Editorial
Article Type: Editorial From: Rapid Prototyping Journal, Volume 18, Issue 1
Welcome to the 18th Volume of the Rapid Prototyping Journal (RPJ). I recently had the pleasure of attending the International Conference on Advanced Research in Virtual and Rapid Prototyping (VRAP) in Leiria, Portugal. The range and depth of research reported at the conference was very impressive. At the conference, I was able to meet with several of the RPJ Editorial Board members as well as my two co-editors, Ian Gibson and Dave Bourell. A topic of conversation that was raised on more than one occasion was what consequences should the increasing use of the ASTM standard term “additive manufacturing” within our community have upon the journal, if any. It has been muted that a change in journal name might be appropriate. Changing a journal’s name this is not a trivial matter and involves significant effort and bureaucracy. It is not the sort of thing to be done without careful consideration and certainly not something to be repeated frequently. It is certainly true that the term “rapid prototyping” is fast becoming dated and now only refers to an increasingly diminishing part of the RPJ’s research scope. The debate is muddied somewhat by the fact that “additive manufacturing” is not yet a universally accepted term. Indeed, in the popular press, the term “3D printing” is in common use, despite the fact that it really only describes a subset of AM technologies. Hence there is a tension between recognising that a new name may be desirable but also not being absolutely sure what this name should be. I raise the matter here because I would appreciate greatly any input from readers of the RPJ.
Another conversation topic raised at VRAP was the whole concept of user or consumer design, i.e. where product form is wholly or partly determined through direct input from the product end-user. I have mentioned this term in previous editorials but it seems that this once speculative idea is fast becoming an everyday occurrence through the adoption of “entry-level” design software. Such software includes Google Sketchup, Tinkercad, 3DTin, 3DVIA Shape,MoI and Sculptris. Each works in a different way, including some fundamental differences in modelling approach, but they have the common aim of opening up 3D design to non-professional designers. Many of them can generate STL files directly and so the conversion into a 3D physical model is relatively straightforward. When combined with an “entry-level” AM machine or through access to on-line “3D printing services” the world of 3D design and production becomes readily accessible. In regard to consumer design,the question of “how” has been tackled. The questions of “why”,“when”, “what” and “for whom” still need to be explored. The interesting aspect of this research is that answers will not be forthcoming from the technological domain alone. The research must be cross-disciplinary with additional input coming from sociologists, business schools, educationalists and others.
Ian Campbell
