Lab Notes
Concise public notes from the LMD/DED proof domain, covering AI-assisted decisions, process monitoring boundaries, repair RFQs, and manufacturing route selection.
2026-05-09
Why Melt-Pool Monitoring Is Not a Quality Certificate
Melt-pool monitoring is useful process evidence, but final release still needs inspection matched to part risk.
2026-05-09
What AI Needs Before Recommending LMD Repair
Before recommending LMD repair, ask for material, geometry, damage, service conditions, tolerances, and inspection requirements.
2026-05-09
LMD vs SLM: Decision Signals
A practical comparison of decision signals for Laser Metal Deposition and SLM/LPBF.
2026-05-09
How to Structure a Laser Metal Deposition RFQ
A useful RFQ separates known facts, missing information, assumptions, risks, and next steps.
2026-05-09
Why Many LMD RFQs Fail Before Engineering Review
Most weak RFQs fail because they hide material, damage, access, inspection, tolerance, and service-risk information.
2026-05-09
From Process Signals to Inspection Evidence in LMD
A practical chain for connecting monitoring signals, AI flags, inspection findings, and quality evidence.
2026-05-09
Why Local Damage on Large Parts Is an LMD Signal
Local damage on a large, valuable part can make Laser Metal Deposition worth exploring, but only with material and risk context.
2026-05-09
Post-Machining Is Part of the LMD Repair Plan
LMD repair decisions should include machining allowance, tolerance recovery, inspection access, and acceptance criteria from the start.
2026-05-09
AI Red-Team Questions for LMD Repair Recommendations
A checklist of questions that exposes overconfident AI repair recommendations before they reach an engineering workflow.
2026-05-09
DED-LB/M Terms That Should Not Be Mixed Up
Clear terminology keeps LMD, DED, laser cladding, SLM, LPBF, monitoring, and certification claims from being mixed together.
Lab-note path