3 Jaw Chuck Display

[Randy Morton @ Clem Industrial]

Since most normal people use a 3 (or 4) jaw chuck and not the big chunky solid blue ring as Mastercam Lathe displays...and since I am getting numerous crash errors with said blue ring (since I am programming a mill/turn) when I am 'cutting/verifying' between jaws, I Want to fix this.

 

Any possibilites? Aside from making solid stock with a chuck attached?

[Ron Branch @ Verisurf]

quote:

---

Any possibilites? Aside from making solid stock with a chuck attached?

---

NOPE and good luck on seeing something anytime soon.

[Randy Morton @ Clem Industrial]

Lol Kinda figued /sigh to lathe

[Bwalker]

add in a solid into the verify.

 

or an stl file

 

[ 08-26-2009, 12:19 AM: Message edited by: Bwalker ]

[Bwalker]

heres a few images showing pretty well exactly what you want.

 

 

 

[Rob Dusenbury CAD/CAM CONSULTING]

That solid blue ring shows the chuck spining, so you get a colision.

 

Those pics of bwalker are pretty, but take a look at that last one. Mastercam would show that as no colision, What do you think the Machine is going to show?

 

To me that picture looks like a machine being stuffed in slow motion.

 

Take your pick Pretty in Mastercam or Pretty at the machine.

[Leigh @ Kodiak]

quote:

---

To me that picture looks like a machine being stuffed in slow motion.

---

To me it looks like a milling tool is being used while the chuck is stationary.

[Rob Dusenbury CAD/CAM CONSULTING]

If he is doing a C-axis contour the chuck is goning to spin.

 

It sounds to me that you want mastercam to switch chuck styles between turning and milling (Only if the chuck is locked)

 

I'm just saying be careful what you ask for.

[Bwalker]

not a collision, because it is in milling mode. you may perhaps get a barrier alarm. but no collision.

 

I know the exact machine Randy is working on.

 

It is a multitasking machine, which the chuck would be spinning in the first picture,

 

however in the following 2, the machine is oriented in the c axis to probably about 20 degrees.

 

"Those pics of bwalker are pretty, but take a look at that last one. Mastercam would show that as no colision, What do you think the Machine is going to show? "

 

certainly not a collision, in fact i took these screenshots from working programs, after modifying and GREATLY simplifying the cutting geometry and toolpaths,and removed the file names, to protect our customers interests

 

The whole point was to show that you can get a tool to go in between the oriented jaws in mastercam verify without showing a collision.

 

I do this all the time, and I assure you that it works.

 

"Take your pick Pretty in Mastercam or Pretty at the machine."

 

Why not have both? certainly dont waste your time, if its not a big deal,

 

but this whole drawing, modelling, toolpathing and screenshot taking, took literally 10 minutes.

 

 

Believe me. there would be no collision. I do this frequently on my 400ST.

[Bwalker]

So youre trying to say that it wont show this....

 

 

Not only does it show the chuck rotate, it shows the collision with the chuck.

 

I would do more research before you start making negative comments about peoples advice.

 

 

"I'm just saying be careful what you ask for. "

 

be careful what you say is and isnt possible, you might turn someone away from a perfectly acceptable solution, and give them negative feelings about a capable software because, they think it cant do something they want it to, when in fact the reverse is true.

[Ron Branch @ Verisurf]

Mr Walker is correct and I do it the way he does it all the time. Like I showed in my topic not to long ago where I said save the solid stock out as a file. Then use that in your Verisurf with your others solids on the screen and it will show you everything on the mill turn just like it does in the 4th axis as well as on the 5th axis.

 

Like I said in other thread Mr Walker is not a stranger to this forum.

[Bwalker]

oops moved the image, here it is again

 

 

 

heres a prototype of a demo part I made with Mastercam x2 a few years ago on an integrex (this was my first time working with a multitasking machine as well). Used eccentric turn milling for the journals. I believe it was 5 axis multisurface i used to program this

 

[Rob Dusenbury CAD/CAM CONSULTING]

It appears that I got you a little steamed on this one. I never said that your solution would not work. There is a reason that Mastercam shows the chuck jaws rotated 360 deg, it’s to show a potential collision. That way the programmer can make up his own decisions on what to do. Your way may have worked for you, but you just can’t tell someone to draw up the chuck and stock and use it for verifying, without telling them what to look out for first.

 

What you are showing is not new; I have shown my customers this many times. Although I do tell them you better draw your jaws perfect and at the proper locations. Also the part better be orientated the right way. What about the head you have that milling tool mounted in? You better know were that’s at. (all of the time) Here is the biggest thing; you are still not guarantee 100% that you will not stuff that machine. Why? Because you are verifying the NCI code and mastercam does not know when and where that machine will decide to unwind.

 

That was totally irresponsible on your part, and I was calling you on it. You can’t just tell someone to model their chuck and show a bunch of pretty pictures and say “go for it this will work” without telling them all of the risk behind it.

 

You do seem like you have good knowledge of mastercam (even though you attack my knowledge)…..that’s okay!!

