Generic 5 axis posts for Acramatic 950 not cutting it.

[honeybunches]

I was going to contact some local shops to see where they might have found a post for this but so far, I guess the dealer option is "make one".  This can't be the only machine out there and I have experience modding posts but man, they gotta be somewhat close!

 

This machine has the standard B axis like any HMC but has spindle tilt as the A axis.  This makes any angled operations tricky to program and execute.  I am not sure if I the settings are wrong or what. 

 

I am not sure if I should be working with a post for an acramatic and work the other axis in or keep working with a generic 5 axis.  Programming is a bit different than std Fanuc. 

[Guest]

Contact local shops?  Why wouldn't you just go to the source, your dealer and solve the issue once?

[honeybunches]

As I understand it, the last time we had the dealer "make one", it was an expensive waste of our time as we had big man hours in just trying to explain what was needed.  In short, I need to be in a better position to mod the posts.  Will save time and headaches down the road.  

 

Just hoping to find something that is a little closer to start with.  Not yet sure if a more generic 5 axis is better than say an Acramatic 3 axis and adding all the other stuff to it.  

 

I say contact other shops because I am sure someone probably got this figured out by now.  

[honeybunches]

Only one reply?  Is this a control no one works with?  I am surprised.  At this point, I would like to find posting information for ANY Acramatic or Siemens product!  Seems about everything out there is Fanuc or Fanuc. 

 

Is this not the place to ask for post editing advice?  Just a vendor network?  I don't mean to step on toes. 

[Colin Gilchrist]

I used to program Cincinatti Acramatic 950 Gantry 5X machines at Boeing, and we started with the Generic Fanuc 5X Mill Post to make our own posts. If you don't want to have your Reseller make one, then just contact a good 3rd party post vendor. In-House Solutions or Postability have great posts available "on the shelf" for your machine. They do cost money, but they are worth it.

 

If you would rather go the "make my own" route, the Generic Fanuc 5X Mill post has the logic to be configured for any machine configuration. You just have to know how to edit the post.

[Guest]

 Is this a control no one works with?  I am surprised. ...

Pretty much. Let me guess, that machine is mid 90's-early 2000's. The last time that control was put on a machine would be darn close to 15 years ago. You should be surprised that it's still running not that nobody knows much about it.

 

In the 5-Axis world these days, you're looking at (in no particular order) FANUC, Siemens, and Heidenhein are the big 3, the rest would be Fidia, F@gor, and a few others that escape me at the moment.

 

Like Colin said, your best bet is to get one done by an expert. Postability and IHS being good bets.

 

To properly have a post done by someone you need to have a few things in order FIRST. 1) You NEED to have a sample file that does everything. Two consecutive ops that change spindle speeds, have different coolant modes. Paths with comp enabled. path with comp disabled. 5-Axis path with comp enabled, 5-Axis with comp disabled. Drilling cycles. Something with helical motion in it. 2) You need to know what the posted code is supposed to look like. (i.e. you post it out with something close if you have it, comment out what is not needed, type in the needed stuff, edit/alter what needs it.

 

Do that and getting a proper post will be as painfree as possible.

 

JM2CFWIW

[honeybunches]

Well, Siemens is Acramatic and still seems to be 'out there'.  I think especially bigger machines like this are going to run until they can't run anymore due to the expense of recontrolling and even then, this would should prove worthy of a recontrol.  

 

 

I do know how to edit a post to a degree but I would not say I have to totally mastered.  I think the key here might be starting with the closest thing we can.  

 

Foghorn - I certainly agree on some good sample code to work with.  Something i am not yet sure how to obtain because the programming manual is not all that helpful.  I was really hoping to find even a good 3 axis post to start generating proper code to see how it looks and maybe just add the 5 axis stuff to it...  Or at least know how it should go.  

