What's in a name?

{RANT}

Why are there so many terms being used in AM?

People tend to make cautious steps when first encountering some new like Additive Manufacturing (AM). So, it's probably natural to be a little confused about the ROI (that's Return on Investment, and not Region of Interest, Radius of Influence or Related Organic Inbred), but it can be more baffling trying to understand the differences, or what the actal techniques that are being used in AM. Thank goodness there has been no lack of interest (I hasten to add that that's been found in abundance across many sectors, but unfortunately many times over it's been misguided or unsupported). Consequently, the somewhat confused view of AM has had a knock-on effect, in generating nervousness around the uptake of AM, this "disruptive technology". This may not have been helped by the ever changing landscape over the last decade or so, with many new companies introducing a new form of AM, or so they would have you beleive. It seems like every couple of months or so a new technique springs up, and this continues to lead to ever more names and terms being introduced. No wonder that the market is still confused, uncertain, and sometimes reluctant.

"Do I want to invest my millions in this unproven technology, when next year it may have been updated or replaced by something new?"

Just imagine what it would be like if everytime Ford, Vauxhall, or JLR introduced a new  , Human Interfaced Transport System (HITS), Speed Controlled Assisted Motion (SCAM), or Variable Velocity-Vector Vehicle (VVVV).

"I'm really not sure I should buy a new car from Lotus this year, hmmm. I've just heard about this totally new technology known as a SCAM, and apparently the introduction of HITS packs a big punch in the car market this year. Oo! And I know Car World are going to be writing a piece on VVVVa-oom, or whatever it's called!"

I can just see one of the car companies deciding to try and trademark the word "Automobile", or "Car".

Shut the front door!

Over the course of my involvment with AM, I've seen so many attempts by individuals, and companies to come up with a new name for the systems and processes they are using, and crazier still trying and add some verbiage to make out they're doing something different to what has already been done. Bloody hell people, when laser welding was introduced there wasn't a mad drive by all concerned to introduce Laser Assisted Relative Fusion (LARF), or Joining by Optical Kinetic Energy (JOKE) devices. (What do you get if you cross a ......, I think we'd all be having a bit of laugh about that.)

When I was first charged with trying to develop new business for Rapid Prototyping, and creating the justification for using the technology to manufacture parts in this way, I first of all had to make prospective clients understand the capabilities. On many occasions, no matter how many times, or in how many ways, I tried to describe the process (of spreading a layer of fine metal powder, then melting some of it by following the outline of a section from a 3D CAD model, and repeating this process over and over), there would invariable be one or more people that would think the parts weren't solid, still needed to be fully "cooked in an oven", or they just couldn't imagine how a large 3D object could be made this way.

BUT! As soon as I started asking people if they understood what welding was, and if they'd heard of laser welding, and then asked them to think of melting the powder like welding and joining metal, but just at a very tiny scale, then more often than not the light came on and all could see the possibilities.

Yes, of course, I know AM is not exactly the same as welding, so please just bury the prejudice, and see the bigger picture.

When I was asked if the metal was strong enough, produced from the all new technology, I would ask whether they thought the welds on a ship were strong enough. If I was asked it's safe to keep adding layer upon layer of these welds, I'd ask whether they were already familiar with weld repairs, or in-fill welding. I've also occasionally thrown in the example of weld-cladding, that had, has, been an acceptable process for decades already. As an undergrad (many moons ago) I was involved in a project studying submerged-arc welding to clad nuclear fuel process vessels. That involved metal powders, that involved building something up one layer at a time, and that was a very risky industry, but no one ever turned round and questioned what was going on in the same way that they have since the "introduction" of AM.

I'd like you to consider, many times the people I was making the introduction to weren't metallurgists, or even engineers a lot of the time, but most of the time they all knew about, or had heard of, welding. They all recognised that welding was an acceptable and proven industrial process. And, by releasing them of the burden of having to understand technology or new science, they all were able to envisage, and accept that metal RP, ALM, 3D printing (and this now applies to all of the other new terms that have been bandded about since then, so get over it) were basically something they already new about.

Eureka - acceptance!

Remember, it's human nature to worry about something you don't understand, to reject everything enveloped in uncertainty, and to try to ignore anything that can't be explained.

So, if you take anything from this, just try to explain why AM is similar to something familiar, rather than different, and/or disruptive.

AM is here to stay, and it's been with us a very long time already, just go ask the Pharaohs. Now, since I've been sitting in my kitchen whilst writing this, I'm off to try and find an egg to suck.