RE: Nice.....but...... RE: [rp-ml] Stratasys stock soars on news of 3-D printer deal with Hewlett-Packard

From: David Pinkston <>
Date: Thu Jan 21 2010 - 20:09:11 EET

First, no I'm not an academic, thanks for the thought though. Yes, you've
kind of made my point. Bar codes and the like could present a ton of info on
a 3D part but should every manufacture have its own "general" code (ANSI
Y14)? I know some of it needs to be proprietary, but, In fact, bar codes
have standards.

As we look at the we can't do this comment, a little history might suggest
otherwise. 2D paper to 2D CAD (no way, it's much too slow.) 2D CAD to 3D
CAD, (Why would anybody need that when it all on the 2D) 3D CAD to Solid
Modeling, (too complicated and too expensive) oh yea, traditional
prototyping to RP (what can you use that for?). I don't know maybe this
isn't what's needed right now but if the industry is going to grow at the
rate that this article says something else needs to make it worth having at
every designers desk, which is why I wrote the comment in the first place.


Sorry, more rambling




From: [] On Behalf
Of Jeremy Pullin
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 10:46 AM
To: David Pinkston;;
Subject: RE: Nice.....but...... RE: [rp-ml] Stratasys stock soars on news of
3-D printer deal with Hewlett-Packard




3D will not replace the 2D document any more than the 2D document has
replaced the spoken word (although obviously it can accompany and compliment
it). Your saying that somebody should look at ways of doing this but to be
honest my question would be why on earth would you want to replace the 2D
document. If you ignore hardware prices by arguing that they are coming down
all of the time (and open source RepRap etc) a piece of paper is still a
heck of a lot cheaper than lumps of modelling and support materials. There
is also an environmental impact to be considered. Sure people will moan
about rainforests being chopped down to produce paper but a single sheet of
paper along with the ink or toner required is far more environmentally
friendly than a 3D piece of plastic.


I also have to pick up on your statement when you say that we can build
anything. I could go into reams of examples of reasons why this statement is
simply not true and site examples but as panto season has just about
finished and my pantomime dame outfit has barely started to pick up dust for
the next 10 months I'll just say "OH NO WE CAN'T".


The idea of putting written information onto 3D objects is far from new and
not at all specific to additive manufacturing. You only have to pick up a
Coke can to see it plastered in writing and logos covering not just
advertising but product specific information such as ingredients and
production process specific information such as use by dates. If that isn't
individual enough for you we have also had 1D and now 2D barcodes appearing
on 3D surfaces for years which carry a whole host of individual component
information. This fits into your suggestion of a symbolic type of
communication with the symbols being the lines or dots of the barcodes.


I think this is a case of something that could be done not being the same as
something that should be done. Are you an academic by any chance?. Having
said that if you are desperate to stop using 2D documents and have the
information on your 3D parts then can I suggest that rather than rushing off
to set up standards committees for new standards, upgrading you CAD software
and growing all sorts of labels sticking out of your parts you simply get a
marker pen and annotate the bits yourself. I think on the whole that will be
easier and although I haven't costed it out properly I would guess a little
bit cheaper too.






Jeremy Pullin

Rapid Manufacturing Manager Renishaw Plc

Tel: +44 (0) 1453 524524

Extn 3055





From: [] On Behalf
Of David Pinkston
Sent: 21 January 2010 13:17
Subject: Nice.....but...... RE: [rp-ml] Stratasys stock soars on news of 3-D
printer deal with Hewlett-Packard

Nice.... but...


Yea, it's nice to have a 3D part in your hands but to think that you'll
replace the 2D doc with a 3D part to communicate all the information that's
need to manufacture a component in production is more than a little extreme.
I'm not saying this couldn't happen but someone, and I think it should be
the RP industry, needs to come up with ways to reflect the "written"
communication into a "symbolic" type of communication that can be applied to
a 3D part indicating most if not all the necessary information needed to
produce the component in a production arena. "We can build anything" so why
not incorporate symbols on or attached to parts indicating other
information. GD&T is already symbolic to an extent but we could do more, we
have multiple surfaces to put info on not just one like 2D. We don't have to
stay on the component it could attach and protrude from the component. So on
and so forth....


What would happen to this industry if we could replace the 2D doc?????


Am I just dreaming? This isn't the first this has been brought up is it? Are
there some that are doing something like this now in their facility?


Should we attempt to develop a standard for the RP industry that
incorporates 2D communication practices onto a 3D part? I think we should
and I'm not a RP equipment manufacture.


Anyway, just some thoughts and ramblings.


Dave P


From: [] On Behalf
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 1:32 PM
Subject: [rp-ml] Stratasys stock soars on news of 3-D printer deal with





"Stratasys stock soars on news of 3-D printer deal with Hewlett-Packard

By Brad Allen | Published Wed, Jan 20 2010 9:53 am


Tuesday was a big day for Stratasys Inc. (Nasdaq: SSYS) after the company
announced it had inked an exclusive distribution deal with Hewlett-Packard
(NYSE:HPQ) to develop and manufacture an exclusive line of 3-D printers.


Stratasys' stock shot up nearly 44 percent to reach a high of $25.60 on the
news, with trading of 2.6 million shares, more than 25 times normal






Stratasys' N/R:
<> &nyo=0


Ed Grenda
Castle Island Co. (email)

The Worldwide Guide to Rapid Prototyping

This email and any attachments are confidential and are for the use of the
addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you must not use or disclose
contents to any other person. Please immediately notify the sender and
delete the email. Statements and opinions expressed here may not
represent those of the company. Email correspondence is monitored by
the company. This information may be subject to Export Control
Regulation. You are obliged to comply with such Regulations

The parent company of the Renishaw Group is Renishaw plc, registered in
England no. 1106260. Registered Office: New Mills, Wotton-under-Edge,
Gloucestershire, GL12 8JR, United Kingdom. Tel +44 (0) 1453 524524
Received on Thu Jan 21 20:15:23 2010

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Mar 11 2011 - 05:24:18 EET