[crazy^millman]

Hum let me see I have been in well over 200 different shops in the last few years and 2 of them had machinates with that control. Both have since had them re built with new controls so that would amke a total of Zero shops I am aware fo that could point you in the right direction. Trial and error and more error and trail and a couple crashes and mishaps and then a little more trial and error and then you should be about 80% there. Then from there will probably take more error and trail with some trail and error. You say to expensive to re control. How much time you think is being wanted by not using it correctly? How many of the newer toolpath cannot be used on that machine because that old of a control cannot handle the sure volume of code? Add all of that up and think even the most frugal of bean counter would be doing everything in their power to breathe new life into that machine.

 

Glad you seem to be a in a pocket of shops that have a bunch of these machines so you all can work together to get what you need, but in my customer base those machines are the shops that have since closed their doors.

[honeybunches]

If you write posts as well as you spell, i can't wait to invest!       LOL

 

All kidding aside, I am curious of your background?  Reason I ask is your opinion of it seems pretty misinformed IMO.  I don't think there was anything this control could not do when compared to other controls of the era.  I know lots of people talking about "newer paths" but that does not mean smart programming cannot make it work well.  Some of those paths have been well proven to be MUCH harder on the machine and you are not going to throw 5000lb of steel in a machine and kick this cool Trochoidal path at it without planning new lead screws in the budget annually.   

 

I should clarify this is not a budget VMC, this was a flagship machine that would cost big dollars to replace.  

[crazy^millman]

If you write posts as well as you spell, i can't wait to invest!       LOL

 

All kidding aside, I am curious of your background?  Reason I ask is your opinion of it seems pretty misinformed IMO.  I don't think there was anything this control could not do when compared to other controls of the era.  I know lots of people talking about "newer paths" but that does not mean smart programming cannot make it work well.  Some of those paths have been well proven to be MUCH harder on the machine and you are not going to throw 5000lb of steel in a machine and kick this cool Trochoidal path at it without planning new lead screws in the budget annually.   

 

I should clarify this is not a budget VMC, this was a flagship machine that would cost big dollars to replace.  

 

Me I just a big old dummy. I have dyslexia so my spelling suffers from that issue. My background is that of a ditch digger, floor sweeper and janitor. We use to run our $7 million Gantry SNK with 3 Spindles at 400 ipm at 14k. We also ran our Cincinnati Gantry at 250 imp at 8000 rpms with no issues. Controls today comparable to that have far superior processing or look ahead abilities. The ability to adjust for the mass and the weight being thrown around is part of the controls job and when you have the right control you do not have the problems of replacing lead screws and bearing assemblies. I don't write posts we have a company to do that for our consulting group.

 

Seen many flagship machines retrofitted with newer controls for less than $100k and the machine were producing parts 5 times faster than they ever were before. Let me do a little math with my bad spelling. The holy grail of numbers is 8760. (365 Days/24 hours a day) Lets say your shop averaged 100 hours a week out of your machine and with an retrofit also got 2 times faster. What kind of ROI would your company see if your shop rate was $100/hr based on say 50 weeks? Current machine capacity if $500,000 and if you were able to reap double the ability with a newer control. You would go up to $1,500,000 now if you were able to reap the 5 times you would go to $4,000,000 a year from your current flagship capacity. Crazy talk I know, but see people forget about the time ahead process. For every hour you gain you gain 2 hours. If you gained 5 times the ability to process work then you have 4X in profit over your current process. That would be 100 x 4 x 2 which would be 800 hours week in gained abilities. We do the math and we come up with that $4 million over your current $500k with that flagship machine. We got to some really crazy numbers like he had on our SNK 200' Long Gantry of 350/22 hours a day average we have some really out there ideas of what you could do with a machine. That is just crazy talk so I will crawl back in my hole.

 

We mange to get by with my bad spelling and can pay the bills. I wish you the best of luck in your search have a great day.

