> Derek_Smith-EDS014@email.mot.com wrote:
> > Bert,
> > I found your post interesting, and would appreciate if you could elaborate
> > on one point you made. You said you measure the resulting shape of the cast
> > part. I would think you would need many measurement points in order to
> > apply selective shrink correction factors in the next step of you process.
> > This would imply to me that you are probably not measuring the cast parts
> > with hand metrology equipment or a contact CMM. This leaves one with
> I'm wondering why you believe a contact CMM is insufficient for gathering point data. In my
> experience, this is still the most accurate digitizing tool and it allows you to take the
> points in a more "strategic" manner, with higher density in more convoluted areas. At the same
> time, you can measure features (form and position), a necessity if you're comapring to known
> Steve Farentinos
> PML, Inc.
> 201 W. Beach Ave.
> Inglewood, CA 90302
> 310 671-4345
> 310 671-0858 Fax
> 310 671-1862 BBS
Have you had experience with both CMM and lasers? How did time and costs compare? Were
there more problems with creating the model with either? We are considering buying a
laser and are not currently using a CMM.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 22:37:22 EEST