From: Bathsheba Grossman (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Aug 12 2005 - 07:15:19 EEST
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Charles Overy wrote:
> I have to jump in here to say that I don't think there is going to be an
> overarching word for the technology. It really depends on the industry.
I totally agree. Ex One, for instance is essentially running an
industrial foundry, and they and their customers are naturally going
to use different vocabulary from someone making ZCorp models for
architects, or wax prints for jewelers. Different worlds, different
I think it's worth noticing that the market and its terminology aren't
likely to be "pushed" from the artificial perspective which we have,
in which all those machines seem like the same kind of thing. I see
it as more likely to be "pulled" in many directions by end-users, who
are more interested in their own disparate uses for different types of
parts, than in the common technology underlying those parts.
> For industrial design, I would think Rapid Prototyping works pretty well
> although I am no expert here.
If it's rapid, and if it's being used to make prototypes, I've got
nothing against it. I have the habit, but I'm trying to stop using it
for myself because I'm making products rather than prototypes.
-- Bathsheba Grossman (831)429-8224 Sculpting geometry www.bathsheba.com Laser etched proteins www.crystalprotein.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Mon Jan 02 2006 - 08:09:18 EET