Yet another interesting dynamic raised on the RP-ML

Yes, okay, you might be forgiven for thinking that I do little else other than read posts on the RP-ML. It is a side line, I promise, I do work as well!!

It does raise interesting issues in the world in which I spend much of my time though, and therefore sets in motion different thought processes that I can unleash here.

Battles are starting to rage on the forum, and it has highlighted the vast chasm that exists between the "real" world of industry and the more "idealistic" domain of academia. The irony being that developments in one often depend on the other — and that goes both ways. They coexist, with a tenuous connection that is vital to both, but with levels of suspicion, and even outright antipathy, which are immediately obvious when the two come together.

In my experience, neither side is opposed to raucous debate over a few pints when in the same room, but looking back, I don't think the issue has ever been resolved fully — neither will it be. I have spent much of my working life somewhere between the two and as a result I have respect for both and can see the value of both. In the oft hallowed halls of superior academic institutions (across the globe) the desire for knowledge (and recognition, let's be honest) drives technological developments in an environment that positively encourages all boundaries to be pushed to breaking point, with fairly deep pockets to fund such activities. In the realms of industry, and manufacturing in particular, things have to be made, and they have to work — reliably — often on tight budgets; so if there is a proven way of doing it — why reinvent the wheel?

Well, you can probably see where this is going ...... the point is that additive manufacturing would not be where it is today without the research and proven results produced by leading universities in the field. Similarly, without pioneers in industry using and proving the technologies for real applications, the whole industry would come to nothing.

They are inter-dependent on many levels, but neither side will ever really like that fact.

What's in a Name?

I mentioned the RP-ML last week, and it really is seeing a huge volume of posts over recent days. If this continues one might even be able to label it a full-on revival of the forum that had been seriously waning.

Talking of labels, that is just what the latest debate on the forum is covering. Once again the topic is what terminology is universally acceptable for additive processes. The thread has been met with the inevitable howls of anguish from individuals on the list that have seen/heard this discussion hundreds of times before. I did respond to the initial post posing the question as I am strongly of the opinion that this is an important issue, regardless of how many times it comes around and how long it takes to get a unanimous verdict. However, my post seems to have got lost in the ether — it may turn up, it may not — but having my own 'ether' space I have therefore decided not to waste the time spent writing it and post it here.

Under the thread title: Re: [rp-ml] milling=am?, it went as follows:

It's interesting, and inevitable, that this subject raises its head again. It will rumble on for some time yet — probably years rather than weeks or months. It's the nature of an emerging industry, and that is what we are all a part of.

Lino was absolutely right, a thread ran on the RP-ML at approximately the same time last year, titled: [rp-ml] International Terminology Standards. The thread was started by Terry Wohlers, in preparation for an upcoming ASTM meeting to try to start to establish universally accepted standards.

There are so very many variables here that it is hard to condense it all into a concise overview, but I'll give it a go.

The term Rapid Prototyping is the one that is most recognised as a result of its longevity. The problem with it is that "prototyping" does not cover all of the applications of additive technology today, for casting (Rapid Casting), tooling (Rapid Tooling) and final production products (Rapid Manufacturing). Originally, it was used to differentiate additive prototyping from traditional forms of creating prototypes, but now it seems to incorporate any method of making prototypes very quickly. This is another reason why many of the 'additive die-hards' have back away from the term!

Furthermore, there is a school of thought that "Rapid" is not correct terminology — for any additive application — because the processes themselves are relatively slow compared with other traditional and established manufacturing processes such as milling/machining etc. The "Rapid" was originally used to convey faster product development times and speedier time-to-market overall.

The quest last year seemed to be for a universal umbrella term for the additive technologies, of which 3D printing emerged as a clear contender, along with Additive Manufacturing on the responses from the RP_ML membership. I believe I am correct in saying that the ASTM meeting resulted in the consensus of Additive Manufacturing. Personally, I think that the additive processes themselves have gone in two different directions, the higher spec machines capable of manufacturing production parts (Additive Manufacturing), and the lower spec machines for concept and functional models (3D Printing / Rapid Prototyping).

