3D Printers

Jewelry Discussion
61 
So what you're saying is that because you personally can't make
the refined forms in CAD then no one can?

I am going to describe how Eternity ring can be modeled in CAD under
10 minutes.

Gallery is made of symmetrical elements. Start with half of an
element giving it rough prismatic form. Start with cross-section and
extrude to a prism; reduce one end and extrude again. Repeat few
times to get tapering rod.

Bend the rod to conform to half element shape. Any refinement one
wants should be done at this stage, - any angle change, whatever…

Create copy of half of element using mirror reflection and joint two
together.

Now you have whole element which is perfectly symmetrical.

Replicate element using 360 degrees as a constrain and you have half
of the gallery.

Copy the gallery using mirror reflection again and voila, gallery is
done.

Run your model through Catmull-Clark to get smooth transitions.

As simple as that. To model the base is really elementary. No need
to mention it.

If the process I described is a revelation to you, than I want to ask
who taught you CAD ? If it is not, than the question would be what
took two years ? What all this about “I have to find the time”, or “I
need more specifications”, or pictures are grainy, and etc. There are
no pictures necessary, just a smidgeon of imagination.

One month apprentice knows that the first step in replicating
anything is to look for repeating element, because once symmetry is
found the process becomes elementary dear Watson(s). Brian is
correct. The challenge is a trap and not only due to technical
issues. It is a trap for CAD “masters” to reveal what they really
know, or don’t.

Leonid Surpin

62 
Now where the heck are my personal jet pack and hover car?

Forget the jet pack and hover car; where’s my robot maid?!

Elliot Nesterman

63 
Run your model through Catmull-Clark to get smooth transitions.

Leonid, thank you for the laugh. That was hysterical. You should
really start a Learn CAD in 10 Minutes DVD series. Just keep talking
authoritatively and maybe no one will catch on.

But seriously, where’s the picture? All this nonsense about memory
refreshes and creativity, your challenge was to create this ring. To
make this ring, you need to see this ring. If you can’t operate a
camera, I will photograph it for you. If you don’t have one, send me
the DVD and I will make it for you. No more excuses Leonid. You have
so much energy to annoy others, how about focusing it on the task at
hand?

64 
I am going to describe how Eternity ring can be modeled in CAD
under 10 minutes....

Hi Leonid,

The CAD processes you describe would not work for the ring in your
video. Take mirroring for example. The channels in the ring in your
video are slanted, if you mirrored these you would end up with the
channels slanting in the opposite direction. The ring in your video
is not symmetrical.

If you chose, instead, to do a boolean subtraction, to create the
channels, and mirrored the result you would end up with X shaped
channels at least at one point in your model.

The CAD processes you mentioned are not relevant to the creation of
the ring in your video.

If I have enough I can finish the job.

I have finished my tuition as a Jeweller, I have the trade
certificate, and am a qualified jeweller. There was even a section on
CAD that honed the CAD skills I already possessed. People must like
my work because I won a competition last year. Granted it was the
student entry, but the prize money came in handy. I am no longer
studying so I do have free time now. Still limited, but not spent
making pieces for assignments.

So if you would be so kind as to provide a top down view of your
ring, that’s all I need to finish it.

I could use my imagination, but that wouldn’t be replication now
would it. If it wasn’t a replica you’d be in your right to say the
challenge has failed. In my view anything but a replica is not
meeting the challenge.

Regards Charles A.

65 
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.

My congratulations. It is very creative. You have been asking for
pictures of my work for years and now you have found the right button
to push.

Well played.

As a rule I do not like to show my work in public, but this
situation calls for an exception. Proceed to my blog where you will
find picture of Eternity Ring.

At 300 pixels per square inch it is as high resolution as it gets.

The ring actually has much more soldering joints than 40. Every
setting has 6, so if it takes 24 stones (depending on size), such
ring would have 144 soldering joints plus 4 construction joints
bringing total to 148.

