Re: Was: Linear rail, accuracy in general
Posted by
dave_ace_me
on 2002-04-12 20:12:33 UTC
are you talking cutting bit or guides and ways ?
I would venture to guess that a CNC machine in a shop has to run to
pay for the lease. 6 hours a day - 5 days, 50 weeks a year. 1,500
hours a year would be reasonable. single shift.
Yes, one would factor in maintenance, but also measure each part and
cut to finish size. That little human intervention can correct all
kinds of errors.
but yes, they do calibrate every type of machine. We haven't talked
about it on here, but lasers get dull and have to be sharpened too !
if you can, get on the Laser Focus World mailing list (free rag)
amasing the problems those folks have.
Dave
I would venture to guess that a CNC machine in a shop has to run to
pay for the lease. 6 hours a day - 5 days, 50 weeks a year. 1,500
hours a year would be reasonable. single shift.
Yes, one would factor in maintenance, but also measure each part and
cut to finish size. That little human intervention can correct all
kinds of errors.
but yes, they do calibrate every type of machine. We haven't talked
about it on here, but lasers get dull and have to be sharpened too !
if you can, get on the Laser Focus World mailing list (free rag)
amasing the problems those folks have.
Dave
--- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@y..., "John H." <johnhe-uk@s...> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed on this thread someone mentioned big high precision
machining
> centres that have thermal management etc to keep them at real close
> tolerances at great precision. I remember seeing the working and
result for
> how much a lump of steel extends for such and such a temperature
rise and
> seeing how great it's effect was at these levels. But doesn't the
wear on
> the machine's tooling contribute even more to inaccuracies? I mean
the wear
> on a tool over tens of hours machining must be more than a few
microns
> easily. Yay or nay? Please don't tell me the machine can factor in
for tool
> wear? : )
>
> Thanks,
> John H.
Discussion Thread
John H.
2002-04-12 19:45:11 UTC
Was: Linear rail, accuracy in general
Brian Pitt
2002-04-12 20:10:11 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Was: Linear rail, accuracy in general
dave_ace_me
2002-04-12 20:12:33 UTC
Re: Was: Linear rail, accuracy in general
Jon Elson
2002-04-12 23:05:27 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Was: Linear rail, accuracy in general
John H.
2002-04-13 09:37:33 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Was: Linear rail, accuracy in general
John H.
2002-04-13 09:49:03 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Was: Linear rail, accuracy in general
Raymond Heckert
2002-04-13 20:29:32 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Was: Linear rail, accuracy in general
John Heritage
2002-04-14 08:56:30 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Was: Linear rail, accuracy in general
JanRwl@A...
2002-04-14 16:26:09 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Was: Linear rail, accuracy in general
Sven Peter
2002-04-14 16:58:54 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Was: Linear rail, accuracy in general
dave_ace_me
2002-04-14 19:52:11 UTC
Re: Was: Linear rail, accuracy in general
ballendo
2002-04-15 07:52:35 UTC
Re: Was: Linear rail, accuracy in general
John H.
2002-04-16 18:49:20 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Was: Linear rail, accuracy in general
dave_ace_me
2002-04-17 02:04:00 UTC
Re: Was: Linear rail, accuracy in general
batwings@i...
2002-04-17 05:24:39 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Was: Linear rail, accuracy in general
batwings@i...
2002-04-17 07:54:35 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Was: Linear rail, accuracy in general
ballendo
2002-04-19 06:01:29 UTC
re: tool change was Re: Was: Linear rail, accuracy in general