From: Andrew Werby (andrew@computersculpture.com)
Date: Tue Aug 23 2005 - 00:03:09 EEST
[Hi All, sorry if this thread is old, but I had some trouble posting -
here's hoping this one goes through...]
>
> Am 09.08.2005 um 18:25 schrieb Marshall Burns:
>
>> Rapid prototyping, rapid prototype, rapid prototyper
>
> While in common use, this term is used to describe prototyping of
> software as well.
>
>> RP, RP, RP device or RPer
>
> Shortcuts to the above, it's the same.
>
>> Desktop manufacturing, desktop manufacture,
>> desktop manufacturer or DTMer
>
> This talks about the size of the manufactured parts and neither honors
> small milling machines (not what "we" usually think of) nor big size
> machines doing layered manufacturing.
>
>> Solid freeform fabrication, SFF, SFFer
[Does the world really need more acronyms? It's getting so that each one
means something different in different circles. SFF = Science Fiction Fan
DTM = Divorced Transvestite Male. RP = Retired Person. I'd prefer a single
word that resisted acronymization. But I've never warmed up to "Fabber". For
one thing, fabrication isn't really descriptive of what these machines do.
In the sculpture world (my home planet) fabricators make largish pieces from
standard preformed materials, like steel sheet, rod, and tube; cutting,
bending, and welding as required. Foundries are closer to the idea, since
they work with more amorphous materials, but I don't see these machines
being called desktop foundries. Rapid Prototyping is an accepted term, but
inaccurate, since these machines are not restricted to building prototypes,
and the process can be anything but rapid. What about Materializers? That
captures some of the magic, without limiting the idea to a single process or
purpose. If they came with a 3d scanner built in, then we could call them
Replicators...]
> A somewhat broad term, but already close.
>
>> 3-D printing, 3-D print, 3-D printer
>
> This would fit for a simple description to be used in the public.
>
>> Digital fabrication or fabbing, fab, fabber
>
> The future of about any type of manufacturing and/or assembling will be
> digital. Doesn't point to SLA/SLS/FDM type manufacturing at all.
>
>
>> If you want to participate in the survey, please fill in the following
>> form:
>
> Once using the best of your suggestions ...
>
>> Term for the field of technology: 3D printing
>>
>> Verb for making something with it: 3D printing
>>
>> Term for machine that does it: 3D printer
>
> ... and another one using terms I'd prefer myself:
>
>> Term for the field of technology: Layered manufacturing
>>
>> Verb for making something with it: Layered manufacturing
>>
>> Term for machine that does it: Layered manufacturing machine
>
> These terms describe a common and essential feature of all those machine
> best, IMO.
>
>
> N.B.: This doesn't mean e.g. desktop milling machines are useless or
> incapable of giving quick results. But they aren't of the new type of
> machines invented in the late '80s.
>
>
> Markus
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter
> http://www.jump-ing.de/
>
[I don't know why we have to limit the term to cover only machines invented
since the '80s. That seems entirely arbitrary to me. The Roland company is
pushing a term of their own: Subtractive Rapid Prototyping (SRP) to describe
their digitally controlled milling machines. There are other sorts of
processes that could also fall under that umbrella, such as
computer-controlled excimer lasers, but it does expand the field of
consideration past the additive systems one generally thinks of as RP
machines, and they do essentially the same thing - taking a model from
"virtual reality" to physical actuality. There's another category of machine
that's overlooked here as well: 2d cut-out devices like abrasive waterjets
and CNC plasma torches. Like the cutters used in Laminated Object
Manufacture, they can be used to produce 3d objects by a simple process of
stacking, and they are still the only practical way to digitally produce
objects larger than can be handled by CNC routers and mills (which
themselves are capable of making much bigger parts than the
incremental-build systems we think of as RP machines.)]
Andrew Werby
www.computersculpture.com
[PS: Thanks, Hannu, for taking the trouble to get me back on board...]
----- Original Message -----
From: "SiderWhite" <siderwhite@worldnet.att.net>
To: "Rp-Ml (E-mail)" <rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi>
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 5:03 PM
Subject: [rp-ml] A public survey on terminology
> Interesting threads, here's my two cents worth:
>
> Term for the field of technology: Rapid Manufacturing (although not always
> rapid - yet!) or Mass Customization.
>
> Verb for making something with it: Manufacturing, Customizing, or Creating
> (for the more artistic types).
>
> Term for machine that does it:
> Mass Customizer or Creation Engine.
>
> It will be interesting to see the survey results.
>
> Glenn
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Marshall Burns" <MB-ListMail2@Ennex.com>
>> To: <EdGrenda@aol.com>; <rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi>
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 10:25 AM
>> Subject: [rp-ml] A public survey on terminology
>>
>>
>>
>> Ed, you really got me going with this e-mail, in two different ways. I'm
>> going to break my response into two messages, this one and another one on
>> the open source stuff you mentioned.
>>
>> In reading your message, I came "this close" to chucking "fabber" and
>> switching my sites over to saying "3D printer" instead. It really grabbed
> me
>> by the throat when you said that my terminology "stands in the way of
>> popularization of the field." Ouch. If that's true, what a cruel irony,
> and
>> something I would want to correct immediately if I become convinced that
>> it's true.
