On Jul 8, 3:51*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Jul 8, 3:30*am, harry wrote:





On Jul 8, 3:57*am, Smitty Two wrote:

In article
,

*harry wrote:
Never seen it because it don't exist.

Attempting to save face by stubbornly clinging to your ignorance is
usually counterproductive. My ego takes a boot to the ass every time I
stand corrected, but it's better than the alternative.

What exactly to you find so preposterous? That machines exist which can
deposit thin layers of material, one atop the other, until a solid
object is created? That hardly violates any junior high school physics
principle.

The point is that "scanning" an object from one side is not going to
give suffiient information.
Especially just waving a gadget over it.
Even when you scan a bit of paper it has to be laid out flat and kept
still during the process.
And you still have given me no explanation of how the thread of the
screw inside the wrench is determined.
There IS only one way. By dis-assembly.

As for the female thread, as someone else said that can't be scanned
it has to be deduced. By human intervention.

Hence it's ********.
And if one bit is ********, it casts doubt over the remainder.
(Especially that gearbox).

"And you still have given me no explanation of how the thread of
the screw inside the wrench is determined. *There IS only one way. By
dis-assembly."

Do you not actually *read* what people write in response to your posts
or are you just being a troll trying to drag us all down into the
dark, dank abyss of usenet?

Twice, not once, but *twice*, *I have posted that the operator has the
ability to manipulate the image. I have also pointed out that the
internal threads are the exact opposite of the external threads so
that they are easliy reproduced by the CAD/CAM system.

Watch the Cerec video I posted the link to. It shows that the
"scanning" process is a bit more complicated than just waving a wand
over the object.

Are you sticking to your assertion that it's not possible because they
edited the video for time and cut out the parts where the scanning
could have taken an hour and the image manipulation even longer? If
that's your reasoning, then I guess you would say that *any* process
shown on a video that does not detail ever single piece of process
minutia is a crock.

If you saw a video of plane taking off in NY and landing in London
would you call it a fake because the video didn't show the entire 7
hour flight over the ocean?

*"The point is that "scanning" an object from one side is not
going to give suffiient information"

Why do you keep insisting on posting points that don't make any sense?
Whoever said that the scanning was done from only one side? Oh
wait...I get it. They didn't show you the complete scanning process,
so therefore they must not have done anything else than what was shown
in the video. Just like the plane that couldn't have made it to London
because you didn't see it fly across the ocean.

Do youself (and us) a favor. It'll help..really:

Go to ZCorp site and watch the webcast on their 3-D scanner. I believe
it will fill in the missing pieces so that you have won't have to put
forth any effort to imagine it in your own mind.

http://www.zcorp.com/en/forms/Watch+...able+3D+Sc...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I only had to see the bit where he lifted the complete wrench out of
the box of "dust" to know it was a lie.

If he had had the four components separately and assembled them, then
slightly more believable.

It was dumbed down crap for the credulous.