From: Charles Overy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Sep 19 2003 - 01:59:48 EEST
Sorry the end of that message was
If you look at
you can actually get some numbers on this idea of parts bureau down the
Stove knobs range from $7 to $30, with the modal cost of $25.
That is going to be tought to beat.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Overy [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 4:57 PM
> To: Blasch, Larry; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: HP getting into the rapid prototype printer business
> I think you have hit upon a very critical issue, the cost of
> materials. However, the problem with recylable materials is
> that injet cartidge/RP supplies are a major component of the
> business model for these companies. The revenue stream generated
> by the reoccuring sales of suppies is, at least for HP, greater
> than the gross revenue from product sales and the margins are
> much better (lower shipping costs, lower R&D, lower cost of
> selling, lower tech support, little or no software development).
> That is NOT to say that everyone is getting screwed on their
> supplies, basically you pay for the machine technology, and lower
> cost of future generations as you go. I doubt very much that HP
> would be selling $100 color printers at Walmart if they could not
> get a substantial number of those customers to plop in a $35
> cartidge every few months. It is certainly why HP (and others)
> have continued to improve the printers so that they will do
> photos. Photos use TONS of ink sold at the retail level, that is
> why they throw in the software to help you print many copies of
> your photos.
> Back to RP, at any given point in time we probably have $4000 in
> RP supplies and materials on hand. For an SLA it could be a
> whole lot more and I am guessing more as well for a
> sinterstation. To make a model of any reasonable size and
> interest costs us say at least $100 in consumables. I belive
> then that you need the same order of magnitude reduction in
> material costs as you do in machine cost. Even then it will be
> pretty expensive for the home user.
> If you look at
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On
> > Behalf Of Blasch, Larry
> > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 8:33 AM
> > To: email@example.com
> > Subject: FW: HP getting into the rapid prototype printer business
> > Sorry about this being a forward... I'm having trouble submitting to the
> > list due to my own SPAM filtering software.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Blasch, Larry
> > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 9:16 AM
> > To: 'firstname.lastname@example.org'
> > Subject: RE: HP getting into the rapid prototype printer business
> > Dear RP-ML...
> > It does not matter what the material or process actually is, that
> > is used to
> > create items for the homeowner, until the process is reversible or the
> > material recyclable, it will never become mainstream.
> > This is not an issue of "Green" politics or ecology, it's a matter of
> > practicality.
> > The average "Joe Six-pack" won't want to stockpile a quantity if raw
> > material at any price, and wouldn't be happy about throwing away
> > personally
> > created parts.
> > Think I'm wrong? OK, how many people keep a supply of inkjet cartridges
> > around the house? Do you think it's too much to keep an extra
> $30-50 worth
> > of supplies handy? How is this potential home RP printer going to change
> > your mind? If the supplies are dirt cheap relative to the current
> > SLA/FDM/SLS/inkjet materials, people would still complain that it
> > costs too
> > much to keep supplies on hand.
> > Besides, the actual raw material cost for many engineered items
> > (You know...
> > the stuff that people are supposed to be using the home RP
> > machine to make.)
> > is pretty high, especially in small quantities. Unless the
> > homemade RP parts
> > can be recycled, or reused, the machine will never be more than
> a hobbyist
> > toy.
> > Now look what happens if you make the process recyclable... You
> throw the
> > broken part into the machine and it gets re-processed into a
> new part. All
> > that you need to add is energy and perhaps an additional supply
> of generic
> > raw material/binder. Now the process will be accepted at home
> and the raw
> > material issue is nearly eliminated.
> > The potential for RP to replace the inventory of "obsolete"
> > repair/replacement parts for any durable goods store is pretty
> > good. Imagine
> > your refrigerator door handle breaks, you call the store and
> they build a
> > replacement on their big, high speed replicator from the 3D engineering
> > design data library that the manufacturer offers on line (for a
> > subscription
> > fee). You just pick it up or have it delivered. The raw material is now
> > purchased in large quantities and the manufacturing cost is
> offset by the
> > elimination of spare parts inventory. This applies to almost any
> > material or
> > process so it could apply to many different industries.
> > Most of the materials used in products today are produced in
> > large quantity
> > to supply an existing infrastructure that expects to make things by
> > softening and re-shaping small units of the actual material
> > without changing
> > it's chemical structure. This works for a business model that uses high
> > volume, production tooling, dedicated process equipment to produce large
> > quantities of the same part or product. The term "Raw Material" is not
> > really correct in this model, since you are just processing an un-formed
> > material into it's final shape.
> > The manufacturing processes used to produce the plastic molding
> > pellets are
> > not even starting with "raw materials" since they often work
> with refined
> > oils, not the crude out of the ground.
> > I'll propose another approach to RP materials... How about a
> > machine that is
> > hooked to your natural gas line and converts the methane into plastic as
> > needed by the RP process? How many items can you make from
> > different grades
> > of polyethylene? Raw material flows in through an existing supply
> > system and
> > you just pay the bill every month based on the amount used. Oil
> > or gasoline
> > would work also, but they're not as convenient.
> > My humble opinion...
> > Larry Blasch
> > Lawrence R. Blasch
> > Design Engineer
> > CAE Systems Administrator
> > OPW Fueling Components
> > P.O. Box 405003
> > Cincinnati, OH 45240-5003 USA
> > Voice: (513) 870-3356
> > Fax: (513) 870-3275
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat Jan 17 2004 - 15:18:08 EET