Re: [rp-ml] International Terminology Standards - UNIVERSAL STL FILE

From: Tam <>
Date: Sat Jan 10 2009 - 14:42:44 EET

"Grown Parts"

From: "Rob Kiser" <>
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 5:17 PM
To: "'Shane Collins'" <>; "'RP-ML'"
Subject: RE: [rp-ml] International Terminology Standards - UNIVERSAL STL

> Shane,
> I see you are a realist. I love the term "Rapid Manufacturing" as it
> rings
> a loud bell when discussing rapid prototype parts, even though Rapid
> Manufacturing is traditionally used to define Plastic Injection Molding,
> CNC, and other "large frame/high speed" manufacturing machinery, as well
> it
> should be. I would also consider any rapid prototype system could be
> defined as a "Rapid Manufacturing" system if a customer needs only a small
> number of functional parts for an entire project and there is actually a
> niche for small numbers on many occasions. You can have an army of rapid
> prototype systems in one room trying to equate to one Plastic Injection
> Molder, but then you are also limited on material selections. I think a
> great term to use could be "Rapid Additive Manufacturing". My opinion.
> Rob Kiser
> Kaiser3D LLC
> Ph: 512-585-8838
> Fax: 512-366-9576
> Web site:
> Blog:
> E-mail:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On Behalf
> Of Shane Collins
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 2:21 PM
> To: 'RP-ML'
> Subject: RE: [rp-ml] International Terminology Standards - UNIVERSAL STL
> Dear all,
> We struggled with this problem from the beginning when SLA(R) was generic
> for any RP part regardless of process. A while back I was helping a SB
> with
> a brochure that provided information about their capabilities. I
> recommended they use the generic LS to describe the process of sintering
> nylon. My recommendation was rejected because search engines recognize
> the
> more popular SLS(R) and they did not want prospective customers having to
> figure out the two processes are(essentially)the same. Old habits die
> hard.
> I've been reluctant to use AF because the opposite does not make sense.
> Subtractive fabrication could mean milling, turning, and grinding, but
> molding does not fit with SF. Also, AF is somewhat redundant.
> 3D printing, to me, does not fit for most of the AF metal processes where
> significant machining or post processing is required after "printing".
> Any description with layered in it is short sighted for the long haul.
> I use RM in my presentations because it is widely recognized within our
> own
> industry, but when I'm talking to friends and the person next to me on the
> airplane, I show them a part from my briefcase and say that it was "grown"
> The verb "grow" is also easy on the ears.
> So, if a cool acronym is needed, I would propose GM or when texting "G".
> However, until there are 3D printer, RM, ADDM, AF or GM machines in most
> molding and machine shops, the general population will still be saying OMG
> WTF.
> Happy Friday,
> Shane
> Shane Collins
> Sales Director
> Arcam Inc.
> 805 427 0019
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On Behalf
> Of Alain Bernard
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 3:20 AM
> To: Baran M. Dag
> Cc: RP-ML;
> Subject: Re: [rp-ml] International Terminology Standards - UNIVERSAL STL
> Dear All,
> concerning the "generic term" of our domain, there are different issues.
> I think that it should represent the originality of the technologies, as
> a whole.
> So, layered-based manufacturing could be interesting because it figures
> out the way to manufacture the part. Maybe, also "additive
> manufacturing" could also be relevant.
> Maybe it should be also important to discuss "Manufacturing" and
> "Fabrication", even "Production". I am not a native-English or American
> speaker so, this is difficult for me to be sure that one term or th
> eothers are more relevant, but Manufacturing is my favorite. Production
> seems to be strategic if we would like to highlight the possibility of
> using these machines as a production (like mass or customized) solution.
> There is another issue, the fact that you transform a digital model into
> a physical object.
> So, "Digital (Layered-based or Additive) Manufacturing" could also be
> interesting, by completarity to "substractive" technologies, like
> machining by cutting.
> I know that my contribution is not original at all but this is my opinion.
> All the Best,
> Baran M. Dag a écrit :
>> Hello All,
>> We are following the discussions around the terminology, as we
>> possibly all are experiencing the same difficulties in communicating
>> due to this lack of unification in "RAPID" terminology.
>> I just wanted to bring something else up to your attention which is
>> already in my mind for some time. It seems like an appropriate time.
>> As the competition is getting harsher, systems manufacturers are
>> coming up with new machines more frequently than ever.
>> This is great and yes we all love it but sometimes making unbiased
>> comparisons of all these new machines could be frustrating if you are
>> on the market for a new system and evaluating what is available.
>> It would really really be great if there was a universal STL file for
>> "practical" benchmarking of new systems.
>> This universal part should have certain geometry, so when we run the
>> file in different systems and put the parts down on the table for
>> comparison, we should be able to get a rough idea with only inspecting
>> through eyes and hands. It should give us some idea about "all"(may be
>> not possible), surface roughness, z-axis features, sharp features,
