Actually, I have always found fabber, fabricator, and even automated
fabrication to be more misleading than rapid prototyping or RP in describing
the current state of the art and I often wonder why Marshall continues to
use it. Automated Fabrication is a great goal, an application, but
certainly a lot of other technologies and equipment already do and will continue
to fill that application, albeit each with its own limitations as well.
I agree with Marshall's sentiment, in that some other term is desirable
to describe that revolutionary machine of the future, where cost-effective
automated fabrication of totally arbitrary one-off items is possible, but
the person or company that invents that machine is likely to get to name
it, like Xerox and Coke.
I like Marshall's enthusiasm, and creativity in general, and I would like
him to continue pushing the thinking in the industry, but I sometimes
wonder if he isn't beating a dead horse named Fabber.
Brock Hinzmann
technology navigator
KDenton wrote:
>List and Marshall,
>
>I was the originator of that email to Marshall and did not send it as a
>complaint I was just wondering how long Marshall would be tagging his
>messages with such a translation. It seems to me that it would be
easier to
>just use and accept what seems to be the industry standard.
>
>By the way I do not agree that the current terms are misleading. They
fit
>perfectly with what these machine do.
>
>Karl Denton
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marshall Burns [SMTP:Marshall@Ennex.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 1:47 PM
> To: RP-ml@bart.lpt.fi
> Subject: Terminology debate again
>
> Dear RP-World,
>
> I've received a private complaint about my use of terminology,
>and I
> thought I would share my response with the list, see below. Further
> comments, in public or private, are welcome.
>
> Best regards,
> Marshall Burns
> President, Ennex Corporation
>
> Marshall@Ennex.com
> Los Angeles, USA, (310) 397-1314
> www.Ennex.com
>
>
>
>
>
> -----The complaint-----
>
> >>I know we have had this discussion before but... I notice that
>when you
> >>respond to an email you use your own terminology throughout the
>email and
> >>then give some form of a translation explanation at the end.
>Wouldn't be
> >>easier if you used the "standard" terminology up front?
>
>
>
> -----My answer-----
> > Easier, yes. But the popular terminology is flawed and since we
>are at
> >the leading edge of a revolution, we have the opportunity to set
>the
> correct
> >terminology before our language hits the mainstream. Words are
>powerful,
> and
> >I like to use them thoughtfully.
> >
> > However, also note that in the case of my last RP-ML posting,
>you'll
> >notice that there is no popular term for "industrial fabber,"
>except to
> call
> >it "an RP machine that isn't a concept modeller."
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Marshall Burns
>
>
>
> 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 AAA2CE
> for <bhinzmann@mail.sric.sri.com>;
> Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:58:05 -0800
>Received: from major by bart.lpt.fi with local (Exim 1.90 #2)
> for rp-ml-outgoing@bart.lpt.fi
> id 12AI8w-0004od-00; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 19:48:50 +0000
>Received: from [208.235.233.194] (helo=mailsrv.williams-int.com)
> by bart.lpt.fi with esmtp (Exim 1.90 #2)
> for RP-ml@bart.lpt.fi
> id 12AI8v-0004lQ-00; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 21:48:49 +0200
>Received: by mailsrv.williams-int.com with Internet Mail Service
(5.5.2448.0)
> id <Z2VJRARH>; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 14:49:55 -0500
>Message-ID: <551AEBFEC053D211B912000083947AE01FDBA0@mailsrv.williams-int.
com>
>From: KDenton@williams-int.com
>To: Marshall@Ennex.com, RP-ml@bart.lpt.fi
>Subject: RE: Terminology debate again
>Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 14:49:54 -0500
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
>Content-Type: text/plain
>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 - 23:02:38 EEST