RE: Cast Tooling

Date: Mon Jun 03 1996 - 14:45:35 EEST


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
options such as scanning or Capture Geometry Inside (CGI) to acquire a
sufficient number of data points in a reasonable time without extensive
programming effort. Is this the case, or am I reading too much into your
process? How do you do it?

E. Derek Smith
Motorola Radio Products Group
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
(954) 723-4790

From: on Sun, Jun 2, 1996 3:34 PM
Subject: RE: Cast Tooling

X-Authentication-Warning: major set sender to owner-rp-ml using
Encoding: 37 TEXT
X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0
Precedence: bulk

We are working on a software based technology that effectively adds
non-uniform shrinkages. In essence:
 - we make a part with the normal shrinkages,
 - measure the resulting shape,
 - feed this into a software program that calculates the shape that
     should be fed to the RP machine to make a better part (without

If you are interested, send me an Email and I'll send you more info.

     Bert van den Berg
     Institute for Integrated Manufacturing Technologies
     National Research Council of Canada
From: rp-adm
To: ''
Subject: RE: Cast Tooling
Date: Friday, May 31, 1996 5:49PM

Don Wilde writes----------

Yes, Erkut. That is indeed the biggest problem. We have software that=20
adds shrinkage factors automatically, but of course complex geometries=20
don't shrink equally. .................


Is the software commercially available? Could you give us more info. on =
how it works Also, do you have any data/literature on the effect of part =
geometry/mass on shrinkage? Thank you.

Kamesh =20

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 22:37:22 EEST