>> small features, impact, flexibility, whatever and anything.
>> If anyone would appreciate this kind of universal STL file in their
>> life or already have a design for that or has a better idea or you
>> think this is not usefull at all, please share your thoughts. It would
>> really be great to hear from you.
>> I am sure designing this file will be a fun ride to many who gets this
>> message.
>> Best wishes,
>> Baran M. Dag
>> Temperman Bvba
>> <>
>> Terry Wohlers yazmış:
>>> Greetings,
>>> First, I'd like to wish everyone a Happy New Year and hope that it is
>>> filled with peace and happiness.
>>> Next week, ASTM is hosting an organizational meeting to discuss
>>> industry standards and I hope you can attend. Details are at
>>> The use of terminology will
>>> be a part of these discussions. Over the past several years, I've put
>>> a lot of thought into the terms that we use in our industry and have
>>> come to the conclusion that there's no right or wrong terms, although
>>> some are better than others at communicating our thoughts. In
>>> preparation for next week's meeting, I'd like to initiate some
>>> discussion on the subject. I will share ideas, and hopefully some
>>> consensus, from the members of this list.
>>> For many years, "rapid prototyping (RP)" has been a popular term, and
>>> rightly so because prototyping has been the most popular application
>>> of additive fabrication (AF) technology. However, it is one of many
>>> applications as AF expands into new areas and industries.
>>> Consequently, a growing number of people are using terms such as
>>> "additive fabrication" or "additive manufacturing" when referring to
>>> the group of processes (e.g., fused deposition modeling, 3DP from Z
>>> Corp., laser sintering, etc.) that build parts layer by layer.
>>> Stratasys and 3D Systems have adopted the term "additive fabrication"
>>> as a catch-all term, although I cannot say whether it has become an
>>> official corporate standard at either company. Maybe. The mainstream
>>> press-when our industry is lucky enough to get included in it-uses
>>> "3D printing" most frequently. Among industry insiders, 3D printing
>>> refers to a group of AF processes that are relatively low cost, easy
>>> to use, and office friendly. Some think of the process from Z Corp.
>>> when hearing this term. Others may think of PolyJet from Objet
>>> Geometries.
>>> AF processes are being used for a range of applications including
>>> concept design and modeling, fit and function testing, patterns for
>>> castings, and mold and die tooling. They are also used for fixture
>>> and assembly tools, custom and replacement part manufacturing,
>>> special edition products, short-run production, and series
>>> manufacturing. Prototyping is one of many applications and that's why
>>> "RP" is no longer suitable in most instances as a catch-all term. In
>>> fact, many companies resist the idea of using a prototyping method
>>> for part manufacturing, so using this term could stifle AF's
>>> transition to manufacturing applications.
>>> The term "additive manufacturing" is fine, although because
>>> manufacturing is an application and not a technology, I believe it is
>>> plagued with problems, similar to "rapid prototyping." Consider, for
>>> example, this sentence: "My company is using additive manufacturing
>>> for manufacturing." It's confusing. Now, consider this: "My company
>>> is using solid freeform fabrication for manufacturing." Much cleaner.
>>> I'm not suggesting that we use "solid freeform fabrication;" I'm
>>> using it here to illustrate a point. I believe it works much better
>>> when the catch-all term does not include the name of an application.
>>> That way it can be used cleanly for all applications of the technology.
>>> Since 2005 I've used the catch-all term "additive fabrication" in our
>>> company's publications, presentations, and communications. It's not
>>> perfect, but it works. In the future, I truly believe that "3D
>>> printing" will become the most popular term. When I'm describing AF
>>> technology to a relative or someone I'm seated next to on an
>>> airplane, I use 3D printing because there's a better chance that
>>> he/she will understand what I'm saying. It's simple and easy to say.
>>> I prefer it over alternatives, but 3D printing currently means
>>> something else to many people in our industry. This is likely to
>>> change. An estimated 74% of all systems sold in 2007 were classified
>>> as a 3D printer and each year this percentage increases.
>>> If we were to let nature take its course, which term do you think
>>> would become the most popular in 5-7 years? In other words, which
>>> catch-all term do you feel has the greatest chance for success as AF
>>> works its way more deeply into both technical and consumer markets.
>>> Answering this question will help guide our thinking next week.
>>> Thanks!
>>> Terry
>>> ************
>>> Terry Wohlers
>>> Wohlers Associates, Inc.
>>> OakRidge Business Park
>>> 1511 River Oak Drive
>>> Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 USA
>>> 970-225-0086
>>> Fax 970-225-2027
>>> <>
>>> <>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG -
>>> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.4/1880 - Release Date:
> 07.01.2009 08:49
>> --
>> Baran M. DAG
>> Sales Manager
>> +32 484 532 898
>> <>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature
> database 3755 (20090109) __________
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
Received on Sat Jan 10 14:40:05 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 07 2010 - 08:26:36 EET