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