lather canned cycle question

[cherokeechief79]

ive just started playing with this.why do i have to have the same tool nose radius for roughing and finishing?

[Pilot Plant Supervisor]

Just a guess, but if it's like the old Fanuc style canned cycles, the rough and finish is done with the same tool. G71 or 73 rough followed by G70 finish.

[chris m]

We turn thousands and thousands of parts per year, and we have never used a canned finish toolpath. Pilot Plant's answer is correct, but I would suggest using a 'regular' Finish toolpath anyway.

 

C

[cherokeechief79]

_{ok that all makes sence.the students are used to programming manually on the haas control.it spits out very nice code even if we use 2 different tools for rgh and fin and still refeers back to the same block numbers for the contour.}

[Pilot Plant Supervisor]

It will work with different tools, but if you use a different nose radius, the profile of arcs and angles will not be correct.

[Reko]

I must be missing something...

 

There isn't any reason you can't use the same contour and different tools to rough and finish... and the nose radius on both tools can be different as well... so long as you use nose comp within the contour.

 

( ROUGHER  .0313R)

T0101

G00 X2.1 Z0.1

G71 P1 Q2 D.1 U.030 W.004 F0.01

N1 G01 G42 X0 Z0 F0.005

X1.

Z-1.

X2.

Z-1.25

N2 G40 X2.1

G00 G28 U0 W0

M01

 

( FINISHER .0156R )

T0505

G00 X2.1 Z0.1

G70 P1 Q2

G00 G28 U0 W0

M01

M30

[Pilot Plant Supervisor]

Haha, you're right! It's been so long since I have thought about canned cycles in lathe, but that is exactly what we used to do before Mastercam. Now I never use canned cycles except for threading.

[Reko]

[cherokeechief79]

thats how we now post it on the control.when i try to do it in mc it says that the nose radius is not the same as the rougher and that i should use the standard contour path.am i missing something?

[Reko]

TBH, when I used to program lathes on MC I never used canned cycles or nose comp... I just let MC handle it and told the operators what size insert to use.

 

Never had much success trying to post canned cycles... I think your post may need some work to get it to work the way you want it to.

[chris m]

Since nobody asked, I think TNR comp sucks, and none of the (literally) thousands of turning programs we have use control comp; we didn't use it when we programmed with a calculator and we sure as hell aren't using it with CAM software. Tell the operator what tool goes in the machine, and program for that tool. TNR comp is just one more opportunity for an operator to screw up during setup or operation. This is my take on that subject.

 

We use canned roughing all of the time with no problems.

 

C

[cherokeechief79]

Since nobody asked, I think TNR comp sucks, and none of the (literally) thousands of turning programs we have use control comp; we didn't use it when we programmed with a calculator and we sure as hell aren't using it with CAM software. Tell the operator what tool goes in the machine, and program for that tool. TNR comp is just one more opportunity for an operator to screw up during setup or operation. This is my take on that subject.

 

We use canned roughing all of the time with no problems.

 

C

i highly disagree with this.

we used to turn lots of tiny gear blanks and similar parts.the tool nose rad was always very small on the insert.we had to leave .005 for grinding and the finish rad on the shoulders was usually no more than +-.002 .your way we would have to change inserts constantly.tnr was easy to control using wear on the controller.

plus if i ever ran out of inserts or wanted to try a different grade that had a different nose radius i just put the difference in the wear.

[Brian B 74]

Other nice thing about TNR - your program should match your print.  On simple turning projects I preferred to use canned cycles.  It allowed to make changes to the D.O.C. on the fly without having to re-post code.  Most times I would just program a finish cycle and copy/paste in the canned cycle code.

[cherokeechief79]

i would think a complex part with radii and angles would be very tough to program on the controller without using tnr comp .as stated above you could program directly from dimensions on the print without calculating anything.

[cherokeechief79]

i think i was doing something wrong all along. i was leaving the comp set to computer.once i set it to control it no longer says the rad doesnt match.