 

People come on here looking for good advice. What if some new kid saw what you did and thought wow cool! I will just model my chuck and try and cut between the jaws without knowing all of the risks. Come on dude we both know that you can’t always guarantee that solution. Even though the big blue circles are annoying I would feel better verify with those, then to have some pretty chuck where I’m not quite sure where the jaws are all of the time.

 

The good news is….With me pointing out that your picture looks like the machine is being stuffed in slow motion……Well it made you argue more about your setup and people reading this thread will now know the risks…………And that my friend was my point all along.

 

Peace

[Bwalker]

I dont feel that you didnt call me on anything. I made a point of how to do what was asked. im not here to babysit how people do things, its up to the programmer and operator to make sure they dont slam their machine.

 

I just showed EXACTLY what was asked. I didnt realize i had to provide step by step what had to be done, and what to watch for.

 

you basically told me that it wouldnt do rotary properly. I called you on it. i proved that it would. Thats all.

 

and honestly if some kid came on here and said wow cool, and tried it and it didnt work. the barrier would kick in and stop a collision. (because these are mazaks). if they dont he didnt set it up right and he SHOULDNT be running, let alone programming, a multitasking machine.

 

The big blue circles show an erroneous collision that doesnt actually occur. I showed a way do do so without having the misleading verification.

 

Furthermore, I know Randy, and I know his machine. He works right down the street from me, I even saw his machine trucked in and unloaded at his shop because his shop bought it from us when I was back when i was installing mazaks and training people on them. Im quite aware of his capabilities, and I simply showed him, the person who asked the question, how to do what he asked. and i backed myself up all the way along. i did nothing wrong, and nothing irresponsible. period.

 

also about the head being in the way. well regardless of what the mastercam verify shows you, it will never be there anyways, you would need full machine simulation for that, and just so you know, mazaks have this to begin with, mastercam will do nothing to show that either way, so that is irrelevant. And if because youre verifying by NCI and it wont be guaranteed not to slam the machine, you could say that about anything mastercam does in general. The only way to guarantee it is to verify the Gcode, thats not something mastercam does anyways. look to vericut, ICAM, mazatrol simulation, etc for that one.

 

and also, most of the time, the machine will retract before any sort of unwind, that depends on post, programming etc. that has nothign to do with what ive shown.

 

I get the feeling you were proven wrong, and you are backtracking. but hey no one holds grudges.

 

And i apologize if you felt i was attacking your knowledge, I wasnt trying to do so. I just love to have a good debate. lol Thats how we learn to push ourselves. Ill also take this opportunity to mention, this is just business. lol nothing personal, not trying to start a fight or any grudges either. lol

 

[ 08-27-2009, 01:58 AM: Message edited by: Bwalker ]

[Colin Gilchrist]

Rob, I understand your concern, but I think you are way off base here. Bwalker was showing the capability of what Mastercam can do with Verify. Nothing more.

 

Let's review.

 

Randy (not some "new kid") asked:

 

quote:

---

Since most normal people use a 3 (or 4) jaw chuck and not the big chunky solid blue ring as Mastercam Lathe displays...and since I am getting numerous crash errors with said blue ring (since I am programming a mill/turn) when I am 'cutting/verifying' between jaws, I Want to fix this.

 

Any possibilites? Aside from making solid stock with a chuck attached?

---

Then Ron and Randy had some banter back and forth about the lack of improvements in Mastercam Lathe (which I can't knock them for, the truth hurts).

 

Then Bwalker posts up some pictures that answer Randy's original question exactly.

 

Now Rob, you decide to jump into the fray with this little gem:

 

quote:

---

Those pics of bwalker are pretty, but take a look at that last one. Mastercam would show that as no colision, What do you think the Machine is going to show?

 

To me that picture looks like a machine being stuffed in slow motion.

---

Followed by:

 

quote:

---

It appears that I got you a little steamed on this one. I never said that your solution would not work. There is a reason that Mastercam shows the chuck jaws rotated 360 deg, it’s to show a potential collision. That way the programmer can make up his own decisions on what to do. Your way may have worked for you, but you just can’t tell someone to draw up the chuck and stock and use it for verifying, without telling them what to look out for first.

 

What you are showing is not new; I have shown my customers this many times. Although I do tell them you better draw your jaws perfect and at the proper locations. Also the part better be orientated the right way. What about the head you have that milling tool mounted in? You better know were that’s at. (all of the time) Here is the biggest thing; you are still not guarantee 100% that you will not stuff that machine. Why? Because you are verifying the NCI code and mastercam does not know when and where that machine will decide to unwind.

 

That was totally irresponsible on your part, and I was calling you on it. You can’t just tell someone to model their chuck and show a bunch of pretty pictures and say “go for it this will work” without telling them all of the risk behind it.

 

You do seem like you have good knowledge of mastercam (even though you attack my knowledge)…..that’s okay!!