Feel free to examine it. The picture represents 5x enlargement of
the ring. On my screen it measures 135mm in diameter, while actual
size is 23mm. One can tell degree of magnification by observing the
shadow. Image that has not been magnified would have solid shadow.
Let me know if you find any solder traces, joint pitting, polishing
problems, and etc.

I want to apologize for poor composition of the picture. My intent
was to show ring with maximum magnification, so composition had to be
sacrificed to achieve this effect.

Leonid Surpin

66

Now that theres a proper picture of this ongoing CAD production
debate, Im going to throw a spanner into this discussion and say
theres a much easier and simpler way to do this metal work.

No need for soldering, no computers nor CAD, nor risky casting, with
only minimal finishing, apart from the stone setting.

Id go to the die making Co. Ive used and worked closely with for the
past 20 yrs.

There,

  1. I would ask my die modeller Terry, to replicate 3 of the stone
    sections of the ring 8 times the final size.

  2. Machine that out on their model makers 3 axis Bridgport mill,
    from brass would do.

  3. mount that on the stylus side of one of their 3D Dekel die
    sinking pantographs.

  4. Have my die sinker John, mount on an indexing head on the cutter
    side an appropriate sized rectangular ring of wrought metal, gold
    silver platinum or even titanium, this head is a standard piece of
    kit for this machine.

  5. He would then set the reduction on the pantograph to times 8.

  6. Proceed to mill/die cut 1st the outside recesses to create the
    prongs, then with an invert cutter undercut these to make the spaces
    between each stone mount.

Apart from the modelling, no more than 6 hrs work to mill. thats for
a one off.

less time if you wanted say 10 off.

Then from this model, almost any size ring to this design can be
made with the appropriate pantograph reduction setting.

Not your usual jewellers approach id have thought, But I know what
they can do.

67

Hi guys,

(Sigh) I swore I’d leave it, but somehow, I can’t seem to…

At 300 pixels per square inch it is as high resolution as it gets.

Leonid, I’d have expected you of all people to know better. The
image as posted was set to 72 DPI. It was 698x757 pixels. At 300
DPI, that translates to about 2.3x2.5". (Or 367K, or about.75
megapixel. My cellphone does more than 5x better.)

Unusably small, by any criteria. Give me something in 10-20
megapixel range, and we’ll talk. You could have soldered it with
lead and there’d be no way to tell from this.

size is 23mm. One can tell degree of magnification by observing
the shadow. Image that has not been magnified would have solid
shadow. 

Let me know if you find any solder traces, joint pitting,
polishing problems, and etc.

The shadow is a function of lighting. It has nothing do do with
magnification.

I want to apologize for poor composition of the picture. My intent
was to show ring with maximum magnification, so composition had to
be sacrificed to achieve this effect.

No, not really. In fact, the composition is actively hurting
resolution over most of the ring’s area. The image has a very
shallow depth of field, rendering most of the ring out of focus. A
good lens, or better yet a good macro, will give you solid
magnification from any angle. After all, the lens doesn’t know (or
care) what’s in front of it. It just records light. If you’d like,
you can send me the ring, and I’ll shoot it for you. (I’ll even
blueprint it to a thousandth of a inch.) I’ve got several macro
lenses, as well as camera equipped microscopes. I can get whatever
level of detail you’d like, from whatever angle you’d like. No need
to compromise quality. Failing that, there are many good
photographers in the NYC area, I’m sure we could coordinate with one
of them to have it done for you quickly and easily. (I’ve never
checked, but I assume you’re somewhere around NYC?) I feel certain
we could take up a collection among the readers of this thread to
cover the photographer, so it wouldn’t cost you a thing.

