Re: BOM vs BAM

From: Mark F1diddler <f1diddler_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 18:59:08 -0000

--- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, William Gowen <wdgowen@...> wrote:
...I would expand the allowed materials to include carbon laminates and pultrusions - partly because a number of my models would be illegal if carbon pultrusions were illegal. I think these should be considered as "raw materials" in the same way that boron fibers are considered "raw materials".>>

Bill, in message 13479 I was attempting to say almost the same thing--that "factory carbon" is a raw material for our purposes, whether stiffened by pultrusion/pregreg or not. It was the secondary _reworking_ of the carbon (into a model component) that should fall under BOM disqualify. However, can't think of good way to define any of that in terms of "adhesives" like the other items, because anyone can call their basement a factory, and take limp carbon strands, be the first to add resin, and designate that's the "initial factory shape." So yes here's a little problem, and here I need suggestions for better defining a BOM intention consistent with the rest of it.
Thanks,
MB
 
Received on Tue Oct 23 2012 - 11:59:09 CEST

This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:47 CET