[ox] Schnipsel aus der Fabber Community
- From: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>
- Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 22:21:40 +0200
Liebe Liste,
ich stöbere gerade nochmal auf den Seiten der Ennex Corporation
[http://www.ennex.com/] rum, denen die den hier schon öfter erwähnten
Fabber [http://www.ennex.com/fabbers/index.sht] nicht nur bauen,
sondern auch über dessen gesellschaftliches Potential nachdenken
[http://www.ennex.com/fabbers/index.sht#Vision].
Einige besonders spannende Threads aus der Mailing-Liste der
Rapid-Prototyping-Community [http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/] sind
zusammengefaßt [http://www.ennex.com/fabbers/RP-ML/index.sht]. Aus
Threads zum Thema "Direct Manufacturing by Fabber"
[http://www.ennex.com/fabbers/RP-ML/mfg.sht] möchte ich euch ein paar
m.E. spannende Ausschnitte präsentieren.
BTW 1: Der Stil auf dieser Mailing-Liste scheint mir vom ersten
Eindruck her ähnlich konstruktiv wie er hier ist.
BTW 2: Marshall Burns von Ennex wäre für mich ein ganz heißer Kandidat
für die zweite Konferenz :-) .
BTW 3: Gibt es hier jemenschen, der sich mit Produktionstechnik
auskennt? Insbesondere geht es wohl um Sintern und Spritzguß. Ist
vielleicht sogar jemensch aus unserem Kreis auf der genannten
Mailing-Liste?
So, hier nun aber die Ausschnitte.
Mit Freien Grüßen
Stefan
--- 8< --- 8< --- 8< --- 8< --- 8< --- 8< --- 8< --- 8< --- 8< --- 8< ---
Background:
One of the hottest topics of discussion on the RP-ML in 1999 was
the use of fabbers ("rapid prototyping") for direct
manufacturing, not just for prototypes.
From: Sean M Gladieux <Gladieux_Sean_M CAT.com>
Date: Thursday, August 05, 1999 10:13 AM
...
I am interested in performing a cost analysis of RP part manufacture
compared to traditional part manufacture. I am thinking about
selecting a fuel filter base part for a heavy duty industrial engine.
The part is normally die casted. The part has been manufactured with
RP technology by John Howarter of Caterpillar Inc, so I know it can be
done. What I plan to do is to analyize the cost benefit ratios, and
cost savings of using RP technology to produce over die casting with
CNC produced dies.
...
From: Prof. P. M. Dickens <pdickens dmu.ac.uk>
Date: Thursday, August 05, 1999 16:47 PM
...
This is a subject that is dear to my heart.
You have started a very important thread here. The original work we
did was with a company called Flymo (part of the Electrolux group),
they make garden care equipment. We wanted to see if it was
economically feasible to manufacture end use parts by RP instead of
injection moulding. We found that RP cost about 100 times more and
injection moulding was about 100 times faster. With the development of
newer machines such as the SLA 5000 and then the SLA 7000 these
numbers will have changed. However, what we also showed was that it
was economic to make even small simple parts in numbers up to 6,000
before injection moulding became cheaper!
We have just installed an SLA 7000 so it would be interesting to redo
the numbers.
I am 100% convinced that RP will move into direct manufacture of end
use parts with numbers into the thousands. This raises lots of other
issues.
1. If we use RP then assuming the material properties are okay how
would you change the design to make it better. Remember an RP
machine (of some sort) can make any geometry.
2. How often would you change the design if you are not limited by
tooling.
3. Do other factors limit you e.g. physics of the process in the
product or other parts e.g. filters in your case.
4. How will manufacturing change. Is everything Just in Time. Why make
to stock?
5. Can you eliminate parts e.g. if you sinter the part could you also
make the filter as well at the same time.
6. How will this freedom affect part variation. Is greater variety a
good thing? We have spent a long time reducing part counts. What
are the pros and cons?
7. If you use RP instead of die-casting which process would you use?
Would you try and make a sintered metal part to get near to what
you have now? Why do you have a die cast part now? Would a plastic
RP part be okay? Would you need to change the design to make it
okay in plastic?
These are the issues that spring to mind now. I am sure there are lots
of other issues.
...
COMMENT TO EVERYONE ELSE There must be lots of other ideas on this.