>>
>> So let me ask other people on here to chime in on this issue. What
>> terminology do you think is best in the long run for the technology that
>> makes physical objects automatically from a digital description and raw
>> materials. I suggest that we look at answers in the form of a list of
> three
>> terms, one for the field of technology, one for the verb meaning to make
>> something with the technology, and one for the machine that does it. So I
>> suppose some of the choices are:
>>
>> Rapid prototyping, rapid prototype, rapid prototyper
>> RP, RP, RP device or RPer
>> Desktop manufacturing, desktop manufacture,
>> desktop manufacturer or DTMer
>> Solid freeform fabrication, SFF, SFFer
>> 3-D printing, 3-D print, 3-D printer
>> Digital fabrication or fabbing, fab, fabber
>>
>> These are just some of the most popular terms that have cropped up over
>> time. I would invite people to suggest new terminology that hasn't
> appeared
>> before. God knows, we could use some fresh ideas!
>>
>> If you want to participate in the survey, please fill in the following
> form:
>>
>> Term for the field of technology: ____________________________
>>
>> Verb for making something with it: _____________________________
>>
>> Term for machine that does it: _____________________________
>>
>> Other comments and suggestions:
>>
>> If people will send this in either on-list or privately (please keep the
>> subject line unaltered to help me compile the responses), I will collect
> the
>> results and report back to the list.
>>
>> I'm not promising to change my use of terminology based on the results,
> but
>> I do hope to learn something, and I am open to changing my ways if they
> are
>> indeed not helpful.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Marshall Burns
>> www.fabbers.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi [mailto:owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi] On
>> Behalf
>> Of EdGrenda@aol.com
>> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 10:18
>> To: MB-ListMail2@Ennex.com; rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi
>> Subject: Re: [rp-ml] Back from oblivion
>>
>>
>> Hi Marshall:
>>
>> Nice to see you back in the bully pulpit. I just have a few comments.
>>
>> Rapid prototyping hasn't really stalled. In fact, according to Terry's
> most
>>
>> recent update it's going gangbusters in terms of units sold and revenue.
> But
>>
>> it has changed, and certainly the amount of discussion and interest has
>> decreased markedly. It's dichotomous that while there has been this
>> great
>> increase in sales, and an enormous widening of potential application
>> areas
>> as witnessed by IP developments, there have been less than 100 postings
>> to
>> the RPML during the last couple of months.
>>
>> It can't be that all the questions are answered now, but it may be that
>> certain technologies have become dominant enough to provide easily
> accepted
>> but limited solutions.
>>
>> It does matter what a field is called. If the public can't hang a simple
>> name on it, it won't be understood. And it won't ever be popularized.
>> Nanotech? That term encompasses a huge range of disparate items, many or
>> most completely unrelated - but it's a buzzword that gets the juices
> flowing
>> in a large segment of the population. It sounds excitingly futuristic,
> even
>> though it's inexact and very general.
>>
>> Clinging to "fabbers" and "fabbing" is not helpful, and stands in the way
> of
>>
>> popularization of the field. All the other terms largely stink, too -
>> including RP which is what I've mostly used. Today "3D printing" is
>> probably the easiest and only way to make a connection between what's
>> already in the heads of the public with the greater awareness of this
> field.
>> Any good marketer knows that if you don't try to work with what's already
> in
>> the mind of the prospect, you will fail to communicate the message. It
> may
>> be one major reason why interest in RP has diminished in the face of
>> increased sales. The newbies don't know that RP is 3D printing.
>>
>> Being technically correct may give you a warm glow, but it won't heat
>> your
>> home.
>>
>> As we discussed on the phone a while back, one of the things that you
> excel
>> at is proselytizing. Well, that's a job that needs to be done here - and
> it
>>
>> may harbor rewards. I remember as a youth reading about Billy Graham
>> retiring to his mountain top retreat in Virginia to contemplate his next
>> crusade, or whatever. He rechargeth his batteries, in any case, in
> splendid
>> surroundings. What made this particularly memorable for me as a kid was
> that
>> he had just come to our very neighborhood to drive the sinners out of our
>> very own honky-tonks. Incidentally, the bars were very proud of this,
>> and
>> there were pictures in the windows from the newspapers of him doing it.
> It
>> got them more business by proving that sin could actually be had on the
>> premises.
>>
>> Now, I was awestruck because somehow I thought when he went home, it
>> would
>> be to a neighborhood like ours, knee-deep in cigar butts, but it wasn't.
>> The point I'm trying to make is that you've already started on this path
>> with some success, and it might not be a bad idea to keep at it. Others
>> have apparently handsomely succeeded at similar endeavors.
>>
>> ... [snip: remaining portion appears in my next response]
>>
>> Ed Grenda
>> Castle Island Co.
>> 781-646-6280 (voice or fax)
>> EdGrenda@aol.com (email)
>>
>> The Worldwide Guide to Rapid Prototyping
>> http://home.att.net/~castleisland/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Mon Jan 02 2006 - 08:09:19 EET