RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Posted by
Kevin Martin
on 2010-12-15 07:38:42 UTC
Tim,
Please don't take it personally, I know most machinists would have the same answers, but they all sound to me like rationalizations for not doing it rather than real problems.
If setting up a rectangular bar feed (a fixed cost) saves material (an ongoing cumulative cost), tooling (sharpening/cutter replacement is also an ongoing cost), and machine time, then it should be considered.
While it is true that rectangular stock may be less precise than round stock, it is just a matter of giving the gripping parts (the feed grippers and the collet) more range of adjustment, and of designing the process to take into account the lower tolerances in the input stock.
So yes, you have to make a special collet and special grippers on the feeder. Once.
Yes, the collet will not hold the work as reproduceably centered. So you have to mill a few thou off the perimiter of the part. That is still less that what must be milled off round stock to make the same size rectangle.
Note that I am assuming that the lathe involved has direct control of the spindle angle (not just speed control) so the rectangular stock can be indexed to the correct position.
As for a bar feed for the mill, it seems to me it could be done with a set of roller stands to support the stock and two power clamp sets controllable by the G-code. An extra cutoff saw controlled by a 4th axis means the extra stock doesn't have to get dragged along for the ride during the entire milling cycle.
-Kevin Martin
-----Original Message-----
From: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of timgoldstein
[...]
Round collets are standard, square are not.
Round stock has better tolerances. Square is not really square and tends to have raised corners and bellies on the faces so even in a square collet you get jambing issues.
Bar pullers have a hard time grabbing non-round shapes. Hex is better, but it still is a feed issue. A missed pull tends to lead to scrap and broken tools.
Round stock is easy to locate, other shapes are not as common.
I have pondered a bar feed on the mill as well. No reason it could not work, but it would take custom design and custom macros in the G code and for the machine. In a lathe it is already baked in. Just have to spend the $500 or so for a bar puller.
Please don't take it personally, I know most machinists would have the same answers, but they all sound to me like rationalizations for not doing it rather than real problems.
If setting up a rectangular bar feed (a fixed cost) saves material (an ongoing cumulative cost), tooling (sharpening/cutter replacement is also an ongoing cost), and machine time, then it should be considered.
While it is true that rectangular stock may be less precise than round stock, it is just a matter of giving the gripping parts (the feed grippers and the collet) more range of adjustment, and of designing the process to take into account the lower tolerances in the input stock.
So yes, you have to make a special collet and special grippers on the feeder. Once.
Yes, the collet will not hold the work as reproduceably centered. So you have to mill a few thou off the perimiter of the part. That is still less that what must be milled off round stock to make the same size rectangle.
Note that I am assuming that the lathe involved has direct control of the spindle angle (not just speed control) so the rectangular stock can be indexed to the correct position.
As for a bar feed for the mill, it seems to me it could be done with a set of roller stands to support the stock and two power clamp sets controllable by the G-code. An extra cutoff saw controlled by a 4th axis means the extra stock doesn't have to get dragged along for the ride during the entire milling cycle.
-Kevin Martin
-----Original Message-----
From: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of timgoldstein
[...]
Round collets are standard, square are not.
Round stock has better tolerances. Square is not really square and tends to have raised corners and bellies on the faces so even in a square collet you get jambing issues.
Bar pullers have a hard time grabbing non-round shapes. Hex is better, but it still is a feed issue. A missed pull tends to lead to scrap and broken tools.
Round stock is easy to locate, other shapes are not as common.
I have pondered a bar feed on the mill as well. No reason it could not work, but it would take custom design and custom macros in the G code and for the machine. In a lathe it is already baked in. Just have to spend the $500 or so for a bar puller.
