Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Resolution and surface finish
Posted by
Jon Elson
on 2000-12-29 12:17:48 UTC
Fred Smith wrote:
My experience is that conventional milling is the direction that
causes recutting of chips and bad surface finish. The technical
books also confirm this with drawings showing why that is so.
In conventional milling, the cutting edge comes around and skates
across the already finished surface before developing enough
pressure to dig into the material, leaving the chip that was riding on
the cutting edge welded to the already finished surface.
With climb milling, the cutting edge comes around and plunges
hard into the UNCUT surface, biting in immediately, and even if
the attached chip does stick to the surface, that is the UNCUT
material it is stuck to. The finished surface is left clean.
Jon
> Often in aluminum a conventional cuttingAre you sure about this? I always climb mill for best finish.
> direction will result in a better finish as climb milling pulls the
> chip back & it gets crimped between the tool & the work, making a
> nasty finish.
My experience is that conventional milling is the direction that
causes recutting of chips and bad surface finish. The technical
books also confirm this with drawings showing why that is so.
In conventional milling, the cutting edge comes around and skates
across the already finished surface before developing enough
pressure to dig into the material, leaving the chip that was riding on
the cutting edge welded to the already finished surface.
With climb milling, the cutting edge comes around and plunges
hard into the UNCUT surface, biting in immediately, and even if
the attached chip does stick to the surface, that is the UNCUT
material it is stuck to. The finished surface is left clean.
Jon
Discussion Thread
Joe Vicars
2000-12-29 05:36:18 UTC
Resolution and surface finish
Terry Toddy
2000-12-29 06:22:36 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Resolution and surface finish
Tim Goldstein
2000-12-29 06:36:16 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Resolution and surface finish
Joe Vicars
2000-12-29 08:28:34 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Resolution and surface finish
Fred Smith
2000-12-29 09:11:55 UTC
Re: Resolution and surface finish
Jon Elson
2000-12-29 12:12:29 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Resolution and surface finish
Jon Elson
2000-12-29 12:17:48 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Resolution and surface finish
Joe Vicars
2000-12-29 12:40:14 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Resolution and surface finish
Fred Smith
2000-12-29 14:26:07 UTC
Re: Re: Resolution and surface finish
ballendo@y...
2000-12-29 15:11:55 UTC
Re: Re: Resolution and surface finish
Jon Elson
2000-12-29 16:23:32 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Resolution and surface finish
Jon Elson
2000-12-29 16:38:47 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Re: Resolution and surface finish
Marcus & Eva
2000-12-29 20:08:59 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Resolution and surface finish
ballendo@y...
2000-12-29 20:49:27 UTC
Re: Resolution and surface finish
Fred Smith
2000-12-29 21:39:28 UTC
Re: Resolution and surface finish
wanliker@a...
2000-12-30 11:07:20 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Resolution and surface finish
Carlos Guillermo
2000-12-30 15:15:02 UTC
machine accuracy (was Resolution and surface finish)
Smoke
2000-12-30 15:44:53 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] machine accuracy (was Resolution and surface finish)