Driving a spade or a udrill on a vertical machining centre without guarding is a reckless and dangerous proposition. With these types of tools, you have to run fast without chip control. The stringers will whip and shower the shop in debris. This is why I also suggest a helical approach with a milling tool. Inconel isn't all that nasty if you respect it. Don't tickle it - cut it. Let the tool do its job.

Ooops - Key Word - "Verify" None that I know...

Toolpath, Operations, Backplot, Display, and select simulate rotary axis, the axis to rotate about, and the required tool plane. When backplotting a toolpath, and you stop halfway thru, the gview may be out of wack and give some wonky results. There is no way to reset it at this time (is there Glenn??).

Depending on the orientation of the piece - Horizontal or Vertical - I would be inclined to helical interpolate and then clean up with a boring bar. I'll get to the bottom faster, chips will not be a problem, and who needs coolant thru. Try it, Sandvik's 390 or Iscar's Helimill. Get the sales guy to bring it into your shop on "TEST". This way he/she is liable for getting the speed and feed right and will supply another cutter if he/she melts that one.

Reverse Posting - it is defined as taking crap and stuffing it into a monkey's butt trying to get a banana to pop out its mouth... LOL

A Presetter is a quick solution. For an economical alternative I would suggest to use a Spindle Adapter (basically a spindle taper to hold the tool) and a hight gauge. Measure the distance from the face of the adapter to the tip of the tool, record this, enter it into the machine offset register, and set a z value into the fixture offset. This way all the offsets will be calculated from home and job to job tool setting can be eliminated (The hazzard is with critical depths - may need to run the tool twice, or record the deviation between measured length and actual, then correct the offset amount.) This emulates what a "presetter" - in todays Functions - a "premeasurer" will do for you. (A presetter is the rusty hunk of crap the boss bought at auction because he thought he got a good deal even though he has no idea what he bought. Unfortunatly you can buy Crap for 5 cents a pound but then you are still left with 32 pounds of Crap!)

Good Idea. I see that they also have patented what I consider a standard type product idea incorporated into something new. Just seeing it makes me want to buy some aluminum - bore out size on either end - mount in the milling machine vice - split open with an endmill and keep the other $200.00 - Not to mention the setup time to align all the collets and - oh yea, the cost of the hardinge collet pads themselves. But then again, I am a cheap cuss... (Just a cynical view... Please no offence intended) [ 06-17-2002, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: MfgEng ]

I had some small plastic pieces to manufacture. Drilled holes and a contour. If the cost of the Vaccuum is too high, consider drilling the holes first bolting thru them, then contour out the shapes. An overzellous operator will marr the surface under the screwhead so give'm a slap ahead of time.

Beav - You didn't add that Pro/E makes a "Cosmetic Feature" for a threaded hole "representation". It is not the true helix that I think is what the question asks. At this current time that functionallity is Vapour Ware... Maybe in the next 3-5years.

Dave, Additional "Atta Boy" from me, now print these posts and hit Ed up for a raise!

www.coroguide.com

http://www.iams.org/flashhome.htm http://www.cutdata.com/ Check this company out. There is a 2 volume set - Machining Data Handbook available form these guys. I purchased a set thru the SME at www.sme.org - check out the bookstore and also become a member - I use mine everyday to find infromation and also as a resource center for developing processes and procedures. [ 06-12-2002, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: MfgEng ]

Cost Analysis - (2) Int 70 $1.5M (1) Mastercam V9 + Computer $20K *** Orders of magnitude difference...