[honeybunches]

Let me be clear on this, I have learned in this business that there will always be a LOT of people crunching numbers ( I actually do it for a living if you can believe it) and telling me why spending more money with them is the way to go. I am not an idiot and fully realize the returns.  

 

HOWEVER, until you have enough work to warrant spending, it does NOT make sense.  The machine needs to be put to work doing something, pay for itself and the floor it sits on, then we can discuss retros.  WHILE IT IS RUNNING.  

 

I envy the shops that have work.  We cannot catch a break so we end up with this mess.  This machine will run out at 600ipm fd/rpd with look ahead.  I am still trying to learn what the blocks/sec is on it.  

 

See the difference here is you go to a customer currently making parts, then tell them how to go faster...  I can crunch those numbers but "currently making parts" is where we need to be first.  I lost count of how many shops failed recently with the mindset of spend more and they will come.  Then they just want it cheaper.  

 

when we find work that will give a 500K return in a year, I will happily hand you 100K to retro that machine to what it should be..

[crazy^millman]

Let me be clear on this, I have learned in this business that there will always be a LOT of people crunching numbers ( I actually do it for a living if you can believe it) and telling me why spending more money with them is the way to go. I am not an idiot and fully realize the returns.  

 

HOWEVER, until you have enough work to warrant spending, it does NOT make sense.  The machine needs to be put to work doing something, pay for itself and the floor it sits on, then we can discuss retros.  WHILE IT IS RUNNING.  

 

I envy the shops that have work.  We cannot catch a break so we end up with this mess.  This machine will run out at 600ipm fd/rpd with look ahead.  I am still trying to learn what the blocks/sec is on it.  

 

See the difference here is you go to a customer currently making parts, then tell them how to go faster...  I can crunch those numbers but "currently making parts" is where we need to be first.  I lost count of how many shops failed recently with the mindset of spend more and they will come.  Then they just want it cheaper.  

 

when we find work that will give a 500K return in a year, I will happily hand you 100K to retro that machine to what it should be..

 

Shoot me your company information we always have customers looking for places to farm out work. I will be glad to pass on your information to anyone that approaches us about shops that can do work suited for what your company is looking for.

 

Sorry if I come across brash not my intentions. I just call it like a see it and you are 100% correct. It is hard to upgrade something if there is not money or work to support it. That said shops with modern equipment are getting work and getting it done in a timely fashion so hopefully your machines have a unique ability that will get your company more work.

[honeybunches]

Ron, thanks, I will forward info to your email.  No, I am not offended, I just have to realize others don't know the situation.  Right now we need to get what we need to get it working as economical as possible while NOT sacrificing quality.  We come from making aerospace components so quality in that sector comes before eating and sleeping according to Boeing....lol 

 

In a nutshell the machine was sort of dropped in our lap and apparently we are the only ones that see value in it, possibly with a control upgrade later.  High point would be glass scales throughout, 65" cube travels, full 5 axis contouring, probing, heavy build meant to last many decades.  Meant for steel and Ti work.  Just finding quite a fight for this type of work.  Either companies run this stuff inhouse or we compete with China. 

 

My only gripe is the majority of functions are hydraulic rather than electric.  I like electric, it goes faster usually.  However, I have tweak-itis so if I run the machine, i will probably be climbing all over it while running, trying to figure workarounds on the sore points. 

 

These machines are hailed as very accurate, holding a few tenths over 5ft of travel. 

 

I think the intended goal is to get the machine chewing on something, assess how much we like it and what we might want to do to upgrade it, and start thinking about upgrade plans.  An ungrade on this machine will take some serious time.  We really need to be ahead and have things well planned before we start with that effort. 

[Guest]

Well, Siemens is Acramatic and still seems to be 'out there'.  I think especially bigger machines like this are going to run until they can't run anymore due to the expense of recontrolling and even then, this would should prove worthy of a recontrol.  

 

 

I do know how to edit a post to a degree but I would not say I have to totally mastered.  I think the key here might be starting with the closest thing we can.  