Meanwhile, about the ring itself: you rigged the game, and not by
way of trying to educate anyone. You picked a project that will
always be easier to do by hand (at least if done properly) than by
machine, simply due to the polishing. That’s sort of like starting a
race between a car and a boat at the local lake, and then saying to
the boaters, “Oh, sorry, didn’t I tell you it was a dry lake?” The
intricacies of the polishing will always mean that sort of ring is
best done by hand. Doesn’t mean it isn’t done thousands of times a
day by production casting, just not as well polished. So if the
polish possible on cast work is your objection, it has nothing
unique to do with CAD/CAM. Especially CAM that isn’t casting based.
Some of those sintering machines are getting pretty good. Basing a
defense of handwork on polish alone is pretty thin soup.

Leonid, seriously, it’s been years. Why are we still arguing about
this ring? It’s a rigged game, and I suspect most of the major folks
in this thread know it. Certainly you and I do. Which begs the
question of “whyee”. If you want to have a real conversation about
what CAD can (and can’t) do, and how CAM is different, and what it
can and can’t handle, I’m sure we’d all be more than willing to do
that. Having the umpteenth go-around about your eternity ring
doesn’t help anybody.

Regards,
Brian

68 
Proceed to my blog where you will find picture of Eternity Ring.
http://www.ganoksin.com/gnkurl/ep80bo

Thank you Leonid, that’s all I need, I appreciate it.

Regards Charles A.

69 
At 300 pixels per square inch it is as high resolution as it gets.

Really? That would be less than 18 pixels/inch. Seems rather coarse.

Al Balmer
Pine City, NY

70 
At 300 pixels per square inch it is as high resolution as it gets.

If you’re using a digital camera (which I doubt. I’m guessing you’re
probably using a Gundlach or maybe a tintype) please set your
resolution to the largest setting.

This way, when you post it, our software will shrink it down to a
manageable viewing size, but we’ll still have the option to see the
full view if we want to.

Paf Dvorak

71 
(Sigh) I swore I'd leave it, but somehow, I can't seem to..

Hi Alberic,

Even though Leonid’s image is not the best I can see enough to
proceed. It’s a long weekend here, so I’ll be revisiting the project.

For me it a test of the local casting house, it’s as good a test as
any.

Regards Charles A.

72 
Then from this model, almost any size ring to this design can be
made with the appropriate pantograph reduction setting.

I would say that sizing will be a problem in this case.

Even with 3 setting unit, one would have to distort the original
radius, causing distortion of the design.

Another issue with sizing is that increase or decrease in size can
only be done in units of diamond diameters.

That limits flexibility of how individual setting are fabricated.

In practice extraneous space is absorbed in interstitial distances,
which cannot be done if 3-settings units are used.

To point out another deficiency of fabrication via stamping is the
issue of creating mechanical connection between the gallery and the
base remains, where elements are casts or stamped.

Refer to my previous post for the explanation of the issue.

The easiest and the most practical approach to this type of
jewellery is simply to fabricate it. No investment in sophisticated
machinery is required. Is it amazing how well old methods stand up to
to modern gadgetry?

Leonid Surpin

73 
http://www.ganoksin.com/gnkurl/ep80bo

Leonid, your picture looks more like a watercolor painting than a
high-res photo. I don’t think you’ve put an end to this. Sigh.

Allan

74

Hi Leonid,

I would say that sizing will be a problem in this case. Even with 3
setting unit, one would have to distort the original radius,
causing distortion of the design. Another issue with sizing is
that increase or decrease in size can only be done in units of
diamond diameters. That limits flexibility of how individual
setting are fabricated. In practice extraneous space is absorbed in
interstitial distances, which cannot be done if 3-settings units
are used. To point out another deficiency of fabrication via
stamping is the issue of creating mechanical connection between
the gallery and the base remains, where elements are casts or
stamped.

Sorry, but it would appear you have none if any practical experience
in this process.

A Deckel 3D pantograph mill does reduce the diameter of anything set
up in it with increase in the reduction setting.

The original brass pattern is also curved but 8 times the final ring
diameter.

so on reduction you get the dia you need They are also used in
milling the gradations on the rotating part of a micrometer. ~If you
vary the diameter of the barrell you adjust the reduction setting to
give you the exact no of spaces between the gradations so they are
all equal.