Discussion Thread
timgoldstein
2010-12-12 22:14:31 UTC
CAD experiment idea
Roland Jollivet
2010-12-13 03:34:22 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment idea
Jamie Cunningham
2010-12-13 03:56:18 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment idea
Ron Thompson
2010-12-13 05:24:40 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment idea
Tim Goldstein
2010-12-13 05:42:10 UTC
Re: CAD experiment idea
Ron Thompson
2010-12-13 06:09:06 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment idea
Kevin Martin
2010-12-13 07:04:00 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment idea
Stephen Wille Padnos
2010-12-13 07:06:33 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment idea
Roland Jollivet
2010-12-13 07:46:25 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment idea
R.L. Wurdack
2010-12-13 07:54:59 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment idea
Tim Goldstein
2010-12-13 08:17:23 UTC
Re: CAD experiment idea
Tim Goldstein
2010-12-13 08:53:42 UTC
Re: CAD experiment idea
Tim Goldstein
2010-12-13 09:00:17 UTC
Re: CAD experiment idea
Tim Goldstein
2010-12-13 09:02:56 UTC
Re: Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment idea
Roland Jollivet
2010-12-13 09:06:29 UTC
[CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment idea
timgoldstein
2010-12-13 09:17:38 UTC
Re: CAD experiment idea
Ron Thompson
2010-12-13 12:45:45 UTC
CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-13 12:49:59 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-13 13:29:56 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
H & J Johnson
2010-12-13 15:16:30 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-13 15:34:13 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-13 15:39:54 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-13 16:00:40 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
H & J Johnson
2010-12-13 16:02:54 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
H & J Johnson
2010-12-13 16:06:50 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-13 16:25:27 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
Michael Fagan
2010-12-13 17:05:04 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment entry
Andy Wander
2010-12-13 17:11:24 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
R.L. Wurdack
2010-12-13 17:24:09 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
H & J Johnson
2010-12-13 17:29:58 UTC
Re: RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Andy Wander
2010-12-13 18:17:03 UTC
RE: RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Peter Homann
2010-12-13 18:48:08 UTC
RE: RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Andy Wander
2010-12-13 18:50:57 UTC
RE: RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-13 23:23:56 UTC
[CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-14 05:00:00 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-14 05:17:36 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-14 05:43:39 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-14 05:57:27 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-14 08:44:40 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-14 09:25:58 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
H & J Johnson
2010-12-14 09:27:58 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-14 10:12:05 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-14 12:45:23 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-14 13:39:41 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-14 15:08:47 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
Peter Reilley
2010-12-14 15:25:51 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-14 16:57:56 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
Brian Worth
2010-12-14 21:49:49 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Peter Homann
2010-12-14 22:03:54 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-14 22:46:21 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
William Thomas
2010-12-15 04:27:56 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-15 04:40:51 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Kevin Martin
2010-12-15 05:20:51 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-15 06:23:27 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-15 06:33:51 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
Mike Payson
2010-12-15 06:54:41 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-15 07:00:39 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
Kevin Martin
2010-12-15 07:38:42 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Swiss
2010-12-15 08:26:31 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
CNC 6-axis Designs
2010-12-15 08:29:06 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Jon Elson
2010-12-15 10:45:31 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-15 17:05:59 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
Kevin Martin
2010-12-15 20:24:24 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-15 21:16:03 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-15 21:17:14 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-16 08:37:58 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-16 09:07:45 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Jon Elson
2010-12-16 10:08:36 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-16 14:34:40 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-16 15:17:46 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-16 16:28:39 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-16 16:52:14 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-16 16:57:49 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-16 20:45:14 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
William Thomas
2010-12-16 21:23:48 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-16 22:13:34 UTC
EMC, Was Re: CAD experiment entry
Stephen Wille Padnos
2010-12-17 05:28:36 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] EMC, Was Re: CAD experiment entry
Jon Elson
2010-12-17 09:24:52 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] EMC, Was Re: CAD experiment entry
Jon Elson
2010-12-17 09:31:09 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] EMC, Was Re: CAD experiment entry
Jon Elson
2010-12-17 10:06:09 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] EMC, Was Re: CAD experiment entry
Jeffrey T. Birt
2010-12-17 10:28:06 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] EMC, Was Re: CAD experiment entry
samcoinc2001
2010-12-17 11:05:31 UTC
EMC, Was Re: CAD experiment entry
Jon Elson
2010-12-17 19:57:50 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] EMC, Was Re: CAD experiment entry