 

Foghorn - I certainly agree on some good sample code to work with.  Something i am not yet sure how to obtain because the programming manual is not all that helpful.  I was really hoping to find even a good 3 axis post to start generating proper code to see how it looks and maybe just add the 5 axis stuff to it...  Or at least know how it should go.  

I've got a dialed 3-Axis Acramatic A2100 post. PM me with your dealer's info and I'll fork it over. My post uses the Acramatic style drilling cycles AND helical output. The machine was a Cinci Arrow IIRC.

 

The reason I ask for dealer info is so that I'm not forking over posts to software pirates.

[GIZMO 21]

honey bunches no disrespect, but you might not have enough work because you're being outmachined

by companies with modern equipment.

is that how the guy from barefoot cnc said it?

 

 

like I said no disrespect.

[honeybunches]

Fog, I am curious, would it be easier to start with a generic 5 axis post or work with what you have as a 3 axis and add the other stuff?  As you mentioned though, getting that sample code might be tricky.  I know when we stepped into Dynapath, some guys ran out the door saying "its all wrong!@!"  lol  Once you know what you are looking for, it gets easier...

 

are you just wanting the serial# or what? 

[GIZMO 21]

oh here it is

 

http://www.mmsonline.com/cdn/cms/CAMInitiativesWhitePaper-withcaptions-.pdf

[Guest]

If it were me doing the post (and I NEVER do 5-Axis posts; that's for professionals only), I'd mod the 5-Axis post with what I learned format-wise on the 3-Axis. My Acramatic post is based off MPMaster post.

 

Typically what I do is send the post to your dealer than he/she sends it to you.

[honeybunches]

oh here it is

 

http://www.mmsonline.com/cdn/cms/CAMInitiativesWhitePaper-withcaptions-.pdf

Politely, I don't need an education in business operations.  I walk around with a calculator daily finding ways to improve things, including knocking 3sec off of a tool change that saves us 1.5hrs on one job!  I am as lean as it gets. 

 

I think a lot of people seem to think this 5 axis is so ancient, it can't possibly be efficient!  Trust me, I am closely analyized it and know what it needs to be working on and what paths will make the best of it.  I realize many programmers look at that program, see that they shaved time, but have no CLUE on tooling, vibration, insert life, machine tool life, spindle life, etc. 

 

I can tell you the modernd comparable Makino today is only about 20% faster than what we have and it is a LOT more than 20% more expensive. 

 

I really do feel that in the right work and with a special eye on utilizing the machines strong points, it can work out well. 

 

Example, we have VMC with a pretty slow tool changer.  We know we need more parts on the table to maximize time per tool.  We also find slick ways to use the same tool for more operations.  Either custom grind tools, etc.  We drill a hole in plastic with an endmill because it saves a tool change.  Prob saved 30sec/part right there.  

 

In the real world of machining, there are only a few factors, MRR, time, tooling life, $$.  I look at all of them a LOT.....lol

[crazy^millman]

oh here it is

 

http://www.mmsonline.com/cdn/cms/CAMInitiativesWhitePaper-withcaptions-.pdf

 

 

I am in that article under #7.

 

 

We took a high production aluminum part that was typically running at 22inches per minute and used high speed machining techniques to adjust

feeds and speeds upwards, but within safe limits. The part was taking three hours to complete before the adjustments, but only 45 minutes after

them. Based on these results, the company changed its policy on feeds and speeds, mandating that all production work would be produced at the

highest reasonable throughput.

 

Ron Branch, Consultant, 5th Axis Programming

 

You touch on very good points and yes if used correctly you can make money with the machine. Sorry you have run across programmer who were never really hands on machinist. What I teach all the time to shops I go in is not just the programming, but machining. Lost art now a days I will have to agree, but might watch dumping most programmer in that bunch. A lot of the guys here are just like me OJT trained, tried trued and tested. We are not all that bad once you get to know us or at least I hope I am not.