What is interesting in the latest thread is that it has been started based on a quest for classification of additive AND subtractive processes, with both being accepted as legitimate options.

I don't think it is about hierarchy, it is just about labelling, and therefore clarity. Personally, I believe it is important to debate and ultimately establish the terminology, as it is the lack of clarity that has contributed to the slow understanding and therefore uptake of the technologies themselves (along with other factors such as entry level price points and patents - as discussed last week).

It's just my opinion of course, and subsequent posts from others involved in the ASTM and the resulting committee suggest that the industry is much further down the road to universal acceptance than I had anticipated (which is a good thing). However, disseminating, distributing and implementing the committees decisions still needs more work. There is still much confusion out there — hence the repetitive threads.

Additive Manufacturing is, it seems, the final decision, and is being used as the catch-all phrase for additive processes, regardless of application (prototyping, casting, tooling, manufacturing etc). I can get on board with this, I certainly don't think it is wrong, I would say, however, that as of today, I am not 100% convinced. I still think the industry is going two ways and I don't necessarily think it is vital to keep the two together. I think that the additive manufacturing and the 3D Printing markets can develop, grow and flourish with different "labels". It might even make them stronger!?

3DP: What will the future be?

Having posted on the RP-ML (rapid prototyping - mailing list) fairly late yesterday evening in response to an extremely interesting thread (that got started as the result of a benign, but slightly distasteful offer by an RP-ML member to supply an stl file of the would-be Detroit bomber's face) I found myself unable to sleep in the early hours of this morning as I debated the future of 3D printing and additive manufacturing — with myself.

And, oh yes, I am more than aware of how sad that is!!!!

In my post, I stated that I no longer believed that we would one day see a 3D printer in every home — with people ordering any stl file they may wish from the internet, of any given consumer product or replacement part. This vision has been greatly expounded during the last decade by many excited individuals prophetically revealing the future of 3D printing, myself among them at one time. I had since arrived at a more balanced view that this was unlikely, because as much as it sounds like a good idea, the concept of millions of households trying to 'print' 3D products in polymers, metals or any other material was simply unrealistic. Most lay people struggle with getting Word and A4 paper to do what they want without wanting to throw the devices through a window, much less manipulate stl files and get the desired result from a 3D printer in the desired material(s).

However, my post also applauded the enlightened approach of spreading the word about 3D printing by putting the technology into the hands of students — not just those at university — but children as young as 5, as I mentioned in yesterday's post. It's already happening here in the UK. You may have picked up on the fact that I think this is a really great way of channelling young people towards the fields of design and engineering. However, the thing that was keeping me awake last night was the thought that if we keep doing it, and in a few generations time 3D printing (and other advanced technologies such as 3D CAD, rendering, 3D Scanning and simulation/VR etc) become common place in our schools, and children are happily familiar with them, why would they not be confident about having them at home as and when they acquire their own homes?

So, have I come full circle? Am I back to thinking that the potential for this technology is as big as I once believed, in terms of the target market being anyone and everyone, rather than the more tempered opinion of it being relevant to every company that is involved with developing new products?

Well, it was 2.30 am, and despite the passing of time I am not sure which way I'm going on this yet. In reality, I'll probably traverse a few more circles, maybe engage in some heated debates as there are strong feelings on both sides of this argument, but the answer is probably not going to emerge in my life time, I do like being a part of the history though!!

Incidentally, the RP-ML is a great forum — it can go quiet for months at a time, but when it kicks off, it really kicks off. There are many knowledgeable individuals on there, many from the earliest days of RP, some that believe it will solve all the world's problems and some so cynical I laugh out loud as I read their posts. I highly recommend it for anyone involved with, or interested in, any type of additive processes.