I was not minimizing the myriad valuable aspects to the cartridge system.
They are batches processed in cartridges that are not opened for a reason Hyperopia. They do not need to block other processes from happening, while sitting in one place.
I think the way you construct the process hypothetically, since we are not there, suggests a very static, non-parallel process that suggests zero productivity gain except the presumption you can do more in the same space, which I have always also believed, but not because you’ve got 10 “printer sized” machines going very slowly, in the same space as one clean room, which was basically what you said in the previous post and you did not address here. That’s not fundamentally a productivity gain 1 to 1, which is what the indication was in the sales literature. And if they had meant “because 10
Machines fit into the same space as the average clean room, they would have had to explain that or it would be deceptive.
Ultimately, the main work is done in the cartridge. With feeder and drawing tubes that are attacked for various processes. I believe industrial scale means more serial processing more efficiently, but not necessarily because they have to build 10
different “desktop printers”. I think you’re trying to describe the clinical machines, and coming up a simplified idea of how someone who does not manufacture might imagine a industrial commercial manufacturing process. And it may be that that is version 1.0, I have said that in the past, but it seems to me they have likely done more to the process from their descriptions and also that for some reason, not explained by your descriptions they got 10-15 times more productivity from a machine than a cleanroom. I suspect it is not because they have w bunch of desktop printers laying about. The clinical machine was supposed to be 10 times more efficient than 1 clean room, and I do not believe they ever said, per cubic area or suggested that the productivity gain was presuming multiple machines in the same space. I read all of the literature very carefully when I originally did my own analysis, when all of this first came out.
I just think some may be oversimplifying a layman’s notion of manufacturing and just suggesting they put more machines, 10-15, in the same space. I believe that is not what they were originally saying, and I believe that is not likely the best way that a company would scale a facility that would process these cartridges, but they may need to scale it only as they get more experience with the process. Almost all modern manufacturing starts simply and improves process by process until it is often unrecognizable from the original notions. Putting the process, centering it in a cartridge is a particular idea that makes it a very customizable, potentially highly parallel and serializable process, granted, still each cartridge carefully monitored and managed by set production managers. I think it is unlikely that you’d want to not have a set number at a time for a given manager, probably staggered.
As I said, maybe version 1.0 is a bunch of “desktop printers” each tied up for days, could be. But we don’t have enough information to presume the process that specifically.
Instead, we have numbers they gave us, 1) early productivity numbers from Flaskworks, and the most recent presentation which sets the product limit as they see it. I think, quite honestly, that’s all we can go on, and projections based on web discussions, at this point, is pure speculation and likely not to be accurate.
