Editorial

Citation

Campbell, I. (2010), "Editorial", Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 16 No. 5. https://doi.org/10.1108/rpj.2010.15616eaa.001

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: Rapid Prototyping Journal, Volume 16, Issue 5

Dr Eujin Pei, a former PhD student of mine, recently undertook some quite extensive experimental trials using the RapMan 3D printing system (www.rapmanusa.com), under the direction of Professor Deon de Beer at the Vaal University of Technology in South Africa. Their aim was to discover the limitations of the technology in terms of ease-of-use and the quality of models that it could produce. The parts that are assembled to make the machine cost less than £1,000 to buy so it might be expected that the system would not be able to generate very useful models. However, some of the models that he eventually produced were quite complex in shape and their quality was not a million miles away from those produced on commercial machines of the early 1990s. I use the word “eventually” quite deliberately because it took some time before the idiosyncrasies of both the control software and the machine itself were understood and dealt with. One of the difficulties is that the software is very “open” and a large number of variables could be altered to control the machine operation and model build characteristics. As a result, it took quite a lot of “fiddling around” before a robust combination of parameters settings was determined. Once this was achieved, a series of increasingly more complex models was built on the machine. These showed that the machine was capable of building useful models but that removal of supports and fixation of the models to the build platform are both problematic. In this respect, the system is not really suitable for professional model making but it is an extremely useful educational tool. The ability to vary so many parameters and, to some extent, tinker with the hardware allows students to get a very good understanding of how the system works and to conduct simple build optimisation experiments. Therefore, the system proved its immediate usefulness, despite its obvious limitations. In addition, with some further development of the control software and machine hardware (such as a separate support material capability), I believe it would be possible for this system to be used to support small-scale product development projects, e.g. lone inventors or “garage company” start-ups. The ease-of-use, speed of operation and accuracy would compare very favourably with more conventional forms of model making, such as the shaping of blue-foam or clay. This would open up a whole new market for rapid prototyping that is currently beyond the range of even the lowest-cost commercial systems. It would also be interesting to see how the commercial system developers would react. Currently, much of their technology is protected by patents, but some of these will be expiring in the next few years, and so the low-cost 3D printer market could be thrown wide open. It should be possible to have a low-cost system in every high school that would put additive technologies on an even footing with many of the 2D technologies that schools have had access to in recent years, e.g. laser cutting. This would also have a knock-on impact on the teaching of design within schools and the future potential for youth entrepreneurship. This is one of the reasons why de Beer was so keen to explore the technology since the ability for small-scale enterprise to prosper will be a key part of economic development in South Africa. Given the current economic situation around the world, this approach may be well worth following in many other nations, also.

Ian Campbell