RE: FW: Re[2]: Future of RP Re:Further Comments

From: Brock Hinzmann (bhinzmann@sric.sri.com)
Date: Wed Dec 16 1998 - 21:16:10 EET


Ben,

It certainly seems like consolidating several components into one would
be a good argument, but the same argument has been made for plastics and
polymer matrix composites for decades, with only very gradual,
painfully-gained headway. Replacing an existing technology and known engineering
materials with new processes and materials takes a long time. I agree that
progress seems inevitable, but the vision needs some details filled in. The
steel and aluminum folks aren't going to just roll over and die.

Brock Hinzmann

Halford, Ben wrote:
>> Phil
>>
>> I would hope that the use of additive systems will not only prove to
be an
>> economic solution for certain components while permitting highly
evolved
>> free form designs, but will also enable previous assemblies of
separate
>> components to be manufactured in single units thus much reducing the
total
>> part count within designs. Perhaps this factor itself will
significantly
>> skew the economies and arguments for the use of RP in higher volume
>> instances ?. Naturally this assumes the same rate of advance in
materials
>> and processing that has taken place in the last 10 yrs will be
sustained
>> in the future - but I see no reason why this should not be the case.
>>
>> I would also argue that the current cost of these systems (lets say
that
>> this is 10 times their manufacturing value) will fall dramatically
once
>> the financial outlay of the companies and investors involved is
secured
>> and the multi nationals put their economies of scale behind the
operation.
>> The current system user base will also shift towards the individual
(not
>> necessarily home but certainly small business for everyday use rather
than
>> just prototypes) as computing power and CAD become cheaper and more
>> intuitive (look at the capabilities and price of the next generation
of
>> gaming consoles coming from Japan !).
>>
>> Regards
>> Ben Halford
>> PERA Technology
>> England
>> ben.halford@pera.com
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Prof P. M. Dickens [SMTP:pdickens@dmu.ac.uk]
>> Sent: 15 December 1998 16:32
>> To: 'lblasch@opw-fc.com'
>> Cc: rp-ml@bart.lpt.fi
>> Subject: RE: Re[2]: Future of RP Re:Further Comments
>>
>> Larry has some very good points here. I think we need to take a step
back
>> and try and think where we are going with this.
>>
>> Large Numbers
>> It is very unlikely that we will use these additive techniques for
making
>> parts in large numbers (e.g. hundreds of thousands or more) as we have
>> many
>> conventional processes that have been developed for this.
>>
>> Mass Customisation
>> I believe that we will see quite soon the existing additive techniques

>> being used to manufacture real parts. This is most likely going to be
for
>> applications where the parts are purely functional and not for
aesthetic
>> applications. Aesthetic parts will come later.
>>
>> Medium Volume
>> This is the really interesting area because there is more of a
challenge
>> here be cause the economics become more critical. I see no reason why
we
>> will not be using the existing techniques to manufacture functional
parts
>> in volumes up to tens of thousands within the next few years.
>>
>> Design Implications
>> I agree with Larry that we should not be trying to do what other
processes
>>
>> are already doing successfully. There may well be economic advantages
of
>> using the additive processes to replace injection moulding for low to
>> medium volumes. The main benefit though will be in the effect on the
>> design
>> process. As Marshall Burns said we are now in a 'Fabber revolution'.
This
>> is important because we now have a set of manufacturing processes that
are
>>
>> not limited in terms of the geometry that can be produced. This will
have
>> an enormous effect on the design processes of the future. We have
>> undertaken a vast amount of research into techniques such as Design
for
>> Assembly, Design for Manufacture etc. These were largely necessary
because
>>
>> of geometry limitations. We are getting close to the point where as
>> manufacturing engineers we can say to designers 'stop worrying about
how
>> we
>> will make it just design it as you want it'!
>>
>> Material Implications
>> It is clear from the work presented at the Texas Symposium that we
will
>> have a new wide range of materials - plastics, ceramics, metals. These
>> will
>> include:
>> New materials (especially composites)
>> Controlled porosity (shape and amount - filters)
>> Graded materials
>>
>> Manufacturing Implications
>> For the first time we will have true flexible manufacturing systems
where
>> we can change product geometry randomly without affecting efficiency.
>> There
>> will be less tooling and hence shorter lead times and lower investment
in
>> tools. There is the possibility of producing everything Just in Time,
>> which
>> will lead to less work in progress and less storage requirements. This
>> will
>> lead to easier production planning. The reduction in tooling will lead
to
>> random product scheduling and easy changes to production schedules.
>>
>> Sales Implications
>> It will be possible to make custom products cheaper with shorter lead
>> times
>> from order to delivery and the customer can be more involved in the
>> design.
>>
>> I would be very interested in other peoples thoughts on this.
>>
>> Prof. Phill Dickens
>> De Montfort University
>> Leicester
>> England
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: lblasch@opw-fc.com [SMTP:lblasch@opw-fc.com]
>> Sent: 14 December 1998 10:29
>> To: rp-ml@bart.lpt.fi; themissinglink@eznetinc.com;
>> michel.gilio@mail.mech.kuleuven.ac.be
>> Subject: Re[2]: Future of RP Re:Further Comments
>>
>>
>> Michel,
>> Steve,
>> List,
>>
>> There may be many products that one could produce using RP machines as
the
>> manufacturing process, you only need to look at the plastic-ware isle
of
>> any
>> department store to find 10,000 different designs of containers for
>> storing
>> things...these tend to be one or two piece products, and RP can handle
>> them
>> rather well.
>>
>> The big problem with personal manufacturing is dealing with assembly
and
>> fine
>> tuning of a product to acheive the desired function. Products that do
not
>> require this activity could and would be the first step in adopting
such a
>> fabrication device at the supplier or even the consumer level.
>>
>> Question: Would you buy a car made by a process that required you to
>> return
>> to
>> the manufacturer for all repairs? What if you move away, trade in the
car?
>>
>> There are custom car builders now that hand build to your specs. but
it
>> takes
>> time and costs a lot and replacement parts are a problem.
>>
>> The existing manufacturing processes would be more likely to
incorporate
>> RP
>> as a
>> production method if the materials and properties of the RP parts were
>> exploited. We are presently trying to get the RP machines to replicate

