Talk:Rapid prototyping

message: Hi to all. I'd like to know if i can add a link to a public forum where rapid prototyping is discussed. It's a company forum open to public. Thanks. I hope this is the right place to ask for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.50.165.160 (talk • contribs) 06:51, October 28, 2006  (UTC)
:Look at WP:EL for the rules on external links.  Forums are listed under the "links normally to be avoided."  I think rules are somewhat flexible, but you need to think about whether you're benefiting wikipedia's article or the site.  --GargoyleMT 13:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request before editing 

message: Dear 137.132.3.12 i have removed your comment "Subtractive method is NOT a form of rapid prototyping. But it IS a manufacturing process.Hence there aren't 2 main methods of rapid prototyping!". Such opinions, while not totally wrong should never be done by vandalizing the articol. Use the discussion page please. ALoopingIcon 12:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed in article comment 

message: ALoopingIcon, you removed an external link I placed there. When I placed that link there, it was the only link on that topic (materials used in Rapid Prototyping) and it was in line with the other links, and not a repeat of any other information in the main article. You also had no talk that this was planned, and you also left other, newer, links repeating the information of mine. I believe you were out of line. Ninahale 19:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That link covered only the materials used by the FDM and Eden (Objet) machines that RedEye (Stratasys) offers prototypes from.  Stereolithography materials and Selective Laser Sintering materials are missing, and they are very popular technologies in the US.  Few companies involved in rapid prototyping are represented here, but their machines and materials might belong best on their company pages.  --GargoyleMT 16:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed in External Links 

message: This section needs to be added. Perhaps we need a disambiguation page for "rapid prototyping" - not sure how this should be structured. Jpaulm 15:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rapid prototyping (computing) 

message: I removed "Due to the high degree of flexibility and adaptability required by many rapid prototyping techniques, these applications typically require the use of robots or similar mechanisms." from the article.  While the machines are automated, they (SLA, SLS, Objet) don't have anything that I'd consider a robot (or similar mechanisms) in them.  --GargoyleMT 18:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed content 

message: Should GARPA be mentioned in a seperate section? I do not think so.
--Jurriaan van Hengel 13:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't heard of it before reading this article, so it may not be well known in the USA. --GargoyleMT 23:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GARPA 

message: The list of techniques within the solid freeform fabrication are the same things that would be considered rapid prototyping. The rapid prototyping article has more text about the subject so doesn't it not seems reasonable to merge them? Not sure which title the merged article would take though. I think rapid prototyping is perhaps more widely used as a term, although solid freeform fabrication is perhaps more descriptive. What are other people's thoughts on any of this? - CharlesC 13:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that "solid freeform fabrication" (akin to "additive fabrication", or a couple others) is an artificial term created to more easily classify the various technologies that are used for prototyping.  I think few end-users, service providers, or machine manufacturers use (or perhaps are even aware of) the term "solid freeform fabrication."  That said, I think the rapid prototyping article might feel fairly cluttered if these technology overviews were put back in it.  I don't think either article should be moved or merged... But I'm open for discussing it (obviously, since I'm writing this).  --GargoyleMT 17:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the rapid prototyping article is small enough to contain info from both and not be a 'large' article by any means, but I also think that 'Solid freeform fabrication' is perhaps a better umbrella term in the long run because it covers any additive fabrication technique, whether used for prototyping or manufacture, although as you say it is not widely used currently. The merge was only a suggestion and I have to say I don't feel particularly strongly about it either way. - CharlesC 00:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad that you think perhaps there's a place for technology descriptions in the article again.  I am, however, against the use of "solid freeform fabrication" as the umbrella term that is used.  "Rapid prototyping", though seemingly vague, is a much more popular term.  I'm unsure about the origins of solid freeform fabrication, but I do believe it originates in academia.  The term is practically unused by the popular manufacturers of the machines    and perhaps by those providing the service (but there's no easy way to construct a google search to check).  It's true that eventually the rapid manufacturing and rapid prototyping articles may cover the same material, but we can merge them if that time comes... --GargoyleMT 13:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a couple of weeks since the last comment on the rapid prototyping page about the merge with solid freeform fabrication.  Have you come to a conclusion about your proposed merge?  --GargoyleMT 17:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No I'm afraid I haven't really. I was perhaps expecting some others to comment too - I didn't really want to propose something and action it without getting a few other opinions. If no-one seems particularly bothered I'll remove the notices and these comments can remain for others to add to in future. -- CharlesC 21:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the information contained in the solid freeform fabrication page would fit nicely within the rapid prototyping page. I agree with GargoyleMT that the title should be rapid prototyping as this is the more commonly used (although less descriptive) term. Perhaps a section discussing the fact that the terms associated with RP are not yet standardized would be in order.. Catradar 05:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging with [[Solid freeform fabrication]]

message: I would like to propose adding Electron Beam Freeform Fabrication to the list of rapid prototyping technologies.  It's a new technology from the Johnson Space Center and NASA's Langley Research facility. Here is some more information about it:
* Patent
* www.sciaky.com Company with the License for the technology
The main advantage of the technology as far as I can tell is that it can create solid steel parts from a number of different metal alloys that other methods such as lasers cannot because of the reflective properties of the materials. Also, the machine can be manufactured to weight around 100 pounds, and they have plans to install and use them in space stations or space shuttles. The other main idea is that it is not limited to "prototyping," because the parts are solid and strong enough to be used in real applications, so it becomes more of an onsite rapid manufacturing method as opposed to just prototyping.
Would this technology be a good candidate for the chart on this page? I'm not completely sure about all the differences between this and Electron Beam Melting, but I do know that there are significant differences. Anyways, I just wanted to start a discussion with any interested parties. I'm in a class at school where I have to investigate this technology and evaluate how it can be commercialized or licensed to public companies. thanks for the help,
-dave 15:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electron Beam Freeform Fabrication 

message: Does anyone have an opinion concerning whether this and 3D printing should be merged?  If so, under which name? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There are slight differences, but the two terms are used interchangeably in some circles.  Rapid prototyping is the traditional term used in manufacturing and machining communities.  3d printing is a new term meant to be more descriptive of the process, rather than the use.  Considering this article is a stub, it probably should be merged into 3d printing. --ssd (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Well, as I said, 3d printing is descriptive of the process, while rapid prototyping is descriptive of the intent.  I see no particular reason why additive or subtractive shows speed or resolution.  The intent of rapid prototyping is to produce an initial piece that maybe only partially functional or may be used to make molds to produce the final piece.  3d printing usually produces the final part directly though a process that is typically additive, but could be subtractive or a combination of additive and subtractive I suppose. --ssd (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with 3D printing? 

message: The prototyping article
mentions that people often build a first "rapid prototype" of electronic devices on 
breadboard or stripboard or perfboard or wire-wrap board,
non-electronic devices with a brassboard,
with a link to this rapid prototyping article.
Is there some other article that describes such prototyping?
Or does one need to be created?
Or should this "rapid prototyping" article
have a section describing such prototyping using such boards?
--DavidCary (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  prototyping boards 

message: This article appears too narrow in scope.  CAD/CAM is just one, albeit important, area.  Rapid prototyping occurs in many fields, for instance, electronic circuits, genetic circuits (synthetic biology) and of course software.  Perhaps the article should reflect the generality rather than focus on CAD/CAM. pgr94 (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is too narrow in scope