3D Printers

Jewelry Discussion
41 
Sure you can sit at home and listen to your stereo, but it will
never compare to hearing live musicians play! See any similarity?

Sort of like the differences between man made diamonds and natural
diamonds?

Maybe that’s not a good example [Charles being a bit coy], because
some of the man made diamonds need an $80,000 machine to spot the
difference.

There’s one of these machines in Australia. The down side of this
machine is that the stones need to be removed from the setting.

Technology advances to the point where the output is
indistinguishable from anything hand made or natural.

As far as I know Tanzanite is the only stone that cannot be made by
man. yet.

Regards Charles A.

42 
I just want to say that this has been pushed far enough.

Thomas, you say this as if CAD is going away.

Sure you can sit at home and listen to your stereo, but it will
never compare to hearing live musicians play! See any similarity?

No. You can only listen to a CD, but all of your senses are immersed
at a concert. The number of senses used for experiencing jewelry does
not change depending on the method of construction. Your argument
should have been listening to blues on a CD versus a FLAC recording.
And then I would have told you that art is art. A CAD artist can
deliver a FLAC recording. The fact that the majority of CAD is used
for top 20 radio proves nothing.

Most will agree that the casting phase is where it all falls
apart.

Jon, casting, finishing, setting are all difficult for models done
by a CAD modeler who doesn’t know jewelry. I cast and finish my own
models without a problem because I know better.

If we take CAD in isolation of anything else, then I withdraw all
my objections. 

So all the problems inherent to the process of converting image to
metal, are CAD's problems.

Leonid, so CAD can do anything and it’s the lost wax casting process
that’s your gripe? And anything that uses it, like us CADsters and
wax carvesters are only able to produce “chunky trinkets under the
guise of jewellery” for clients that have the “artistic sensibility
of a door knob”? I’m glad to see you are expanding your contempt to
everyone who does anything other than metal fabrication.

Do you realize how many people, in these 2 years, have completed
this ring using basic fabrication techniques

How many Leonid? I’ve never seen one. In the years you have been
talking about this challenge, no one else has ever seen one.

I have a challenge for you. If one of these rings actually exists,
send it to me. I will photograph it for you, for free. You can use it
on your website, share it with the list, whatever you want it’s up to
you.

43

Hi Leonid,

 The CAD model on my website together with video contains all the
 pertinent Please realize that final appearance is the
 job of a setter. Of course model has to allow the setter to
 accomplish the task.

Well call me silly but I think the CAD on your website is almost a
different ring. Much chunkier than the one in your video, and
without the angled channels.

I’ve asked that a high res screen cap be taken from your video for
me to work with, if you have no objections. I’m sure someone can
provide me with some detail to work with.

No one can copy a specific ring design without specifications, by
hand or otherwise. The only real that has been released
is a screen grab showing one side of the ring only.

The CAD on your website is very crude in comparison to the actual
piece, which is no help. Just thinking, is this why your think CAD is
bad, because you personally can’t replicate your own ring using CAD.

I’ll wait until I get some detailed images of the claws, then I can
finish the ring.

Regards Charles A.

P. S. Just curious, how many people have manufactured your ring? Not
including the people that bought your DVD and haven’t actually made
your ring.

44

Hi interesting direction this discussion is moving.

Yet, it is casting that is incapable of the goal you posit. Why
then am I not hearing you bemoan casting? CAD isn't the limitation.

I did not think this was the key problem, well pointed out.

I thought it could be done with expensive equipment, like a top end
injection caster thats melts the metal in an inert gas.

OK so we can design things with CAD that can not be made with the
tools we have for casting.

Personally I am waiting for the silicon rubber that will take
precious metals.

Richard
Xtines Jewels

45

Hi

To think that I spent 2 years applying myself to something only to
learn that it is a fallacy.

CAD is not a fallacy, it is a tool with limitations. That is all.

Using the CAD to produce what it is capable of doing can produce
interesting results.

It all comes down to design ability. There are some truly poor
designs from well equipped workshops.

The opposite is also true. A few quality tools in the hands of a
good designer can produce beauty.

