SV: [rp-ml] Design for (Rapid) Manufacturing

Dear List,

Is the glass half empty or half full? Joe Kerer obviously represents the half empty view based on the notion that only long series manufacturing really counts.

Pat Warner has "one of the rare cases", OK but not too many years ago that case would not have existed at all. The patients with individual hip joints have reasons to be happy that these are only "virtually identical" as do those people wearing hearing aids.

Of course the total amount of manufacturing made by Additive Manufacturing Technologies is not big today, nor will ever be measured in weight of products produced. But maybe significant in value? New possibilities are opening all the time because some manufacturing methods allow for individualization, wider variation of properties etc. with the potential of increasing customer satisfaction or even making people happier.

Any indication that these possibilities do not represent an increasing trend? I prefer to see a half full glass, not rapidly but constantly getting fuller.

Regards
Berndt Holmer

Swerea IVF AB
Brinellvägen 68
SE-100 44 Stockholm | Sweden
Phone +46 8-21 31 74 | Mobile +46 70-780 62 15 | Fax +46 8-20 22 27
berndt.holmer@swerea.se | www.swereaivf.se

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi [mailto:owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi] För k.adams@therm-u-form.com
Skickat: den 12 mars 2009 06:13
Till: rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi; Warner, Pat
Kopia: Joe Kerer
Ämne: RE: [rp-ml] Design for (Rapid) Manufacturing

Pat,

I think we do agree, but there is the issue of terminology. 10 parts is prototyping, not really manufacturing. Your case is one of the rare cases.

Technically, one could claim that making 1 part is "manufacturing" but I doubt that many MFG. Engineers invision themselves sitting and contemplating how to build 1 part or 10 parts, or 100 parts for that matter.

In many businesses a few hundred parts is "prototyping". When we look at the RP industry, for the most part, it is not really even "prototyping" as far as many industries are concerned. It is "model making". It still has its place, and is a good tool, but it is not a "manufacturing System".

Prototype, and model are 2 entirely different things in many industries. Look at the automotive industry for example. A model refers to clay or a non functional mock up. A prototype is essentially a fully functional vehicle with most parts made of the materials they will be made of in production, but without the expense of production tooling. In aerospace, a pilot can fly a prototype, but would not be able to fly a "model".

Lets face it, the whole concept of RM is a marketing scam. The fact that there are anomalies whcih allow the technology to work are great, but do not change the marketing hype and scam. Isnt it odd that the 2 biggest player in the RP industry simply renamed their product line to catch the wave of RM

Joe

--- On Mon, 3/9/09, Warner, Pat <Pat.Warner@uk.renaultf1.com> wrote:

> From: Warner, Pat <Pat.Warner@uk.renaultf1.com>
> Subject: RE: [rp-ml] Design for (Rapid) Manufacturing
> To: "rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi" <rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi>
> Cc: "Joe Kerer" <joekerer100@yahoo.com>
> Date: Monday, March 9, 2009, 7:19 PM
> Whilst I do see where you're coming from I can't say that I agree with
> you.
>
> RM is cost effective if the batch sizes are small enough. I build
> parts for use on our race cars using SLS, and as the batch size rarely
> exceeds 10, RM is a perfect fit for us.
> Tooling for such low volume would be ridiculously expensive and the
> lead times involved prohibitive. On the odd occasion where batch size
> has been up in the hundreds, I've still managed to manufacture parts
> in-house significantly cheaper than outsourcing to injection moulding.
>
> Aerospace companies are putting parts on military aircraft every day.
> I'm not sure that I could consider parts used on fighter aircraft as
> joke products. They obviously pass all the requirements for the
> product, and if it wasn't a cost effective way of producing the parts,
> I'm pretty sure they'd be doing it another way.
>
> Pat
>
> ________________________________
> From: owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi
> [mailto:owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi] On Behalf Of Joe Kerer
> Sent: 09 March 2009 22:11
> To: rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi; w_j_watson@yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: [rp-ml] Design for (Rapid) Manufacturing
>
> The best way to design for RM is to put something into your design
> that is going to make it extremely difficult to manufacture the
> products using more conventional means.
>
> Lets get real. A good designer designs for manufacturing, not RP. RM
> (RP) should only be used in rare occasions, as this is generally not a
> good manufacturing method.
>
> Look at many of the parts that the RP/RM manufacturers are showing as
> RM parts. They are mostly a joke, as they can be manufactured via
> other methods with better and cheaper results.
>
> Joe
>
Received on Thu Mar 12 14:15:34 2009