2019
DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2019.0304
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A curious observation of phenomena occurring during lapping/polishing processes

Abstract: We demonstrate that the kinematics of the polishing process is more intriguing than an idealized planetary movement as all the previous studies reported. In reality, the workpiece is pseudo-constrained by the planetary carrier and because of this its relative motion to the polishing pad also incurs a ‘parasitic’ movement that previously has not been observed. Here, we report and model this parasitic movement and quantify its effect upon the workpiece surface roughness. Using a motion capture system, the princi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 30 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The particle trajectories moving on the target surface in the abrasive lapping process have a great influence on the uniformity of the material removal rate and the surface form accuracy (Sanchez et al, 2011;Yang et al, 2019). Tam et al numerically investigated the effects of four different fractal particle trajectories on the lapping uniformity, and they found that the material removal rate and the distribution of the surface texture were significantly different (Tam and Cheng, 2010).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The particle trajectories moving on the target surface in the abrasive lapping process have a great influence on the uniformity of the material removal rate and the surface form accuracy (Sanchez et al, 2011;Yang et al, 2019). Tam et al numerically investigated the effects of four different fractal particle trajectories on the lapping uniformity, and they found that the material removal rate and the distribution of the surface texture were significantly different (Tam and Cheng, 2010).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%