sloan wrote:Care to put some hard numbers on that? Start with the capital investment costs you claim were ignored. Please show me where they were ignored and what they should have been.
I apologize if you feel put on the defensive. Maybe more to the point is another series of questions: 1) A post in this thread mentions the actual cost of the capital equipment. Assuming the accuracy of the equipment cost as reported, that is a valid data point. But unless it is usefully related somehow by say, seeing its relation to the cost of the prototyped object, the data is meaningless because it is disconnected in relation to the subject (the cost of making the stuff using 3D print technology.)
1a) Data is not information unless it is useful.
It would be useful to tie the cost of the equipment used in fabrication into the cost of the product fabricated.
2) A post in this thread says the engineer with the frame prototyping for a NASA space station project was charged 150 bucks.
The perceived allusion that this was an inexpensive way to avoid traditional setup costs for machining is an illusion,
because it has not been tied into the cost drivers that define setup/prototype costing
(primarily overhead, which in this discussion includes the capital equipment.) Follow?
Finally the obvious, and sadly emotionally-charged (but in business, emotionally indefensible) questions:
"who paid for the printer?" "who paid for your time?" and "who paid for the materials?"
These resources did not just drop out of the sky like manna from heaven.
Now I don't have a horse in this race, so-to-speak.
I am also not a machinist, but I am very much a respecter of tradesmen and (frankly) reason.
If you have a 3D print lab at a college or university and are not compelled by the university to recover the cost of your capital equipment when costing your deliverables, great. But to intentionally avoid disclosing that fact promotes the technology (which is your horse in the race) without illuminating the true cost of manufacture (a profound dis-service to students, and readers here on tubenet.) I guess I understand why you sounded a bit defensive.
-30-
Care to put some hard numbers on that? Start with the capital investment costs you claim were ignored. Please show me where they were ignored and what they should have been.
