Re: Sander's Modeler
From:
Hugh Jack, Marshall Burns (Ennex Corporation)
Date:
Monday, February 20, 1995
From: Hugh Jack, Marshall Burns (Ennex Corporation)
To: Hugh Jack, RP-ML
Date: Monday, February 20, 1995
Subject: Re: Sander's Modeler
On Mon, 20 Feb 1995, Hugh Jack wrote:
> I hope I didn't miss this earlier, but I noticed that the Sander's Modeler
> was compared to the Cubital SGC process. Are they they the same. If not, how
> does it differ?
Dear Hugh,
Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear enough. What is similar about the two
machines is that they both build up a layer (by very different processes)
and then work down that layer slightly with a milling process. Everything
else about the machines is as different as night and day. But this one
similarily means that they share three abilities:
(a) Precise control of the thickness of each layer, including the
ability to easily change the thickness from layer to layer,
(b) The opportunity to improve the surface properties of each layer
in preparation for adhesion to the next layer. I don't know if Sanders
benefits from this possibility, but Cubital definitly uses it to
advantage, and
(c) Ability to erase a layer, or several layers, if an error has
been detected.
This kind of subtractive processing should be carefully
distinguished from that used by Helisys and Kira. The milling done by
Cubital and Sanders is strictly 2-dimensional, with no geometrical
control in the horizontal plane. In the Helisys and Kira machines, on the
other hand, the subtractive processes are an integral part of the
formation of the full 3-dimensional geometry.
Previous message
| Next message
Back to 1995 index