[honeybunches]

Well I don't mean to throw them ALL under the bus, I am sure I have sore point...like trying to get what I friggin want in a program!!...lol  Like I know what I want, now I have to tell MCX what I want....  that can start to suck...

 

Guess I know too many programmers that see it cut like a dream on the screen and think, "the boss is going to love it".  however, I also see these programs that you are like, "WTF!!!???" SLOW!  Then you apply fanciness.  Don't get me wrong, I like some of the new paths but I also know that MRR is MRR and time is time.  When you run a spindle at 20% load, then reprogram to 100% load, you can't put all that savings on the program paths.  Some of that is just using the tool better.  

 

I have a problem in that I always want things pushed until something gives so I know where the line is.  Usually either the spindle is out of poop or the tool blows up.  Then we know!  lol  Probably more expensive that way but I would be damn embarrassed if someone came in and reprogrammed my work to less than half the time taken.  

 

I think some of my smarter work has come from working with slower machines.  Every time you see it chase a new tool, you think "how can I do this smarter or better".  Some of that has come from time consuming post edits.  

 

Sorry if I seem to attack programmers.  I have learned a lot here.  I just have worked back and forth on some of the newer paths and found that they can work well in certain apps but like in Ti work, I don't know.  Never the less, this big machine can still employ some modern paths but it is a big girl, will run big parts, with big cutters, and that usually gets a little different approach because I don't want the machine broke over it.  

[crazy^millman]

Well on Ti I have seen in some places triple the MMR using the newer toolpaths over traditional Hog Out Processes. I have seen the push it till it break mentality and sorry, but you are off on your thinking here and here is why I say that. Ti is very very picky about broken tools and pushing tools till the break to see if you can be at optimum in my humble opinion creates more of a possibility of loss than knowing where you are at using good speeds and feeds. Spindle Load is only part of the equation in today's manufacturing and basing all of you ideas about MMR on spindle load are just wrong. I am taking tools at 10% spindle load with 200% doc and 10% step overs all day long and that tool is lasting 40 to 50 parts giving predictable results day in and day out. MMR is very respectable and it is my processes down through the operations that are greatly reduced. Does you no good to remove a lot of material if you turn a part that could be 3 operation into 7 because of how much stress you throw into using the old school tools and process. The newer tools and toolpaths help take the stress out of the part not introduce back into it. Taking a 2" dia 6" long corn cob at 4 imp with 60 sfm are a thing of the past in my book. MMR looks impressive you may think, but i will compare HST process day and night with the right tooling, holder, fixturing and machine. Give me a 1995 Machine or give me a 2015 Makino and I promise you I will wipe the floor with that 1995 machine all day long. Only advantage would be is it a 3 or 5 or 8 spindle machine verses a one spindle machine. Even then I would really like to see how much extra work is needed using something that old verse something that can handle today's needs from the toolpaths.

 

Yeah lumping most of us into the dumb as a box of rocks and we can't possible know a thing or two about true machining will only hurt the conversation. You have a specific problem and hopefully you get the answers you need to point you in the right direction.

 

Hopefully I spelled checked it good enough.

[honeybunches]

I will bite, and not from an argument standpoint, MRR (not MMR) to me is important because it is a measure of work getting done, which relates to when that part will be done.  You start with a 50lb block, part is 2lbs, common sense says the faster I can make 48lbs of chips, the better.  However,  when I can compare MRR to loads, common sense says lower loads are what I prefer.  Obviously I would rather the machine glide around a little more with less load than lesser maxed out cuts.  Just easier on the machine.  What I do is work with cut parameter calculators to determine the MRR, HP, torque, thrust, chips load, etc, to determine what is best. 

