7/18/97 10:21 AM
I agree with Norm and would like to point out that RP machines are (1) not
always rapid, (2) not always used for the fabrication of prototypes.
Furthermore, although it is a term which
accurately describes what RP machines do, "fabrication" is one of those
"scientific"-sounding words that people less familiar with the field may have
more trouble getting a handle on than "3D Printing." For example:
Version 1: "What are you doing?" "I'm fabricating something." "Huh?"
Version 2: "What are you doing?" "I'm printing something in 3D." "Cool."
You get the picture. In my opinion, all RPer's should feel free to use the
term "3D printing."
-Bjorn DeBear
Argonne National Laboratory
--------------------------------------
Date: 7/18/97 7:56 AM
To: Bjorn DeBear
From: Nkin@aol.com
Yakov Horenstein - trademark
In a message dated 97-07-17 22:45:35 EDT, you wrote:
<< I thought the term 3D Printing refers only to the processes being
developed
at MIT, but its use here has come to mean concept modelers in general.
What's the take?>>
The MIT trademark is apparently "3DP" - not "3D Printing." As I
understand it, this is because you cannot grab a simple descriptive term or
phrase out of the English language and claim it as your own property. In
order to have a valid claim on a trademark, you must create something new and
ADD it to the language. [The language comes first, the commercial venture
second.]
Personally, it seems to me that "3D Printing" or "Three-Dimensional Printing"
is a very simple, direct, and logical term for the future device that people
have been discussing here. Guess we just have to wait to see what term has
enough appeal to take over. [No offense, please, but "Rapid Prototyping" is
just one important part of the broader "three-dimensional hardcopy" concepts
which underly the long-term "popular" potential - turning 3D computer
information into physical reality.]
Also, to Kevin Robertson - on visionary thinking
In a message dated 97-07-17 22:44:23 EDT, you write:
<< please do not make the leap to
passing judgement about the editorial intent of a posting >>
Sorry for any misinterpretation of intent. I guess I also consider myself a
pragmatic thinker - probably why I've never taken any time to read or watch
Star Trek.
Therefore, the "Star Trek type" reference only conjured up a vaguely amusing
"beam me up Scottie" image (or is that from another fantasy?) of live people
being "teletransported" (?). Lacking any other theory of explanation, I
could not resist my polite, if strong, clarification.
Regarding the dual laser methods - Even if the various technical problems are
solved, there seems to be little prospect of avoiding liquids. For success
in a mass market, a method must be DRY and CLEAN (in addition to easy and
cheap).
Norm Kinzie
Laminar Systems Inc.
(617) 444-6910
------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by qmreceive.anl.gov with ADMIN;18 Jul 1997 07:56:14 +0100
Received: from major by bart.lpt.fi with local (Exim 1.62 #1)
id 0wpBZ8-0003YS-00; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 14:51:18 +0300
Received: from emout11.mail.aol.com [198.81.11.26]
by bart.lpt.fi with smtp (Exim 1.62 #1)
id 0wpBZ4-0003YK-00; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 14:51:14 +0300
Received: (from root@localhost)
by emout11.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0)
id HAA01808 for rp-ml@bart.lpt.fi;
Fri, 18 Jul 1997 07:50:28 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 07:50:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Nkin@aol.com
Message-ID: <970718075027_1421608289@emout11.mail.aol.com>
To: rp-ml@bart.lpt.fi
Subject: Re: 3-D Printing - two issues combined
Sender: owner-rp-ml@ltk.hut.fi
Precedence: bulk
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 22:39:54 EEST