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!
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)