Also there would be no need to stamp anything. The ring would be
machined directly by the cutters when set up on the deviding head.

Ive seen it done so many times.

The Dekel isnt modern gadgetry, it was initially designed and made
in the 1930’s.

As for setting diamonds one would use stones specifically cut to
suit the ring diameter and width.

Ted.

75 
Then from this model, almost any size ring to this design can be
made with the appropriate pantograph reduction setting. I would
say that sizing will be a problem in this case.

I’m sure I could size that ring of yours up a good size, maybe a
size and a half with my mighty bur (which is like a huge, #2 file
spinning at high speed)

Paf Dvorak

76 
Is it amazing how well old methods stand up to to modern gadgetry?

I don’t think it’s a matter of standing up to modern gadetry, I
think it’s a matter of trying to work along side of them. Which is
better then being replaced by them.

How many blacksmiths do you know. Few in comparison to the turn of
the 20th Century. Will this be the same thing for jewellers? It looks
like the cards are falling that way here in Oz.

Old methods are cool, but progress will always come, and make a
niche industry out of something that was considered irreplaceable.

I’m sort of hoping that the industry picks up here in Oz, it’s just
going down hill, a lot of jewellers are just managing to keep their
doors open.

Regards Charles A.

77

Hi Ted et al,

real high tech machining. Way far cool!

Richard
Xtines Jewels

78

Leonid is correct. The CAD operator is far to nonchalant in their
assessment of their ‘abilities’(ahem), interfacing with thier
computer screen. In the real world, changes in finger size or
diameter sizes of stones impact the final layout of eternity bands.

So do other factors as well. If the CAD operator has no hands-on
experience casting their own work, or finishing their own work, or
setting their own work, they can only pose that they do. In the real
world, batches of diamond melees, just as one factor alone, can vary
in mm size enough to skew a layout, especially one like an eternity
band where final diamond setting height becomes critical in spacing.

An inexperienced CAD desk jockey that has no real world experience
with casting, or problems with casting, (shrinkage and defects come
to mind, besides others), then they assume any problems down the road
can be blamed on The Caster failing their part of the challenge. Same
goes for setting the stones. If a CAD desk jockey has no experience,
or no mastery of setting, then they can only speculate…

Otoh, being a CAD manipulator does not guarantee that one possesses
a sense of style, fashion, design, or history of designs, in order to
survive in the real world.

The CAD operator is handicapped. A CAD operator with a paper degree
showing they took a short course on jewelry making and now they
think they’re a “jeweler”, lives in the vacuum of their own ego.
That very limited ‘jeweler’ degree is nothing more than a resume
prop.

Marko

79

CAD operators without experience would have to rely on libraries to
make their pieces, or have to go through a trial an error phase.

Changes in finger size does have an impact on the ring if there
isn’t a global size transformation. If only the ring size changes,
whilst the other dimensions remain the same, a bit of tweaking is in
order.

I have digitally created four different versions of Leonid’s ring
(had to start from scratch, the latest image changed a lot of
things), but still remaining faithful to the ring concept. The. STL
files are water tight and ready to print. I kept the stones the same
size for all four rings.

Being a fully qualified jeweller, (Oz trade certificate 3 years, no
short course here), I found myself making digital copies of the
tools I would have needed to make Leonid’s ring e. g. A tapered
fischer bur would be good here, so I made a tapered cone to use in a
boolean operation. Basically doing the same operations, just
digitally.

I use an excellent casting house, and the castings are nigh on
perfect, so shrinkage and porosity shouldn’t be an issue (it hasn’t
been in the past). Shirnkage is really only an issue if you are
pulling waxes from a rubber mould. If you have a digital mould
service the waxes are identical first and latest.

In the hands of trained jewellers CAD/CAM can be a very useful tool.

Regards Charles A.

P. S. If Leonid permits I can release the models for inspection.

P. P.S Sterling $80, 18ctW $500, Palladium $370, Platinum $905 and
plain old wax $67 ex GST so for Aussies add 10%