RE: New Rapid Prototyping Benchmark Study Examines 3D Printers

From: Mitchell, Doug (D.B.) (dmitchel@ford.com)
Date: Fri Oct 31 2003 - 13:26:12 EET


I would like to take the time to apologize to Johnn about one of the comments that I made.
 
I forgot about the 3D InVision, and automatically thought that he was referring to the
Envisiontec Perfactory. That's what happens when you have names that are too
similar.
 
When you've been around this technology too long, you begin to forget what you need
to remember, and remember what you need to forget. - Must be the materials.
 
Doug
 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Kerr [mailto:johnnkerrr@yahoo.com.sg]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 11:57 PM
To: tgrimm1@insightbb.com; Phil@Versadyne.net
Cc: rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi
Subject: RE: New Rapid Prototyping Benchmark Study Examines 3D Printers

Dear All,
 
I am watching all the replies to my mail to the list about Todd's report & then at the end I will reply to all the deficiencies in the report, which is totally misleading & needless to say biased. Dont think I just make the comments on the list, you will get the proof. Number of years in the RP industry in not the gauge of your credibility but the contents of the report is definitely.
 
Johnn

Todd Grimm <tgrimm1@insightbb.com> wrote:

Phil:

You make some very good points. I would like to address them.

"I have to agree with John on some points. A Viper is a high end
RP system and not a "3D printer". Results on the 0.006" build
style without mention of the flexibility of building at 0.002"
layers and 0.003" spot are misleading. I also believe it unfair
that as a high end flexible system, that his cost per hour takes
account of the acquisition price which is of course much higher.
I quote - "3D printers are affordable and easy to use rapid
prototyping systems for personal, office or departmental use."
Why not compare the InVision printer or at least draw the line
at a dollar amount.
I feel this is a case of measuring apples and oranges. "

Yes, I agree that the 0.006 in. could be misleading. But, if the
report were to document all of the build options for a! ll of the
systems, it would have become unwieldy. I did consider including
the Viper with 0.002 in./ 0.003 in. build parameters, but that
didn't fit the criteria of concept/form & fit models. I also
felt that the reported time for these build parameters would
have given the wrong impression to the reader. The other
consideration is that many Viper users would not consider
0.002/0.003 for dense/large parts like the fan and trackball
housing .

If the InVision would have been commercially available when the
testing began, I could have consider it. However, the system was
not commercially available until 2 1/2 months after the building
and measurement phases were complete.

"And what about build material choice?

The fact that the study is aimed at steering people to various
methods by comparison can be misleading without understanding
the very real impact that geometry, accuracy, and end use /
purpose has on making t! he right choice................"

Both of these statements are absolutely true. I hope that the
conclusion to the Executive Summary/Benchmark report addresses
that. It states, "There are a vast number of combinations of
build parameters, prototyping materials, part definitions and
operating conditions. Testing of all scenarios in the benchmark
study is impractical and unreasonable. Therefore, the results
presented in the benchmark are best suited for the relative
positioning of the rapid prototyping systems when similar parts
are constructed with similar build parameters.

When evaluating systems, use this benchmark data as an initial
selection guide. Then define the application and the types of
parts used in the product development process. Evaluate the
systems with the operational and output requirements that are
important to the success of the prototyping effort. Finally, add
the evaluation of two important criteria that were not reviewed
in the benchmark, material properties and finishing time."

"I agree that does need addressing. Lets do it right."

I agree. If you would like to discuss revisions to the
benchmarking procedures, please give me a call. My goal is to
help potential users make the right choice, and any assistance
that you could offer would be appreciated.

Regards.

T.A. Grimm & Associates, Inc.
3028 Beth Ct.
Edgewood, KY 41017
Phone: (859) 331-5340
Fax: (859) 331-5342
Cell: (859) 240-0574
Email: tgrimm@tagrimm.com
Web: www.tagrimm.com

Marketing Engineered for Sales Results (sm)

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi [mailto:owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi]
On Behalf Of Phil Iehle
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 3:21 PM
To: Rp-Ml
Subject: RE: New Rapid Prototyping Benchmark Study Examines 3D
Printers

Hi List

I have to agree with John on some points. A Viper is! a high end
RP system and not a "3D printer". Results on the 0.006" build
style without mention of the flexibility of building at 0.002"
layers and 0.003" spot are misleading. I also believe it unfair
that as a high end flexible system, that his cost per hour takes
account of the acquisition price which is of course much higher.
I quote - "3D printers are affordable and easy to use rapid
prototyping systems for personal, office or departmental use."
Why not compare the InVision printer or at least draw the line
at a dollar amount.
I feel this is a case of measuring apples and oranges.

I have to reiterate, Fine Line Prototyping is a prime example.
You can't, and wouldn't think of, getting the same type of part
and quality from "low cost" 3D printing systems. They are miles
apart.
And what about build material choice?