Richard
Xtines Jewels

46 
One reason Leonid's ring has not been replicated is he has not
specified it, a grainy image of a ring is not a specification. It
is sort of like posting a bad image of a car and saying "ok build a
copy". If there was any real interest in a true challenge then
there would be a published spec and an impartial judge to compare
the attempts to Leonid's ring assuming his ring met the spec as
well.

Memory refresh is in order. The challenge started about 2 years ago
when a statement was made and any design can be replicated by simply
taking a picture; scanning picture into software; and software can
magically determine all the angles, thicknesses, and other necessary
details.

It is upon that statement when I offered a challenge.

Now I am required to provide full specification. But what fun would
it be? Obviously ring can be made. This is not the point. The point
was to demonstrate how weak CAD is in creativity department.

I designed this ring. Nobody gave me any specifications. I had an
idea, which I tried. It did not happen on first try. It did not
happen on second try.

It was a process of making it, studying problems, and developing
solutions.

I had no images to work from, grainy or otherwise. The challenge is
much easier.

There are images and even 3D model is available. Complains about
quality of images is simply pathetic, it is not even an excuse.

So, let me reiterate the challenge. If CAD is so capable as to make
experienced goldsmith obsolete, than it should be quite easy to
replicate the ring. Just do what I did and use CAD to shorten the
development process. I had to rework things in metal. In CAD it
supposedly much easier. Apparently not! Two yeas and nothing but
excuses.

Leonid Surpin

47

Hi

just caught a small sound byte, on the radio

there are 3D printers using silver. MIT is a leader in this field.

Already designs can be done at home and sent away for printing.

Coming soon to a corner near you.

Forget about worrying about OS outsourcing, the chain stores days
are now doomed.

Thank whichever god you choose.

I will try and get a Podcast, it was on ABC 90.7 Australia Sat
afternoon 1 June.

Richard
Xtines Jewels

48

Hi gang,

Quoting Leonid:

I had no images to work from, grainy or otherwise. The challenge
is much easier.

No it isn’t. You know that full well. Making one of something
without a print is easy. There’s no fixed target to aim for. You
just call whatever you hit “zero”.

Making two is where the challenge really kicks in, and it simply
can’t be done without decent images or drawings, and something to
derive scale from. I’ve been watching this “Make Leonid’s ring” thing
for years. Sorry if I sound a bit harsh, but this has to be the
umpteenth time this particular beast has shambled forth.

It’s a baited trap. Always has been. With no fixed print, no other
model, CAD or otherwise will ever measure up. They can’t. It’ll
always come down to Leonid’s opinion. No prizes for guessing which
way that’ll go.

For the CAD guys, make what you’re going to make, and get on with
making a living. Don’t waste your time playing a rigged game.

Now to totally confound expectations: Leonid does have one valid
point in all of this: wrought wire is stronger than cast, so he can
get away with thinner sections in a fabricated ring than CAD folks
can in a ring that’s output via casting. Just a limitation of the
process. Depending on what happens after the last soldering, you can
get away with much thinner sections than cast. Exploiting the
natural strengths of each process and material is what makes
metalsmithing so challenging, and what kept it as the highest of
high technology for most of human history. It’s also one of the
biggest weaknesses of CAD: there is no material. It’s all data. If
you know how to handle metal you can do some really cool things,
but you have to view CAD/CAM as a tool on the road to a finished
piece, not the ultimate environment for producing all things,
always.

Interestingly, there are some early iron age bronze fibulae that
have just exactly this mindset: casting was just a stop on the road,
not the final destination. They needed hard wire coiled up into a
spring and then into the pin for the fibula. So they cast the bow of
the fibula with a slug on the end (part of the sprue, actually) then
trimmed it down, forged it into wire, coiled that forged wire into a
spring, and ended up with a cast fibula with fully hardened springs
and pins, all integral. They did this by way of knowing and
exploiting the nature of their material, not getting hung up in
questions of whether the piece should be totally forged, or totally
cast. It wouldn’t have worked either way. It had to be a mixture,
and their procedure was directed by the end goal, not the processes
involved.

