Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun @ Tru6
Very good points here.
What might work as a v1.0 is the operator can determine a depth of material removal overall. That in itself would be a big help. For example, if there are 5 pits and a deep scratch, the deepest pit is 1 mm and the scratch is .05mm deep with .2mm deep pits here and there, having the entire piece sanded down .5mm would be very helpful.
In my thinking, the laser is used for:
Determining the entire scope and shape of the piece
Determining depth of flaws to be removed by sanding
That latter may be a fixed amount (operator controlled) based on the initial entire piece scan.
|
Couple of things.
You are not DIY'ng this.
The tolerances you are looking for are tight.
A $30K Artec Leo which is a pretty nice device won't pick up that .05mm because it's accuracy, under perfect conditions is, 0.1mm.
Accuracy of these devices is dependent on a variety of conditions including the materials reflective properties and how much energy they reflect back, the influence of surface reflectivity.
They run the gamut of Diffuse, think concrete, tends to scatter the energy and less comes back to the sensor.
Specular, shiny, metal, mirror, makes nice tight return energy groupings but can miss the sensor completely.
Reflexive, sends back the most energy, stuff like road signs and road paints that light up at night.
I just don't see a way to build or even buy what you are looking for that will generate the efficiency required to pay for itself.