In continuation with our previous exploration, we generated a 3d set of curves based upon a repulsion script.  To achieve this pattern the script was run twice to mark the actions of the tool tip and base.  This 6 axis swarfing exercise explored the limitations of our bit, and router with regards to the swarfing operation.

Matt Huber, Craig Rosman, Giacomo Tinari, Eddie Wong

As our first attempt to use the robot, we planned on only using the drilling tool-paths to start understanding the way the robot worked. Our first design attempt, which you can see above on the left, ended being to complex and would have chipped away too much material. We therefore created a derivate of that design, which also really helped us understand the way the files and robot need to be set up to do more complex jobs. It was a great learning experience.

The shape of this milling job was a derivate from a canopy project that was done precedent to the class by one of the students. The main interest with this milling job was to understand the different possibilities there are with milling in MasterCamX. The best solution we ended up using was a contour milling which gave us this very graphic yet architectural overlap of line grids.

Once again, using illustrator and its transformative tools, we created a series of lines that were all derivates of the same original line. That same line was transformed in 3 different ways which created the 3 sets of lines that were milled into the Corian, and gave it its Petal shape.

The point grid for this assignment was created using illustrator and the capabilities of the software to help create a graphically interesting drilling grid.

Formal emergence began through an exploration of repulsion lines generated by Processing through mouse tracking.   The processing command was used as a disruption current through a typical Sine wave surface.  The skewed Sine curves were then lofted both individually and as a whole, revealing two surfaces which pierce through one another.  To emphasize their visibility, the two surfaces were tooled in rough perpendicular finishes.

The opposing side uses the same construction lines but is attached perpendicular to the previous.  Their depth is determined by its interaction with the original pattern and is shown through a flow line finish.  We found the flow line finish, much like swarfing, to be largely determined by curves control points rather than its surface.

-Eddie, Giacomo, Craig, Matt