There are images and even 3D model is available. Complains about
quality of images is simply pathetic, it is not even an excuse.

Regards,
Brian

49 
I would say an intermediate level cad designer could knock this
out. 

I just will have to find the time between instructing, designing,
going to JCK, having company from Germany, etc. Then I will write
the instructions down and teach it like I do other things as well.
if, of course, it warrants it.

That sounds great! We may have found right man for the challenge.
Just remember that picture by itself is meaningless.

It needs to be done in metal, polished, and set with stones.

Leonid Surpin

50 
The CAD on your website is very crude in comparison to the actual
piece, which is no help. Just thinking, is this why your think CAD
is bad, because you personally can't replicate your own ring using
CAD.

Thank you, I have been trying to make this point over and over
again.

The CAD model represents basic geometry of the Eternity ring.

But without nuance of refining forms, which are easily done during
hand fabrication, and very very difficult to do in CAD, and without
refinement the ring looks crude and unappealing.

The hallmark of well crafted jewellery is that every line, every
curve, every tiniest detail is made attractive. From another hand all
these details must not standout, must not become detractors. It is a
very fine art which only comes with practice. It is like using
spices in fine cuisine, - without it dish taste bland, and if too
much it spoils the wine.

CAD is fine for making hamburgers, where faults are covered with a
lot of ketchup.

A steak to be served with fine Bordeaux can only be prepared by
hand.

Leonid Surpin

51 
Memory refresh is in order. The challenge started about 2 years
ago when a statement was made and any design can be replicated by
simply taking a picture; scanning picture into software; and
software can magically determine all the angles, thicknesses, and
other necessary details.

Yes a memory refresh is in order.

My assertation was along the lines that CAD can replicate human
designs.

Leonid’s assertation was that his eternity ring could not be
replicated using CAD.

Leonid also stated that the challenge would be passed if the result
of the CAD work could be set with stones.

In other discussions we talked about 3D scanning, but that was
outside of the scope of the challenge.

The challenge is ONLY replicate Leonid’s ring and set it with
stones.

Now I am required to provide full specification. But what fun
would it be? Obviously ring can be made. This is not the point. The
point was to demonstrate how weak CAD is in creativity department.

No that’s not what’s asked for. What is needed for a fair challenge
is another view of the claws.

I designed this ring. Nobody gave me any specifications. I had an
idea, which I tried. It did not happen on first try. It did not
happen on second try.

There’s a real problem here. The CAD challenge is not about making a
new ring, but replicating an existing ring. It’s not about a NEW
idea, it’s about DUPLICATION.

I had no images to work from, grainy or otherwise. The challenge
is much easier.

I agree with you the challenge would be much easier than creating a
new ring. The problem is that what the ring actually looks like is
not fully known to me. Try making a replica of the inside of the
Sydney Opera House with only an external image.

There are images and even 3D model is available.Complains about
quality of images is simply pathetic, it is not even an excuse.

I dispute this, the 3D model on your website is too crude and clumsy
to use in the challenge. It’s definitely not the same ring, and
honestly it would be rejected if you sent that model for manufacture.
It’s simply not good enough to use as a reference.

So, let me reiterate the challenge. If CAD is so capable as to
make experienced goldsmith obsolete, than it should be quite easy
to replicate the ring. Just do what I did and use CAD to shorten
the development process. I had to rework things in metal. In CAD it
supposedly much easier. Apparently not! Two yeas and nothing but
excuses.

So, let ME reiterate. It will be quite easy to replicate your ring,
if we get enough details of the claws.

Yep 2 years and no details provided, but you do get an extremely
poor 3D model. When requesting details, none are provided.

It’s an impasse at the moment. Without that I am left to
guess. Guessing would lead to failure in a replication challenge
(but maybe this is already known).

Regards Charles A.

52

If I remember correctly the original discussion years ago was not
that CAD could not design the ring, it was that it would not be as
strong from being cast. Also not as finished as a handmade ring would
be. This thread has turned into the CADsters trying to prove a point.
I think we all know that the ring can be drawn using CAD, let’s get
over that. I do custom work all day everyday and don’t have drawings
or specs. I could hand make a ring just like Leonid’s from the grainy
picture. The prong angles might be a little different but so what,
that is not the point. The point is making a ring as strong and
approximately the same size metal work.