 

With these static values, there is no way to BS the system.  You cannot study this with "HSM paths", you have to look at the specific cut parameter, DOC, stepover, SFM, chipload.  I am curious which of these you are optimizing to get better results?  Higher than normal chip load so instead of one big girl pass at say .005fpt, you are doing .010fpt on paper but with a lighter stepever so with chip thinning, you get that number pushed back down? 

 

With this big 5 axis, I have been told it is rated at 600ipm feeds and does an admirable job of holding that through the turns with the high power servos.  Makino does have a nice product, rated at around 780ipm feeds.  I realize it will go faster BUT that does not mean the old girl cannot be profitable.  It can still handle HSM paths and has 9megs of memory to handle a pretty intense program. 

 

I think I did misleas on Ti.  Ti is tricky and we most certainly do NOT push tooling to breakage in that stuff.  I do that in Aluminum and sometimes steels.  Ti has specific properties like very low thermal conductivity, mod of elasticity, work hardening issues, etc that make it special.  What is likes is high feed, low speed, so HSM paths are great!  This is exactly where we would like to run high DOC, high feed, low stepover, low rpm.  However, thrust is up STILL because of the DOC. 

 

Also, I am curious as to the "stresses" of the parts?  Where do you get that?  localized heat generation can cause distortion and deflection can force finish passes but I have read some of this and they make it sound like there is no internal stresses at all from heat treat!!!  I mean ALL 2024-T3 has internal stress and some parts will curl up like a pretzel regardless of machining and you have to remove most of the material, let it spring, then cut again. 

 

Ron, I am all ears here!  I am not trying to preach, just sharing what I know or think I know.  I am curious what your approach would be if you have only 4000rpm, 600ipm, and 40hp?  gearbox machine so should be able to apply good torque at at rpm. 

 

By the way, there is a webinar done by Makino where their materials engineer did some serious testing in Ti cuts.  They indicate a LOT of thrust is needed in Ti because you need to run a higher chip and lower speed.  SFM was the biggest contributor to heat generation in the cut this tool wear.  Very interesting vid. 

[crazy^millman]

I will bite, and not from an argument standpoint, MRR (not MMR) to me is important because it is a measure of work getting done, which relates to when that part will be done.  You start with a 50lb block, part is 2lbs, common sense says the faster I can make 48lbs of chips, the better.  However,  when I can compare MRR to loads, common sense says lower loads are what I prefer.  Obviously I would rather the machine glide around a little more with less load than lesser maxed out cuts.  Just easier on the machine.  What I do is work with cut parameter calculators to determine the MRR, HP, torque, thrust, chips load, etc, to determine what is best. 

 

With these static values, there is no way to BS the system.  You cannot study this with "HSM paths", you have to look at the specific cut parameter, DOC, stepover, SFM, chipload.  I am curious which of these you are optimizing to get better results?  Higher than normal chip load so instead of one big girl pass at say .005fpt, you are doing .010fpt on paper but with a lighter stepever so with chip thinning, you get that number pushed back down? 

 

With this big 5 axis, I have been told it is rated at 600ipm feeds and does an admirable job of holding that through the turns with the high power servos.  Makino does have a nice product, rated at around 780ipm feeds.  I realize it will go faster BUT that does not mean the old girl cannot be profitable.  It can still handle HSM paths and has 9megs of memory to handle a pretty intense program. 

 

I think I did misleas on Ti.  Ti is tricky and we most certainly do NOT push tooling to breakage in that stuff.  I do that in Aluminum and sometimes steels.  Ti has specific properties like very low thermal conductivity, mod of elasticity, work hardening issues, etc that make it special.  What is likes is high feed, low speed, so HSM paths are great!  This is exactly where we would like to run high DOC, high feed, low stepover, low rpm.  However, thrust is up STILL because of the DOC. 

 

Also, I am curious as to the "stresses" of the parts?  Where do you get that?  localized heat generation can cause distortion and deflection can force finish passes but I have read some of this and they make it sound like there is no internal stresses at all from heat treat!!!  I mean ALL 2024-T3 has internal stress and some parts will curl up like a pretzel regardless of machining and you have to remove most of the material, let it spring, then cut again. 