The fact that the study is aimed at steering people to various
methods by comparison can be misleading wit! hout understanding
the very real impact that geometry, accuracy, and end use /
purpose has on making the right choice................

"I produced this benchmark study specifically for design
engineers who are trying to select the rapid prototyping system
right for them,"

We are a bit of a 'not-that-well-known' and cryptic industry. I
agree that does need addressing. Lets do it right.

Phil Iehle
Versadyne LLC

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi
[mailto:owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi]On Behalf Of Neil Hopkinson
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 11:47 AM
To: rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi
Subject: RE: New Rapid Prototyping Benchmark Study Examines 3D
Printers

List,
A few years back I performed a similar sounding study for Volvo
Cars as part of our Rapid Manufacturing Consortium.
A couple of key points to make with this kind of benchmark
include:
- the findings are often geometry/purpose specific
- the findings are often out of date by the time they go to
print.

I have not read the report but would expect that Todd has
covered the first point, previous work by him appeared to be
well balanced and fair.
The second point is very important to remember however it does
not mean there is no value in the excercise, it's just that the
reader should be aware of its limitations (ideally the author
will make this clear).
The second point is in fact a credit to system/material
developers - paradoxically it is good news if the report is out
of date quickly as it (usually) means significant improvements
have been made.

I look forward to watching a lively debate!

Neil

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi
[mailto:owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi]On Behalf Of John Kerr
Sent: 29 October 2003 14:20
To: tgrimm@tagrimm.com; rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi
Subject: Re: New Rapid Proto! typing Benchmark Study Examines 3D
Printers

Dear List,

Went thru the report !

Some questions :

1. Is this site marketing site for selling reports ?

2. This report is definitly not made by any RP Veteran but some
novice individual.

3. Everybody knows that Viper is serious high end RP system not
3D Printer. Why include it in the comparisons ? Viper accuracy
same as Dimension printer ? Ha Ha , who are they fooling ? Ask
Fine Line Prototyping or experts from 3D Systems, please wake
up, or these fools will confuse the market ! I doubt the
credibility of of the publishers

Why Invison, Eden is missing my friend ?

Johnn

Todd Grimm wrote:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Edgewood, Ky., October 27 -- T. A. Grimm & Associates, Inc.
today
announced the release of a new rapid prototyping benchmark study
that
examines 3D printers. This extensive study reports the
performance of
seven rapid prototyping systems in the areas of time, cost and
quality.

3D printers are affordable and easy to use rapid prototyping
systems for
personal, office or departmental use. The benchmark study finds
that
five of the seven systems qualify as 3D printers, as illustrated
by the
new Rapid Prototyping Index. A ranking methodology that
incorporates 13
performance measures, the index rates the systems in four
applications
areas: concept models, form and fit prototypes, functional
prototypes
and patterns.

Todd Grimm, president of T. A. Grimm & Associates and a veteran
of the
rapid prototyping industry, conducted the five month project to
assist
companies in their evaluation and selection of 3D printers.
Using
independent organizations for all prototype construction and
quality
measurement, the benchmark offers an unbiased comparison of the
seven
rapid prototyping systems.

"I produced this benchmark study specifically for design
engineers who
are trying to select the rapid prototyping system right for
them," said
Grimm. "Beyond vendor supplied data, there has been little
information
to help companies discover the true performance capabilities of
rapid
prototyping devices. Without real-world, user- supplied data,
this can
lead to poor decisions when selecting a system."

The 55-page benchmark, which contains 34 charts, 5 tables and 36
images,
reports results for three prototypes that vary in size, volume
and
complexity. The benchmark study discovered that there is a large
variance in prototype costs, ranging from $60.53 to $267.85. The
expense
measures include system and accessories costs, annual costs,
labor and
materials.

The report is available for purchase at
http://www.tagrimm.com/benchmark/. T. A. Grimm also offers a
free
executive summary of t! he benchmark results at the same Web
address.

About T. A. Grimm & Associates
Founded by Todd Grimm, a 13-year veteran of the rapid
prototyping
industry, T. A. Grimm & Associates, Inc. offers consulting
services on
rapid prototyping and related technologies, including
competitive
analysis, benchmarking and educational programs. The company
also offers
outsourced marketing services that include marketing plan
development,
Web optimization, copywriting and lead generation. Grimm
combines his
engineering background and technical knowledge with years of
sales,
management and marketing experience to create and implement
strategic
and tactical plans. For more information, visit the T. A. Grimm
&
Associates Web site at http://www.tagrimm.com.

Todd Grimm
T.A. Grimm & Associates, Inc.
3028 Beth Ct.
Edgewood, KY 41017
Phone: (859) 331-5340
Fax: (859) 331-5342
Cell: (859) 240-0574Email: tgrimm@tagrimm.com
Web: www.tagrimm.com

Marketing Engineered for Sales Results (sm)



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat Jan 17 2004 - 15:18:18 EET