What's in a name?

From: Yakov Horenstein (Schneider Prototyping GmbH)
Date: Tuesday, May 24, 1994

From: Yakov Horenstein (Schneider Prototyping GmbH)
To: RP-ML
Date: Tuesday, May 24, 1994
Subject: What's in a name?
     I am wondering whether anyone else on this list is as uncomfortable  as I am about the name Rapid 
Prototyping. In my view, this name was  chosen for its catch-phrase, Madison Ave. appeal and not as an  
accurate description of a serious technology.
     Here in Italy, if people have heard about it at all, it is  referred to indiscriminately as *stereolitografia*, 
without  considering which technology is intended.
     As I imagine that this is a widespread phenomenon, here are some  thoughts on the matter. The problem with *Rapid Prototyping* are just two words,  *rapid* and *prototyping* ;-)  *Rapid* is no good because the concept of rapidity is relative to expectations, which will inevitably change when the technology  becomes more mainstream irrespective of whether or not it will be able to cope. As a service provider, I can say from experience  that *rapid* is a double edged concept. It is good for selling  the service, but when I am late by even one day the concept  gets thrown back in my face even though my delivery dates  are markedly better than other methods. This will only get worse. The need to satisfy rapidity is a chain around every equipment vendors and service providers neck.
     *Prototyping* is no good either because it limits the field of  action by describing just one of the possible applications.  Why exclude others such as one-of-a-kind or personalised  production, art or restoration work, molecular and viral models, instructional models etc. which have little to do with prototypes?
     Furthermore, CNC milling and other processes are perfectly  justified in calling their methods RP, and do so even though  completely different technologies are intended. 
     *Stereolithography* is better although the fact that at least  two equipment vendors (3D & Eos) market their products with  this name, and others include it as part of the name, just  complicate things more. Furthermore the real stereolithography  method, the printing of a masked plate similar to traditional  lithography processes, goes under the name Solid Ground Curing!
     Other names that have been proposed to describe the technology  are either cumbersome, (Solid Free Form Fabrication,  PhotoSolidification), or dull (layer manufacturing) or too  generic (DeskTop Manufacturing) or are trademarks describing a particular technology (Light Sculpting, 3D Printing).
     Following Dr. Marshall Burns, I use the term automated  fabrication (autofab) to describe all the processes for  automatically fabricating objects, and divide them into  three main groups, a) subtractive processes, such as CNC  milling etc; b) additive processes, or addfab., to describe  rapid prototyping; and c) formative processes.
     This classification takes care of the main points but  is also generic enough to include many different 
technologies.
     IUd be interested to hear what others think.
Yakov Horenstein


Previous message | Next message
Back to 1994 index