Leonid might be an opinionated old fool, but are you CADsters not
opinionated young fools for just stating what you could do. Leonid
has made the ring, all you guys have done is say it can be done. Show
me.

Eventually this thread will go on so long that technology will allow
for the ring to be made, is that what you guys are waiting for.

My offer of supplying the gold and stones for the ring is still out
there (of course I want the finished product) and no one has taken
me up on it.

Bill Wismar

53

I don’t use CAD, so I don’t really have a dog in this fight. But
keeps changing the rules. I also don’t recall ever reading that CAD
will make blood and guts (brick and mortar) goldsmiths obsolete.

If a CAD rendering and replication of a ring is the goal and
challenge then it seems to follow that the renederer would have an
actual ring to examine.

54 
It's a baited trap. Always has been. With no fixed print, no other
model, CAD or otherwise will ever measure up. They can't. It'll
always come down to Leonid's opinion. No prizes for guessing which
way that'll go.

May be it is a baited trap, but it is also easily avoidable provided
that goldsmith understands the process. And it is not my opinion that
matters.

That type of work can only be done in separate components, which are
individually polished, and assembled. There are no other way to do
it. Anyone with modicum of experience at the bench should have seen
it right away.

One can take a position that separate components can be done in CAD,
than cast, polished, and assembled. Theoretically it looks like
reasonable approach. In practice however, CAD technician would have
to estimate individual shrinkage of each components. Unless the
gallery is fit to the base like a glove, clean soldering is
impossible. There will be excess of solder all over the place, which
are impossible to clean due to ring geometry.

To make gallery heavier to allow for adjustment also not a good
solution.

If shop has people who can fit things together with precision, than
none of it is necessary. Just do ring from scratch. It will be
cheaper, faster, and better.

But to continue the approach of making separate components using
CAD, let’s assume that CAD technician got lucky and correctly
estimated shrinkages for the base and for the gallery. This is a big
leap of faith, but I am willing to entertain it, because it would not
matter in the end.

The connection of gallery to base is very, very critical. The
surface area is tiny, but it has to withstand a lot of stress during
wear. Any encounter with hard object, while ring is on finger, sends
shockwave to this area. To insure durability, metal must have a
backbone, prongs must be shaped with dampening in mind, and
connection must be mechanical and not just a solder joint. Those who
have my DVD know how it is accomplished.

All that needs to be said here is the procedure of fitting them
together puts a lot of stress on gallery. If gallery is cast, it will
deform during that process making attempt of replication a total
waste of time.

I am not going to say anything about strength of construction. It
was quite correctly elucidated by Brian. There is nothing I can add
to that.

So yes, the challenge is a trap, an educational trap! CAD
practitioners cannot claim immunity from deficiency of casting
process, because CAD is an integral part of that process. Any chain
only as strong as it’s weakest link.

With all that disclosure, one may be put off from replicating the
ring. I say, go ahead and do it anyway. If you are already invested
in CAD, I am not going to convince you of anything, I know that. So
here is the opportunity to convince yourself. I have already
described some of the problems, so you know what to expect. All you
need to do is to find the solution. Much easier challenge, but still
could be a trap. All depends on how much do you actually know about
hand fabrication.

Leonid Surpin

55

Scientist have not yet been able to reproduce true Agates either.

56

Hi Bill,

Maybe I am a fool, but I’ve made pieces with CAD/CAM and by hand,
honestly I like both means of manufacture. The reason I chose CAD
for some projects is that I required a certain level of precision and
uniformity, that 95% of jewellers cannot do by hand (I certainly
can’t) e. g. 10mm gears 90 teeth that have to mesh perfectly, and
still look pretty. I mostly make by hand.

You can get fine and delicate results using either method. It just
depends on how much tuition you’ve had using the different methods.
Self taught is okay, but if you get taught by a professional you
learn a few more tricks is all.