[chris m]

 

 

i would think a complex part with radii and angles would be very tough to program on the controller without using tnr comp

 

We don't program on the control. Machine tools are for making parts, computers are for making programs.

 

 

i highly disagree with this.

we used to turn lots of tiny gear blanks and similar parts.the tool nose rad was always very small on the insert.we had to leave .005 for grinding and the finish rad on the shoulders was usually no more than +-.002 .your way we would have to change inserts constantly.tnr was easy to control using wear on the controller

 

We do very fussy work, all day long; have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

C

[Guest MTB Technical Services]

We don't program on the control. Machine tools are for making parts, computers are for making programs.

 

 

^^^^^^^^ THIS! ^^^^^^^^^

[Reko]

^^^^^^^^ THIS! ^^^^^^^^^

+1

[jeff]

Since nobody asked, I think TNR comp sucks, and none of the (literally) thousands of turning programs we have use control comp; we didn't use it when we programmed with a calculator and we sure as hell aren't using it with CAM software. Tell the operator what tool goes in the machine, and program for that tool. TNR comp is just one more opportunity for an operator to screw up during setup or operation. This is my take on that subject.

 

We use canned roughing all of the time with no problems.

 

C

I love canned cycles with tnr com when programming manually. I started on an old Mori SL35 with a Yasnac control.

To me they're so easy to use, but none of the lathe guys here know what a canned cycle is.  

[elbro]

We don't program on the control. Machine tools are for making parts, computers are for making programs.

I say it's part dependent. Our lathe parts are very quick and easy basically a steel doughnut. So we program them at the machine it takes no time. Roughing can cycles are the best to use. Want to try more depth of cut, leave more or less stock for finish. these are very easy to change with roughing can cycles.

[Guest MTB Technical Services]

I say it's part dependent. Our lathe parts are very quick and easy basically a steel doughnut. So we program them at the machine it takes no time. Roughing can cycles are the best to use. Want to try more depth of cut, leave more or less stock for finish. these are very easy to change with roughing can cycles.

 

To say that it takes no time to program on the machine is patently false.

 

CNC Machine time is the most expensive time in any shop.

The only way they make money is if the spindle is rotating and material is being cut.

 

Operators should never be the one making the decision about speeds & feeds or depth of cut.

That decision should be always be made by the person who processed and programmed the job.

Selected input from operators is useful but allowing the inmates to run the asylum is a road to disaster.

I have yet to meet one who didn't think they know more than every engineer and programmer.

[Machineguy]

^^^ What MTB said^^^

 

Them's fightin' words in a shop with Hurco Mills and Mazak lathes. They believe just the opposite.

 

Machineguy

[chris m]

Scott, perhaps a variable-based program would be best for you guys. Input a few values in the program header and BAM, new part; good way to quickly change from part A to part B without editing the actual program.

 

C

[chris m]

 

Operators should never be the one making the decision about speeds & feeds or depth of cut.

That decision should be always be made by the person who processed and programmed the job.

Selected input from operators is useful but allowing the inmates to run the asylum is a road to disaster.

I have yet to meet one who didn't think they know more than every engineer and programmer.

 

 

In a non-production, non-repeat shop, this wouldn't matter to me as much as the non-productive time.

 

The only time I hammer something into the control is if it would actually take me longer to walk back to my office, program it, and walk back to the machine. More comfortable on my a$$ anyway

 

C

[Guest MTB Technical Services]

^^^ What MTB said^^^

 

Them's fightin' words in a shop with Hurco Mills and Mazak lathes. They believe just the opposite.

 

Machineguy

 

 

I've seen companies lose money hand over fist because of it.

 

I've been in facilities where multi-billion dollar energy companies are having their operators program parts

for the largest Mazak eSeries Integrex machines at the control.

Machines would sit for days at a time while the operator did his thing.

 

The machines had not quite 5% spindle utilization.

Worse yet, it drives capacity into the ground because nothing else is running in the machine while this is going on.