Re: Applications

From: Michael Ervin (DTM  Corporation)
To: Ian Gibson (University of Hong Kong)
Cc: RP-ML
Date: Friday, March 17, 1995
Subject: Re: Applications
> >        - Testable Parts
> >                - form, fit and some function
> Here I am starting to have problems. What is a testable part? Just how 

I think I know what you are getting at Ian.  I will be the first to admit 
that the only truly testable part is one made of your material in your 
manufacturing process.  However, I was trying to get at a category of RP 
usage which does exist, and that is to build a part to test one 
particular function(or a few).  This can be done even with a different 
material.  

Any example might be to build a part to test for its aerodynamic behavior 
in a wind tunnel. The part is not fully functional but very useful.

>>         - Patterns for "Soft" Tooling
> >        - Patterns for Metal Casting
> >        - Hard Tooling for Manufacturing
> Here we must also be honest. This is RP as part of a manufacturing process. 

You've got me there.  I added the category hard tooling because many are 
trying to get there through casting and I did not want to leave them out 
- but frankly I have not heard of any success there that would give 
conventional approaches much competition.  The problem there is with the 
investment casting process.

Investment casting with RP patterns has been successful for specialized 
individual parts however.

> >Are there better ways to segregate these? What is missing?
> Missing? What about parts that would be extremely difficult or impossible 

Good additions.  Mechanisms and CAT scans are probably subcategories.  I 
left off parts that cannot be built any other way simply because I have 
not heard of anyone actually being able to claim that usage yet. 

Regards
Mike Ervin