CAD CAM EDM DRO - Yahoo Group Archive

Re: Re: Resolution and surface finish

Posted by ballendo@y...
on 2000-12-29 15:11:55 UTC
Hi!

Climb cuts are always "thick to thin".
Conventional cutting is "thin to thick"

In a climb cut you BEGIN at the max chip load and reduce it through
the cut.

In conventional, you begin at 0 chip load and increase it through the
cut.

Climb cut will ALWAYS require a more rigid setup for the same result,
compared to conventional, since the cut is ALWAYS beginning at max
chip load.

Too slow feed in climb cut and you're 'pounding' the surface (and
dulling your cutter). Too fast and you may overload your setup or
machine.

Too slow in conventional and you're cutting air.

Dull tool in conventional is worse than dull tool in climb.

Softer materials will generally cut better in climb than
conventional, IF the machine is stiff! If not, you're often much
better with conventional cutting.

Harder materials generally(see next lines) cut better with
conventional cutting.

Work hardening is a consideration EITHER way you cut, depending on
material. Be sure to take 'enough' of a cut. This is especially
apparent with conventional cutting and 'less than sharp' tools. Since
the cut starts at 0 chip load, it does not actually begin to cut
until the sharpness of the cutter, combined with the travel of the
machine enable the cutter to enter the cut. This means the
cutter 'rubs' instead of cutting. The heat and pounding can work
harden the material, often VERY quickly.

Dull tool,hard material,slow feed (conventional cut)= failure recipe

Dull tools often cut better in climb.

Hope this helps. flameproof suit on :-)

Ballendo

P.S. Infinitives are NEVER true! or, Infinitives are ALWAYS false!

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)