 

Ron, I am all ears here!  I am not trying to preach, just sharing what I know or think I know.  I am curious what your approach would be if you have only 4000rpm, 600ipm, and 40hp?  gearbox machine so should be able to apply good torque at at rpm. 

 

By the way, there is a webinar done by Makino where their materials engineer did some serious testing in Ti cuts.  They indicate a LOT of thrust is needed in Ti because you need to run a higher chip and lower speed.  SFM was the biggest contributor to heat generation in the cut this tool wear.  Very interesting vid. 

 

Okay I think part of this is I am not saying in any shape form or fashion you cannot make money with your machine. I am talking about difference of approach.

 

Yes I agree 2024 will be handled differently than Ti, but if the 600 sfm is achievable in Ti using Chip thinning and other process that utilize the tool geometry to its maximum efficiency then MMR does become comparable to a 120 SFM process. MMR again I think if applied the wrong way can be misleading as to how one looks at taking a 50lb block and turning it into a 2lb block. Now take a 2500lb block and turn it into a 500lb block would be done totally different would you not agree?

 

You were never specific about a Material in unless I missed it were talking about only Ti cutting. Now you throw Aluminum into the equation. Either way I argue that a HSS Cobalt Corn Cob Roughing Endmill will introduce Stress into any Material that you would not see if cut with a Carbide endmill with the correct geometry and using HST toolpath processes. That said you might see a better MMR with that Cobalt Tool, but the extra work needed to process the part negates using said tool to achieve the MMR factor someone would consider acceptable maybe comparable to HST process that show less MMR from the tool, but in all reality have remove more material as quick if not quicker.

 

Yes I have taken 50lbs of 6061-T6 Aluminum and turned into 2lbs using HST toolpaths and process and was able to achieve a .002 part flatness in just 2 operations and hold the .005 True Position without the need of Max Material to do so. Granted not 2024, but processing parts is as much art as it is science and you keep going back to your calculations and sorry sometimes you have to trust your gut and see what the process is telling you. What is the tool telling you, the chips the noises, and machine? It all tells a story and if you take the time to go out and see the story you get an idea what that story is. I seen to many running around telling me how it couldn't be done or that was not possible to only prove them wrong time and time again it is possible. I always tell anyone that machining is much an art as it is a science. There are Scientific processes and principles that can be applied, but some times you need to tap the creative artistic side and what you can really do.

 

I will give you a god example. I am cutting a undercut bowl shape in some 7075-T851 Manifolds and the customer forbid custom tools for the parts. Demanded we use off the shelf tools. We followed their request and we purchased 4 tools to machine the areas the parts needed. The process was taking 45 minutes and the tools were not holding up to even finish one part. We had custom tools made at $400 ea and was able to take at best 63 finish 45 minute operation per bowl and cut it down to 4 minutes per bowl with a 16 finish. MMR with the 4 tools per tool was looking awesome. The MMR with the one tool is terrible only doing a .01 step over using a HST toolpath, but I am able to cut a lower .500R at the 2.621 depth and the .100R at the 1.435 depth along with machining the 2.885 Diameter inside of the 2.627 Hole the shape the part has it in. I am running that tool at 4000 rpms at 40 imp. Now should I go back to that favorable MMR per tool process that was not allowing the tool to last one part or should I go with the terrible MMR tool that is machining the hole feature in at one time in 1/10 of the time? Oh yeah that tool has cut well over 200 bowls and is not showing any signs of wear.

