[rp-ml] A public survey on terminology

From: SiderWhite (siderwhite@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Sat Aug 13 2005 - 03:03:37 EEST

Interesting threads, here's my two cents worth:

 Term for the field of technology: Rapid Manufacturing (although not always
rapid - yet!) or Mass Customization.

 Verb for making something with it: Manufacturing, Customizing, or Creating
(for the more artistic types).

 Term for machine that does it:
Mass Customizer or Creation Engine.

 It will be interesting to see the survey results.


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marshall Burns" <MB-ListMail2@Ennex.com>
> To: <EdGrenda@aol.com>; <rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 10:25 AM
> Subject: [rp-ml] A public survey on terminology
> Ed, you really got me going with this e-mail, in two different ways. I'm
> going to break my response into two messages, this one and another one on
> the open source stuff you mentioned.
> In reading your message, I came "this close" to chucking "fabber" and
> switching my sites over to saying "3D printer" instead. It really grabbed
> by the throat when you said that my terminology "stands in the way of
> popularization of the field." Ouch. If that's true, what a cruel irony,
> something I would want to correct immediately if I become convinced that
> it's true.
> So let me ask other people on here to chime in on this issue. What
> terminology do you think is best in the long run for the technology that
> makes physical objects automatically from a digital description and raw
> materials. I suggest that we look at answers in the form of a list of
> terms, one for the field of technology, one for the verb meaning to make
> something with the technology, and one for the machine that does it. So I
> suppose some of the choices are:
> Rapid prototyping, rapid prototype, rapid prototyper
> RP, RP, RP device or RPer
> Desktop manufacturing, desktop manufacture,
> desktop manufacturer or DTMer
> Solid freeform fabrication, SFF, SFFer
> 3-D printing, 3-D print, 3-D printer
> Digital fabrication or fabbing, fab, fabber
> These are just some of the most popular terms that have cropped up over
> time. I would invite people to suggest new terminology that hasn't
> before. God knows, we could use some fresh ideas!
> If you want to participate in the survey, please fill in the following
> Term for the field of technology: ____________________________
> Verb for making something with it: _____________________________
> Term for machine that does it: _____________________________
> Other comments and suggestions:
> If people will send this in either on-list or privately (please keep the
> subject line unaltered to help me compile the responses), I will collect
> results and report back to the list.
> I'm not promising to change my use of terminology based on the results,
> I do hope to learn something, and I am open to changing my ways if they
> indeed not helpful.
> Best regards,
> Marshall Burns
> www.fabbers.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi [mailto:owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi] On Behalf
> Of EdGrenda@aol.com
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 10:18
> To: MB-ListMail2@Ennex.com; rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi
> Subject: Re: [rp-ml] Back from oblivion
> Hi Marshall:
> Nice to see you back in the bully pulpit. I just have a few comments.
> Rapid prototyping hasn't really stalled. In fact, according to Terry's
> recent update it's going gangbusters in terms of units sold and revenue.
> it has changed, and certainly the amount of discussion and interest has
> decreased markedly. It's dichotomous that while there has been this great
> increase in sales, and an enormous widening of potential application areas
> as witnessed by IP developments, there have been less than 100 postings to
> the RPML during the last couple of months.
> It can't be that all the questions are answered now, but it may be that
> certain technologies have become dominant enough to provide easily
> but limited solutions.
> It does matter what a field is called. If the public can't hang a simple
> name on it, it won't be understood. And it won't ever be popularized.
> Nanotech? That term encompasses a huge range of disparate items, many or
> most completely unrelated - but it's a buzzword that gets the juices
> in a large segment of the population. It sounds excitingly futuristic,
> though it's inexact and very general.
> Clinging to "fabbers" and "fabbing" is not helpful, and stands in the way
> popularization of the field. All the other terms largely stink, too -
> including RP which is what I've mostly used. Today "3D printing" is
> probably the easiest and only way to make a connection between what's
> already in the heads of the public with the greater awareness of this
> Any good marketer knows that if you don't try to work with what's already
> the mind of the prospect, you will fail to communicate the message. It
> be one major reason why interest in RP has diminished in the face of
> increased sales. The newbies don't know that RP is 3D printing.
> Being technically correct may give you a warm glow, but it won't heat your
> home.
> As we discussed on the phone a while back, one of the things that you
> at is proselytizing. Well, that's a job that needs to be done here - and
> may harbor rewards. I remember as a youth reading about Billy Graham
> retiring to his mountain top retreat in Virginia to contemplate his next
> crusade, or whatever. He rechargeth his batteries, in any case, in
> surroundings. What made this particularly memorable for me as a kid was
> he had just come to our very neighborhood to drive the sinners out of our
> very own honky-tonks. Incidentally, the bars were very proud of this, and
> there were pictures in the windows from the newspapers of him doing it.
> got them more business by proving that sin could actually be had on the
> premises.
> Now, I was awestruck because somehow I thought when he went home, it would
> be to a neighborhood like ours, knee-deep in cigar butts, but it wasn't.
> The point I'm trying to make is that you've already started on this path
> with some success, and it might not be a bad idea to keep at it. Others
> have apparently handsomely succeeded at similar endeavors.
> ... [snip: remaining portion appears in my next response]
> Ed Grenda
> Castle Island Co.
> 781-646-6280 (voice or fax)
> EdGrenda@aol.com (email)
> The Worldwide Guide to Rapid Prototyping
> http://home.att.net/~castleisland/

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Mon Jan 02 2006 - 08:09:18 EET