 

People come on here looking for good advice. What if some new kid saw what you did and thought wow cool! I will just model my chuck and try and cut between the jaws without knowing all of the risks. Come on dude we both know that you can’t always guarantee that solution. Even though the big blue circles are annoying I would feel better verify with those, then to have some pretty chuck where I’m not quite sure where the jaws are all of the time.

 

The good news is….With me pointing out that your picture looks like the machine is being stuffed in slow motion……Well it made you argue more about your setup and people reading this thread will now know the risks…………And that my friend was my point all along

---

So I guess I fail to see your point. The picture does not look like the tool is being stuffed in slow motion, it looks like the tool is cutting between the jaws.

 

Do we really need to hold everybody's hand and put WARNING: labels on everything?

 

The only reason I'm going so overboard with the rehashing is that you do deserve to be called on your behavior here.

 

I take issue with the idea that "Pretty in Mastercam" and "Pretty on the machine" are mutually exclusive.

 

There are plenty of us who use Mastercam's verify for the tool it is, and never crash a machine.

 

Is Mastercam's verify a substitue for real machine simulation? No.

 

Is it capable of giving you reliable results with a little knowledge and training? Yes.

 

The thing that I really take umbrage with is the notion that Bwalker answering a specific question someone asked should be construed as permission for some new guy to go crash their machine.

 

quote:

---

What if some new kid saw what you did and thought wow cool! I will just model my chuck and try and cut between the jaws without knowing all of the risks. Come on dude we both know that you can’t always guarantee that solution.

---

What? Really? There are so many things wrong with this statement.

 

 

If you modified your approach a little bit you could make your points in a manner that would foster discussion instead of giving people the impression that you are criticizing them.

 

JM2¢,

[Randy Morton @ Clem Industrial]

Wow. :S It was totally not my intention when I started this thread to cause a rukkus.

 

Although I am sure the pictures are great, and may even give me an idea of how to approach this (Ron, can you provide a link to your other thread? Dont think I read that one...), sadly I cannot view images posted here from work. I will check when I get home.

 

I do appreciate all the feedback tho. But it is the case, from my perspective, that I am an experienced programmer, setup & machine operator (much as I hate that word) and if someone were to ask why that big blue ring were there as opposed to a nicely modeled (as defined) 3 jaw chuck, I would have to say I dont know. Spinning? I can see that, but from where I stand, with a shop that is gearing its way out of the traditional 2 axis lathes and into mill/turn machines (or lathes with live tooling) something like this blue ring then becomes an obstacle.

 

Maybe there is something more that can be done. A compromise of sorts. Lathe work, keep the big blue ring to 'simulate' spinning of the chuck, and moving into mill work (c axis or similar) have redefine to a stationary chuck. If backplot can do C axis contouring and show the chuck moving and the tool positioning, why would it not be possible, in future, to have verify do something similar?

 

Thank you again for all the responses!

[GoetzInd]

If the jaws are modeled right and AT THE ORIENTATION THEY ARE ON THE MACHINE. There should not be a collision. We cut in between the jaws on our mill turns all the time. On smaller diameter part it can save us inches of stick out, which could be 200% the length of the part.

 

Mike

[BrianCNC]

One of the things that you can do is set your C0. so the jaws are oriented however you want. We do this with our Mori's (I assume you can on other brands) and have C0. between Jaws 1 and 2. That way we can move a part from one machine to another and not have to worry as much about hitting the jaws.

[Rob Dusenbury CAD/CAM CONSULTING]

Hey Randy, I apologize to you dude; my intention was not to start a ruckus either. I think that I may have helped you in the past on some other thread, not sure. The veterans on this forum know that I don’t come in a try and beat people up; all I wanted to do was help and lookout for you and your machines best interest. Unfortunately I came across as a punk, and I’m sorry.

 

Now, Randy if you don’t mind I would like to add to the above solution. Obviously you can model in your chuck and jaws and use it for verification purposes. You may want to take it one step further for your safety.

 

If you have multiaxis capabilities I would go with curve 5ax. That way you can use the faces of the jaws as check surfaces and have more control over your toolpaths. That will help avoid collisions while writing your cut motion (again just more control). You may even be able to use surface project, but that my take a little more experimenting, ether way you have check surfaces.

 

Now you asked if mastercam can switch the type of chuck from turning to milling. This can also be done.

 

1) Define your stock and chuck like you would normally for your turning work.

2) After all your turning is done, you can right click in the ops manager and use the lathe stock preview and save your cut part as a solid. (You may already know this but others may not)

3) Merge in your solid chuck and Boolean your stock to the chuck.

4) Create a new machine group and use the Boolean solid as your stock. You can now verify turning and mill turn.

Also while programming you can use the Boolean solid to check off of. One last suggestion, If at all possible use aluminum jaws.

 

Be safe and sorry for the Rukus.

[Randy Morton @ Clem Industrial]

Rob, I wasnt pointing fingers. So its no biggie. And thank you for the thot. It is a fair bit of steps to do but might be worth looking into for the smaller machines. For my integrex with two spindles it might be tuff cause it would drag my solid chuck and stock to the sub... might make for something funny looking.

 

But anyways, thanks for the thots