 

Point is every situation is different and every application is different and the paint brush too many try to apply to things just doesn't cut it sometimes. You find the right work that machine will make you money hand of fist all day long. Key is finding the right work I keep seeing you talk about. I took our SNK 3 Spindle Gantry at one Place with only 4000 rpm on Aluminum parts and set up 6 parts per Spindle that were being done one at a time on a VMC with 12,000 rpms. We were able to keep the machine running 36 hours at a time as we stacked Op1, Op2 and Op3 along the travel of the machine. The programs were made in such a way that common tools would run between the 3 operations as needed. We took parts that were taking over 1 hour ea to make on the VMC and have to be run through 40 at a time before going on the next operation and producing complete ships sets every 36 hours verse every 3 weeks the VMC process was because it was the right machine. MMR I can promise you sucked on those parts, but I had a machine sitting doing nothing verses a machine that had 6000 hours of backlog on it. Do you think I really cared if the work was a perfect fit for that machine if I was getting almost 100% up time on those parts verses the only 2 shifts I was getting before the other way?

 

Sometimes you can put the Round pin in a square hole if the pin is small enough to fit inside the square. Same thing with a Square pin in a round hole get a small enough piece of square stock and it will fit in a round hole. Most people hear can't fit a round peg in a square hole and agree were I as always ask why not?

 

Hopefully I made enough sense with my bad spelling and grammar to not have what I am say discredited.

[honeybunches]

LOL, those are some good examples and I think we probably think along the same lines in terms of maximizing resources and processes.  I can tell you I have never been a button pusher and always been an owner/operator/cnc tech, so when I run something, I pay attention to everything.  How the machine sounds, how long, part finish, tool life, document, document, document....  Thus the reason for buying a mill/turn lathe!  We have some parts, I knew the process was not efficient and could be done better.  Cut parts from bar, though I have not converted this stuff yet, should bring us from about 6min/part, down to 2min and look even better when we have less material waste, less setup, and better tolerances.  Basically we turn a basic shape in a lathe, then move to the mil to complete it!!!

 

Anyway, I get what you are saying about maximizing a machine, thus the reason I think this big 5 axis can find something great to do.  It has enough, tool cap, memory, and inches of travel of the pallets to setup dozens of jobs and repeat those jobs with no setup or changes.  Actually, when you compare the square inches of travels of say 4 sided pallets, this machine has the capacity of "25" 40x20 travel VMCs.   Yes, I know it only has one spindle but I have to consider the expense of those 25 machines.  Guess all I am saying is I think we can find some distinct advantage in there somehow!  Just need some more head scratching...

 

I did want to ask though and maybe divert our conversation to optimized tool paths.  As you know, we have a max of 4000rpm on this machine.  It is a very sore point for me!!!  I realized in steels/Ti we will probably be mostly fine but would try to stay away from parts that need too many small cutter.  However, Aluminum work has to be considered on this machine, even if it is not most efficient. 

 

So, how do you end up getting the data for chip thinning and estimating the feeds/speeds?  I mean, the secret sauce in all of this is we are going way over what the tool OEM recommends for chip load but we light radials.  I want to know how to figure how much to go and how to calculate the radial thrust tot he tool and part?  Boss aint gunna be too happy to see a 1" carbide popped in half trying to push it. 

 

I was talking with a good friend that is currently reprogramming parts now shaving hours off operations with HSM.  Tool life, time, and HP required are all improving.  The reason I want/need to know is I am running some hard numbers with this machine and I have to determine if smart programming can make gravy.  I only have 40hp to play with.  If I go calculate numbers against a 100HP Makino, I lose big time so I need a different strategy.  I have plenty of thrust.  I believe 3000 in XY and 5000 in Z!  I have 3 speed ranges so I can always throw down good torque in a cut.  So if I can run a slower spindle with higher feeds and keep the spindle power in check which still popping off material efficiently, I am good. 

 

When I look at calculators, I am not sure they are taking chip thinning into consideration. These calcs with primarily with the chip load, material hardness, etc to estimate power and thrust in a cut.  Thrust will distort  part and break tools so I have to watch it but if effects of chip thinning are not realized, my calculations are not accurate!!