I like to think I have a fairly open mind about these things. I
honestly don’t know if the casting technology is up to scratch to
complete Leonid’s ring challenge, but I’m interested enough to find
out.

That’s all I originally wanted to do. Then it got all messy, I
probably could have handled it better.

Thanks for the offer of the stones and metal, I know excellent
casting houses in Australia, and it shouldn’t cost me much. I know a
couple of good setters too, that would do a good job.

If I do get the model made (pending info), then I’ll get it printed
and cast, I’ll pay for it to. Then we’ll all know.

Kindest regards Charles A.

57

Hi Leonid,

But without nuance of refining forms, which are easily done during
hand fabrication, and very very difficult to do in CAD, and without
refinement the ring looks crude and unappealing

So what you’re saying is that because you personally can’t make the
refined forms in CAD then no one can?

I think this is where the problem lays. CAD, today, can make very
refined shapes, we know this. Replication digitally shouldn’t be a
problem, as you’ve stated in response to another poster.

Where the challenge comes in, is taking that digital image and
creating something in the physical world. Your real contention is
with the casting process, which compared to a hand wrought piece is
second best. Fortunately the challenge is about replicating your
eternity ring, polishing and setting stones there in.

Setting stones in a casting is nothing new, neither is polishing a
casting. I still think it can be done.

That’s what I’d like to attempt, the only thing we need is a good
image of the claws.

Regards Charles A.

58

Richard we saw these at the last Portland Jeweler’s Symposium. The
US military and medical industries have been using this technology
for a bit now.

It looks like the “replicators” from the old Star Treck series are
soon to be here.

Now where the heck are my personal jet pack and hover car?

Jo Haemer
timothywgreen.com

59

I have made several dozen of this type of ring during the course of
my career.

Some with collets similar to Leonid’s, others with U shaped collets,
with crown collets, wire collets and pave with a gallery underside.

Typically, they are not difficult to make, rather just a lot of
repetitive work that becomes very boring, very soon.

Leonid is correct in saying that a printed and cast ring cannot be
finished off as well as a hand assembled ring.

This is simply because all the methods of finishing such as
mechanical polishing, tumbling, electro polishing and bombing simply
do not match the quality of hand polishing on a polishing lathe.

Hand finishing each individual component before soldering takes
place makes for a good overall finish, and is pretty much the golden
rule for all high end jewellery.

What is incorrect however, is suggesting that cast components cannot
match the handmade components, both in strength and density.

Most certainly cast components can be of inferior quality but in
high end casting workshops, it is virtually impossible to discern a
difference.

Under a microscope maybe but to all and intents and purposes, more
than strong enough for day to day wear.

Estimating casting shrinkage,(typically at less than 3%) is quite
possible and the subsequent soldering operations can be done as
delicately as any handmade component.

Those skills are widely available amongst casters and goldsmiths.

However, this type of ring is usually made in high carat metals,
simply because the labor cost justify expensive material and that the
metal is able to keep its finished pre polish better than low
caratage metals.

One reason I suspect the Leonid has no high res picture of his
finished model, is that a ring like this will typically have more than
forty solder operations.

And since his model is made in silver, it will not retain it’s pre
finish polish and the solder joints will show pitting which would be
quite clear in a detailed photo.

Nevertheless, if one had to design a ring in CAD and then cast the
individual components, or hand make each individual component, the
resultant two rings would be identical to all intents and purposes.

This is simply because the subsequent hand operations would reduce
the precision that CAD introduces in the model.

Once finished and set, both would look handmade and
indistinguishable from each other.

meevis.com

60 
That type of work can only be done in separate components, which
are individually polished, and assembled.

If you were doing it at the bench, yes. If you used a CNC machine,
then yes. If you use a layering printer, the wax can be printed in
one operation.

So yes, the challenge is a trap, an educational trap! CAD
practitioners cannot claim immunity from deficiency of casting
process, because CAD is an integral part of that process. Any
chain only as strong as it's weakest link.

Depends on the people doing the castings. Some of the casting houses
miss terribly, but others are masters of their art.

So here is the opportunity to convince yourself.

It’s all I wanted to do :wink:

Regards Charles A.