>> existing
>> materials and processes much the way PLASTICS were applied in the
>> 1950-60's.
>>
>> Instead of designing the products and or parts to be made with RP, we
try
>> to get
>> RP parts to replicate other processes. Once engineers discovered that
>> there
>> were
>> different design methods and processes that needed to be used when
working
>>
>> with
>> plastics, the plastic market exploded.
>>
>> The way a manufacturing process is applied is much more important then
>> what
>> it
>> can do.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Larry Blasch
>> System Administrator for Engineering Services
>>
>> OPW Fueling Components Voice: (513) 870-3356
>> P.O. Box 405003 Fax: (513) 870-3338
>> Cincinnati, OH 45240-5003 USA
>>
>*****************************************************************
>****
>>
>>
>>
>*****************************************************************
>*******
>> *****
>> Larry,
>> Steve,
>>
>> I think the automobile was not that good an example for explaining
what
>> Steve
>> meant.
>> But I'd like to stress the fact that industry is heading towards a
>> complete
>> on-demand production. Producing on demand means that you can shrink
your
>> stocks of finished products, and thus your immobilized capital. Now,
if
>> your
>> customer also wants the product delivered as soon as possible, RP&M is
the
>> solution for decreasing total throughpout times for more and more
products
>>
>> made
>> on smaller and smaller scales.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Michel
>>
>> --
>> Michel Gilio
>> Research Engineer
>> Division PMA - K.U.Leuven
>> Celestijnenlaan 300 B
>> B-3001 Heverlee
>>
>> tel: +32 16 32 27 72 fax: +32 16 32 29 87
>> e-mail: michel.gilio@mech.kuleuven.ac.be
>> http://www.mech.kuleuven.ac.be/pma/pma.html
>>
>>
>>
>> For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
>>
>>
>> For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
>
>
>RFC822 header
>-----------------------------------
>
>Status: U
>Return-Path: <owner-rp-ml@ltk.hut.fi>
>Received: from bart.lpt.fi ([193.166.66.1]) by mgw-mp.sric.sri.com
> (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAA534E;
> Wed, 16 Dec 1998 03:28:06 -0800
>Received: from major by bart.lpt.fi with local (Exim 1.90 #2)
> for rp-ml-outgoing@bart.lpt.fi
> id 0zqEXA-0000g3-00; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 10:50:24 +0000
>Received: from [194.202.242.224] (helo=exchange-mm.pera.com)
> by bart.lpt.fi with esmtp (Exim 1.90 #2)
> for rp-ml@ltk.hut.fi
> id 0zqEX6-00010S-00; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 12:50:20 +0200
>Received: by EXCHANGE_MM with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
> id <YNZVHT6X>; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 10:41:35 -0000
>Message-ID: <4D0B266A4EBFD1119A42006008815B98207801@EXCHANGE_MM>
>From: "Halford, Ben" <ben.halford@pera.com>
>To: rp-ml <rp-ml@ltk.hut.fi>
>Subject: FW: Re[2]: Future of RP Re:Further Comments
>Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 10:41:34 -0000
>X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: <4D0B266A4EBFD1119A42006008815B98207801@EXCHANGE_MM
>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
>Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
> boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01BE28E0.A6DBBBDA"
>Sender: owner-rp-ml@ltk.hut.fi
>Precedence: bulk
>

For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 22:47:41 EEST