Lets start sharing. Have I missed some important points? Is this all
rubbish? Don't just sit there. Get contributing.
...
From: Nick Osborn <Nick swiftech.co.uk>
Date: Friday, August 06, 1999 01:53
...
At the Euromold Pre-Fair Press Conference in Frankfurt recently the
head of 3D GmbH gave a presentation which included references to SLA
machines being used for rapid manufacturing (RM), which I have a
problem taking too seriously at the moment.
Surely the future for RP is to work towards "instant tooling" which is
fast and cheap enough to negate many of the problems associated with
production tooling today?
In this way, when coupled with mass production processes & techniques
(e.g. injection moulding) that have already undergone many decades of
development (compared with RP's one decade to date) the result is a
hybrid solution which recognises the relative merits of each
technology.
I concede that (for instance) an SLA 7000 building trays full of
widgets can outstrip conventional injection moulding on cost
(initially anyway) - it will be interesting to see your new figures
when they are available - but how many widgets have you seen recently
that are made from UV resin? Just look at the mechanical performance
differences between a prototype part that is machined from solid
thermoplastic vs. the same form but moulded condition. OK, so in some
circumstances a high grade SLA material may suffice, but I would argue
that, even for complex parts, building ONE high res. RP master to make
ONE (fast, low cost) rapid tool is a more efficient route.
...
From: Ronald Jones <rjones sharedreplicators.com>
Date: Friday, August 06, 1999 9:22 AM
Prof. Dickens and All Solid Imagers
The points that you raised in your message to Shawn are insightful.
They address issues that our company has made a focus of its research.
The issues all relate to "Where is RP going?" If you are in this field
(equipment supplier, material supplier, service provider, user or
researcher) you need to have a pretty good understanding of this.
There have been many who have put forth the goal of RP as we know it
today to transform into "the manufacturing method of the 21st
Century"! The barrier to this evolution is both economic and
technical. I agree with Prof. Dickens that the recent advances in
throughput speed as evidenced by the latest 3D System SLA product
release yields sufficient economic benefit to realistically forecast
freeform fabrication as a viable manufacturing method. Similarly, the
advances in materials via DTM and others to get closer to intended
materials, especially metals suggests that direct fabrication in final
materials is not only possible, but probable. Contrary to most
consultants in the field, I cannot see a near-term evolutionary path
to "home based manufacturing" or even "Freeform Manufacturing" as
being wide spread or universal. I believe the path must first pass
through the world of "high value products" and advanced technology
components that take advantage of the unique build capabilities that
several RP systems currently offer.
Prof. Dickens is also correct concerning the impact on product design.
We are already seeing evidence of this in key markets. Apple Computer
for example has redefined with both its new desk top and lab top PC's
what a PC should look like. Due to their success in embracing complex
geometry using RP, Apple is putting pressure on the rest of the
industry. Another case in point. Recently, during a conversation with
a major shareholder of a power yacht manufacturer, he decided to over
rule the decision by his plant manager to reject RP. His view was that
sooner or later one of the firms in their market would redefine what a
luxury motor yacht should look like using RP and he was determined
that it this was not going to catch his company "flat footed". Like
the good professor, I would also like to hear from others on the list
on this important subject.
...
From: Marshall Burns <Marshall ennex.com>
Date: Friday, August 06, 1999 11:10 AM
Dear RP-world,
It looks like we've got some debate going in here on the merits and
feasibility of using fabbers ("rapid prototyping") for manufacturing.
I had dinner last night with some friends in the Internet business who
had an interesting insight on this subject. I'll be interested on the
comments of people on this list to these ideas.
One of the reasons the advent of the Internet has been so impactful is
what it does to the VALUE CHAIN for the distribution of products. One
might draw the modern, pre-Internet value chain as follows:
Manufacturer --> Wholesaler --> Distributor --> Retailer --> Customer
What the Internet does is that it opens the opportunity for direct
interaction between the manufacturer and customer, so that the value
chain can be reconfigured:
Manufacturer --> Customer --> Manufacturer
The last link above reflects the fact that with the Internet the
customer has a greater opportunity to interact with and influence the
manufacturer. If I were writing this posting in a graphical medium,
the above would be a cycle from manufacturer to customer and back. The
reduction of intermediaries in the relationship between manufacturer
and customer eliminates costs and time from the distribution process,
and improves communication. The result is greater satisfaction of the
customers' needs, faster, and at lower cost.