Dave - Please answer above. Thanks, Andrew

Ying, Thanks for the effort, Have to investigate further. on opening a fresh session, it now is ok (I did regen about 38 time though...) Thanks

Here is the lowdown. Offline programming Good! Conversational on Machine Bad! I have 2 Integrex YB70's with all 5ax (Simultaeous 4, if you need or want Simultaneous 5 you have to get the Fanuc Control Option. Mazak didn't tell you that did they!) The post from Inhousesolutions is the magic you need in your bag of tricks. Tried to interface Pro/E to the machine but the 4 ax (Milling) roughing options are not there. MillTurn in Mastercam is quite good and we are able to drive the surface models accuratly. I suggest that you get some offline verification as well. Predator or Vericut will pay for itself quickly depending on part cost. Had some Mazatrol programming form Mazak and found that all the controls you have with EIA programming are gone and all the retracts and approach distances are controlled by parameters. I look at it like an olympic diver trying for the gold medal with a concrete block tied to his left ankle, kind of tough to do a flip! Also if you have to make payments on an integrex, remember that your customer is paying for machined parts- not programs. If you are spending half your available machine time making Mazatrol programs - then I have you beat before you get out of bed in the morning as I have just doubled productivity and I will eat you and your young for lunch. (just an analogy - I do not advocate canabolism). Look at the larger picture and remember that we are all in competition, across the world, with varing labour rate, carrying costs, taxes, skill levels, technologies available, among others. Don't start out on the wrong foot and put yourself at a disadvantage on the first day of the race. Just my passionate opinion. [ 06-11-2002, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: MfgEng ]

James - I hazard a guess that even though the home territory sales are soft for the other packages, I would suggest that the only reason they are there is because the code warriors that hack the software togeather are a little soft and need the sunshine and pretentiousness that a SoCal Zipcode promises. As a Canadian Scot - Try wering a Kilt NewYears Eve in a -35 Montreal Winter. (That was how I found out I was alergic to wool - That's what you get for goin' Regimental.) We can't afford to slack it off here in the NorEast so we need Mastercam to pay our way.

Suggest the first ZigZag pass than transform tool path X and Y direction Join the ends and chain it. Is this how you do it?

Ying - I posted file Tool_Prob on the IHS FTP sight for you to see. Propriatary geometry, That's why we can't use CADCAM's Thanks,

Ying, As I wipe the dust and pick the gravel out of my body from falling off the turnip truck - wait... Of Coarse I had the "As Defined" switch set. The problem is that the tool has a taper side to it 12mm cut diameter and a 16mm shank over a 3" length (76mm if you need to stay in metric reading my post...) I need to check the side clearance of this taper against the part model. This just in... **Problem with Tool File Redraw the tool MC9 to be a single chain starting at CL and finishing at CL and making it a function (Single Solution across the CL) error writing tool path bnci_section(): Cannot delete section Now I have corrupted my file. - TGFB (Thank Goodness For Backups) Looking for help... Thanks [ 06-07-2002, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: MfgEng ]

When I backplot a tool path, with a special form tool (defined as an MC9 file) the shapre defaults to the Auto. How do I force the backplot to show me what I need?

Further - How would one elegantly define a facing routine to face a flange but avoid the centre. I had some difficulty doing this (entry/exit was a mess) and ended up using pocket. (Not the proper choice.)

As a continuation of this - can one design a solid tool model, define the control point and have MasterCAM drive it across a surface (and fully gouge checked against all surrounding surfaces)? [ 06-05-2002, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: MfgEng ]

Item 1- Any level of milling will genereate toolpaths when bundled with Lathe. The complexity of the work will define what level of mill is required. For simple drilling/tapping and contouring/pocketing, stick with level 1. For some cool surfacing - go to level 3. Level 2 would give single surface capability but if you are going to do it - do it right (Buy it right or buy it twice...) Item 2- Peter E is correct. I specify a G84 type cycle when doing any Milling operations on the Mill/Turn centre. 1) Make sure that you select a Mill toolpath in the operations manager. Otherwise the machine will not distinguish between a lathe tapping operation (which would be a G32 in - Spindle Reverse - G32 out.) 2) That your post outputs the proper code. Know what you need before you ask the software to do it. This way you can assist/direct the post developer properly. I have no opinion here on adding solids - perhaps Brian Davis has some insight. [ 06-05-2002, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: MfgEng ]

Bullines, I refer to this type of persona as a Hammer Mechanic. Obviously no appreciation of the elegant solution.