I would highly recommend Renishaw. They work fantastic! ROUR!

Tell the boss the machine couldn't even rough that fast. To be able to even rough at that speed in that circle with a tiny end mill would require a machine with the ability to accelerate at 2.3G. Most top quality machines can only do 1.0G acceleration. If you were to cut this with a .25" diameter cutter at those specs you would need 3.5G. Good luck with that. This doesn't even account for the accuracy he is looking for. Better get a boring head of jig bore for that.

+1000. How a machine handles tools is right at the top of my list of requirements. It makes a huge difference on how efficiently a shop can run. If a machine couldn't assign tool numbers to pots it would probably be a deal breaker for me.

We currently have four T603 in the shop, two in each A51 HMC. There are a few different ways to track these and it depends on the control's tool management system. With stand alone machines (not hooked up to the cell controller) it allowed entering multiple tools with the same tool number and it would keep track. I should add that with these Makinos there are 60 pots that will accept tool numbers up to 9999, or 99999999 with 8 digit tool numbers. We recently hooked up these two machines to the cell controller even though they aren't physically part of the cell. These tools are tracked with a functional tool number (generic tool setup, T603, 3/8" end mill in Haimer shrink fit with 1.4" stick out, min gage length of 4.4") and an individual tool number (T06030001, 0001 specifies a specific instance of this generic (functional) tool, gage length is 4.4351, etc...). The second instance of T603 would be T06030002, then T06030003, etc... The cell controller keeps track of these tools when in the machine and also once removed. When a tool is removed from the machine it goes into the tool crib along with all of its data so putting it back in the machine means physicalls load the tool in the magazine and tell the control it is back in. Tool data, life, wear info all goes back in with it. I should add that when a tool goes into the tool crib it physically goes into the tool crib tagged with its ITN. It also goes into the tool crib in the cell control so at a glance a programmer can look at what tools are available in the crib assuming everyone has been doing their job correctly. I am only pointing all this out to illustrate what tool management capabilities some machine controls have. They can be a huge asset in tracking tooling.

+1000.

Yup, work work work! Summer has been a challenge with vacations, etc..., family and employee. I have been lurking though, just haven't had much to say. Give me a call if you ever make it up this way.

We have built our tool libraries with this in mind. Each cutter, holder, and cutter stick out combo is a unique tool number. We also only have ONE tool library. If tool 5 needs another .1" of stickout for a given project it becomes a whole new tool number. With this method there can be a ton of overlap from project to project and the tools never need to be changed in the machine. Tool 5 for example, in our system it is used in a few dozen different programs and there is only one in the machine. We program around these (loaded) tools as much as possible even if it means a little less efficiency because it frees up magazine space. We have every project tooled up in our cell (218 tool magazine) and we still have ~75 empty pots for future projects. Given that projects are programmed around tools present in the cell each new part might require 2-3 new tools at the very most. We mostly machine steel and aluminum however so that makes it easy. If you machined aluminum, steel, Ti, stainless, etc... on a regular basis you would fill up pots fast.

Yeah, I love damascus steel things. Looks really cool!

If you do this sort of thing often you could set up a misc integer as a switch that would allow you to specify that in the operation itself. That is how I set tool break detection, etc...

I bought the tombstones blank so it is wide open.

Anyone have experience with these? http://www.stevenseng.com/Modularvise.html Are these good? High Quality? Work well? I think they would work well on the face of my 2-sided tombstones. I need something that is low profile to keep wide work within my work cylinder on the horizontal machine. The plan would be to bolt these directly to the tombstone. instead of a sub-plate. I have Toolex vises on the back side of these tombstones but they are just a little too tall for some of the wide parts so the ends are outside of the safe zone.

In our shop I would worry about damaging the surface plate with the angle grinder and ball-peen hammer. Actually I really like this setup but how do you get operators to take care of the surface plate? I would worry about wrenches, micrometers, and other hard items being placed on them constantly. We have a rule here where only items used every cycle are allowed on the table top and it includes hard items like wrenches, etc... Each of our machines has a Lista cabinet in front of it as well but no computer or surface plate. Cool setup and thanks for sharing.

Well nickelwiremesh had some really specific pointers that might help machine it more efficiently if you are looking for some ideas

This is the oldest post brought back from the dead I have ever seen. I was still pitching when this thread was originally posted, sheesh! And the twin towers were still standing.

I had another look at the pictures and noticed the tool failed at the flute corners so I looked up the tool data and it appears to be a sharp corner tool. Given your finishing depth of cut I would do this job with two tools. A rougher with a .030-.060 corner radius and a finisher with the sharp corner if that is what is needed. Running coolant will require than you back off the speeds and feeds which will make this take much longer. It might be worth rigging up a quick and dirty air blast depending on the anticipated cycle time (zip tie an air hose with adjustable nozzle in there). So to summarize, bolt the fixture plate directly to the mill table, get a tool with a corner radius for roughing, see if you can rig up an air blast system, check the quality of your side lock holder, and you're good to go.

I avoid those holders like the plague as we have had nothing but trouble from them. We gave all ours to the local high school... My #1 preference for this application would be a hydraulic chuck like the Schunk Tendo-E compact. Great damping characteristics and cuts like butter. I would also use a smaller tool and run faster. Heck, I hated running 1/2" tools in my Haas in ALUMINUM because the rigidity was so bad. I'd try a 3/8" tool and just replace them more often.

Another thing that might help is to put the machine into roughing more (G187 P1) as this will speed up the tool and reduce pauses and dwells. When in roughing mode make sure to leave enough extra material for finishing. I'd guess .010-.015" should be fine at those feed rates.

Tool holding will be important here and I would use a mill chuck, hydraulic, or shrink fit. It looks like you were running coolant and I'm not sure at RC60, but we run production parts at RC54 (4140) with air blast. Coolant cuts the tool life in half, at least with the speeds and feeds we are running. Do you know the exact alloy?

How are you holding the tool? Also, coolant, dry, or air blast?

I assume you are working with a solid. There are selection filters (apply solid selection/ select face) that can be used to select individual faces when dealing with solids. I'm sure someone will post a picture.

I haven't used it but I would consider a probe a no brainer whether you get Productivity Plus or not. If you learn how to use it a probe is one of the best investments a shop can make. It will pay for itself 10 times over.

Vericut is worth several times what I paid for it. Preventing crashes in only one aspect of what the software does and it has prevented a few crashes here. Other things it does is flag program syntax (cutter comp activated on an arc, etc...), over travel, and many other details that speed things up. I am simulating a mold right now and I made a mistake where a cutter was taking a side finishing pass that was longer than the flutes on the tool. Sure, Mastercam probably could have caught this but my tool library in Vericut is so much more detailed that I rely on it as the final word. It is not at all uncommon to send a program to the Makino cell after a Vericut simulation, shut off the lights and head out on the program prove out where it will run at 3am. We have that much faith in the results. Lights out machining on the first cycle, typically molds... It will save a ton because you can have operators do other things on the program prove out rather than standing at the machine with a finger on the red button hoping to catch a possible mistake.

I can think of some engineers that produce some pretty crappy files no matter what the format...

Having used both for years I prefer ProE by far, it is a better product. Too bad their customer service was non existent. With companies like that customers relish the chance to jump ship and switch platforms, it is their only true recourse.

Agree, We have Solidworks and ProE and always prefer the native file. Solidworks seems to play a little nicer with Parasolid but STEP works well also. For the record, I prefer ProE and we only have Solidworks because some of our big customers use it and it saves a lot of hassle having the same platform in house. I think ProE is a little more robust.