The optimal structure is not always this fully collapsed value chain,
but there can be opportunities for an Internet intermediary that adds
value to the product or to the customer/manufacturer interaction:
Manufacturer --> Web portal --> Customer
But instead of going into details on this, let's change back to OUR
subject of the use of fabbers in manufacturing, and let's look at it
from this point of view of its effect on the value chain in the design
and manufacturing of products.
The idea is that what the Internet does to the value chain for the
DISTRIBUTION of products, the fabber does to the value chain for the
products' DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING.
So the value chain for manufacturing in the industrial era might be
viewed as:
Concept --> Prototype --> Tooling --> Production --> Distribution --> Product
What the fabber does is eliminate the need for tooling and mass
production AND ALSO distribution because the customer (who may be a
business or an individual) may very well be operating the fabber
on-site or at a local 3-D Kinko's. Also the concept of a prototype
becomes fluid because the customer can iterate the product, try out
each iteration, and either keep iterating or stop iterating, depending
on when satisfactory performance is achieved. Which iterations are
prototypes and which are products? Such semantic distinctions are not
important. The value chain becomes:
Concept --> Iteration --> Concept
where the last link, as in the above Internet example, would be shown
as a cycle if I were writing in a graphical environment.
Now I'm sure a lot of people on the list are getting ready to respond
to this by arguing that for most products a complete and ready-to-use
product cannot be made on a fabber because of limitations in
materials, the need for assembly of mechanisms, and the high cost of
operating fabbers. To all those people, I ask you to think back to the
days of the Model T Ford and ask yourself if you could have foreseen
interstate freeways (autobahns) and suburban shopping malls. Think
back to IBM's first computer, the 650, and ask if you could have
foreseen the Internet. Think back to Goddard's first suborbital rocket
launch and ask if you could have foreseen people walking on the moon.
Of course today's fabbers cannot make even a small fraction of the
catalog of modern products enjoyed by people around the world. But
tomorrow's fabbers will.
The next step in this discussion could be to look at what happens to
the total product value chain when you combine the effects of both
fabbers and the Internet. I'll leave that for another posting.
From: Lightman, Allan J <Lightman udri.udayton.edu>
Date: Friday, August 06, 1999 11:10 AM
Ron, Phill, Sean and all RPers,
You have started an interesting thread - prognosticating on the role
of RP for the future. I have abreviated my message by cutting off the
previous discussions - most have probably already seen them once or
twice.
A long, long time ago (as measured in Internet time or about 10 years
in calendar time), when the future of RP was but a gleam in the eyes
of the few people working in this field, a sagacious engineer
commented to me, "We stand on the threshold of the second industrial
revolution."
The first industrial revolution involved the use machinery for
production rather than using hand tools. This in turn lead to
standardization, assembly line production, and the development of
tools for mass fabrication of standard parts. With the concurrent cost
reductions and improvements in quality, all designs were accommodated
to the standard components that were now readily available. The
engineer, viewing RP at its onset, saw an opportunity to be able to
make custom parts, each individually tailored to the requirements of
the task for which it was to be used, while deriving the cost and
quality benefits of 'mass' production. To date this has not been
realized. Instead, RP has been used in a manner in which it directly
competes with the other fabrication techniques used for mass produced
parts and assemblies. In part this is a result of the mindset of
designers and engineers who have been educated under the framework of
the benefits derived from the first industrial revolution.
With the recent development of higher speed RP equipment, the
availability of new materials with improved 'strength,' are we now in
position to consider design/fabrication that is customized for the
application (one or very few of a kind) and use a design that is
suited to the materials available? There are many instances in which
either the need is individual or where standard components just do not
fit well enough. Can the added cost of RP be justified by the
customization provided? These will probably be higher cost, high value
added products. Medical applications are an area in which we have seen
some gain by RP. Hopefully the health insurance companies won't snuff
it out. Part of the obstacle that needs to be overcome is that this
represents out-of-the-box conceptualization, which requires a mindset
adjustment. Is anyone looking along these lines?
________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.de/
Organisation: projekt oekonux.de