in total agreement when it
> comes to
> > terminology. It's all over the place. One conclusion, however, is
> that
> > "rapid prototyping" is not going to be the catch-all term in the
> future.
> > It barely made the list. Forty percent favored "3D printing," with
> all
> > others carrying little weight.
> > >
> > > If you have not yet provided an opinion, it's not too late. Send
> your
> > preference to the list or to me, and if I receive several, I will
> do a
> > second round of reporting.
> > >
> > > I hope this exercise has reopened the discussion and caused some
> of us
> > to
> > > think more deeply about the terminology we use to communicate to
> the
> > world. I believe it shows that we may face some terminology
> challenges
> > this week at the ASTM meeting. I look forward to continuing this
> > discussion in Philadelphia.
> > >
> > > Thank you for your contributions!
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Terry
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Terry Wohlers
> > > To: RP-ML
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 9:15 AM
> > > Subject: [rp-ml] International Terminology Standards
> > >
> > >
> > > Greetings,
> > >
> > > First, I'd like to wish everyone a Happy New Year and hope that
> it is
> > filled with peace and happiness.
> > >
> > > Next week, ASTM is hosting an organizational meeting to discuss
> industry
> > standards and I hope you can attend. Details are at
> > > http://wohlersassociates.com/astm.html. The use of terminology
> will be a
> > part of these discussions. Over the past several years, I've put a
> lot of
> > > thought into the terms that we use in our industry and have come
> to the
> > conclusion that there's no right or wrong terms, although some are
> better
> > > than others at communicating our thoughts. In preparation for next
> > week's
> > > meeting, I'd like to initiate some discussion on the subject. I
> will
> > share
> > > ideas, and hopefully some consensus, from the members of this
> list.
> > >
> > > For many years, "rapid prototyping (RP)" has been a popular
> term, and
> > rightly so because prototyping has been the most popular
> application of
> > additive fabrication (AF) technology. However, it is one of many
> > applications as AF expands into new areas and industries.
> Consequently, a
> > > growing number of people are using terms such as "additive
> fabrication"
> > or
> > > "additive manufacturing" when referring to the group of
> processes (e.g.,
> > fused deposition modeling, 3DP from Z Corp., laser sintering,
> etc.) that
> > build parts layer by layer. Stratasys and 3D Systems have adopted
> the term
> > > "additive fabrication" as a catch-all term, although I cannot say
> > whether
> > > it has become an official corporate standard at either company.
> Maybe.
> > The
> > > mainstream press-when our industry is lucky enough to get
> included in
> > it-uses "3D printing" most frequently. Among industry insiders, 3D
> > printing refers to a group of AF processes that are relatively low
> cost,
> > easy to use, and office friendly. Some think of the process from Z
> Corp.
> > when hearing this term. Others may think of PolyJet from Objet
> > Geometries.
> > >
> > > AF processes are being used for a range of applications including
> > concept
> > > design and modeling, fit and function testing, patterns for
> castings,
> > and
> > > mold and die tooling. They are also used for fixture and
> assembly tools,
> > custom and replacement part manufacturing, special edition products,
> > short-run production, and series manufacturing. Prototyping is one
> of many
> > > applications and that's why "RP" is no longer suitable in most
> instances
> > as a catch-all term. In fact, many companies resist the idea of
> using a
> > prototyping method for part manufacturing, so using this term
> could stifle
> > > AF's transition to manufacturing applications.
> > >
> > > The term "additive manufacturing" is fine, although because
> > manufacturing
> > > is an application and not a technology, I believe it is plagued
> with
> > problems, similar to "rapid prototyping." Consider, for example,
> this
> > sentence: "My company is using additive manufacturing for
> > manufacturing."
> > > It's confusing. Now, consider this: "My company is using solid
> freeform
> > fabrication for manufacturing." Much cleaner. I'm not suggesting
> that we
> > use "solid freeform fabrication;" I'm using it here to illustrate
> a point.
> > > I believe it works much better when the catch-all term does not
> include
> > the name of an application. That way it can be used cleanly for all
> > applications of the technology.
> > >
> > > Since 2005 I've used the catch-all term "additive fabrication"
> in our
> > company's publications, presentations, and communications. It's not
> > perfect, but it works. In the future, I truly believe that "3D
> printing"
> > will become the most popular term. When I'm describing AF
> technology to a
> > > relative or someone I'm seated next to on an airplane, I use 3D
> printing
> > because there's a better chance that he/she will understand what I'm
> > saying. It's simple and easy to say. I prefer it over
> alternatives, but 3D
> > > printing currently means something else to many people in our
> industry.
> > This is likely to change. An estimated 74% of all systems sold in
> 2007
> > were classified as a 3D printer and each year this percentage
> increases.
> > >
> > > If we were to let nature take its course, which term do you
> think would
> > become the most popular in 5-7 years? In other words, which catch-
> all term
> > > do you feel has the greatest chance for success as AF works its
> way more
> > deeply into both technical and consumer markets. Answering this
> question
> > will help guide our thinking next week.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Terry
> > >
> > > ************
> > > Terry Wohlers
> > > Wohlers Associates, Inc.
> > > OakRidge Business Park
> > > 1511 River Oak Drive
> > > Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 USA
> > > 970-225-0086
> > > Fax 970-225-2027
> > > tw@wohlersassociates.com
> > > http://wohlersassociates.com
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Scanned by iCritical.
>
>
Received on Fri Jan 16 16:36:16 2009