quote: Ouch; that's a different story altogether, man. You might want to toughen the insert grade up a little for a forging, or use one tool just to get the skin off and then go at it a little harder in the clean material. Rubbing the tools along that skin is a tool killer, so get under it in one pass wherever you can and watch out for serious DOC notching because of the forged surface.I'm hoping things will ease up once we get through the out layer.

quote: You must have one hell of a chip pan. They are usually tiny parts......lol. or my eye sight is getting REALLY bad.

Thanks gentlemen, I have cut plenty of 316Lss, so that will give me some idea of what to expect. This part, which we are turning, came to us as a forging, and it's about 33" diameter, and about 40" long, so it looks like there will be some considerable cycle time.

Are any of you fellas familiar with machining 18-18. I've never worked with this in my experience, just wondering what sort of feeds/speeds are required for this material. So far it seems pretty tough. We are using various grades and geometry of carbide inserts, and so far nothing has held up too well. Thoughts..................? Thanks for any input.

I've always preferred thread milling using sub programs over mastercam. Not to say that mastercam doesn't do a good job. It it's just my preference, and works better for me in my situation. Using a sub makes it easy to modify at the control without having to repost anything and significantly shortens the whole thing as well. Here is an example of how I usually thread mill. G0 G90 G54 X1.5 Y0. S1069 M3 /M8 G43 H1 Z1. Z.1 G1 X1.17 F6. M98P1L10 G90 G1X1.5M9 G0G91G28Z0 M30 O0001 G91 G2I-1.17Z-.0174 M99 I know there are several ways to create a thread milling program . For me this works nicely.If you need to change the diameter just change two X values, if you need more thread in the Z travel, just change the L value. Need to thread mill more than one location, add another XY. Also works great for plung milling or any application where a helical entry is needed.

We have two VTC-20 Mazak mills, a Haas VF-3 and a Haas VF-5. Honestly, IMO the best thing about the Haas machines are the simplicity of their controls. They are very user friendly and straight forward. The vector drive is pretty weak. We come pretty close to stalling the spindle out hogging with a .500" 4fl em in steel. Not to mention all the vibration and rattling. Interpolating contours always seems to leave a faceted finish, which doesn't always look too good either. The VTC's on the other hand, are noticably more rigid and sturdy. The servos are WAY smoother when contouring, and with the added rigidity, getting good finishes on parts is much easier. The controls are laid our a bit differently, which takes some getting used to, but not complicated. Like someone mentioned before, it really depends on what you're building to justify the added cost. Just to add.......our Haas mills need to be serviced on average of 3-5 times a year for things like, spindle replacements, CRT replacement, power supply replacements, Encoders, control boards, faulty switches, etc. One of our Mazaks has had a spindle replaced recently, after about 12 years or more of service. Which isn't bad, considering the abuse our machines get every day. The one thing that I don't like about the Mazak VTC, is the design of the way covers. Every once in a while they bind up, and seperate, and they are a pain to put back together.

At our shop we have a 20 year old Zeiss that works considerably well, and it's relatively easy to use, and it's accurate. About a year ago, we decided to either retrofit the zeiss with newer hardware and software or buy a new CMM. So we opted to get a new Brown & Sharp with articulating probe head and PCDIMIS software. I gotta say, I haven't been convinced that the B&S is all what it's cracked up to be. I've been using the zeiss for several years, and I have a good understanding on alignments and concepts with CMM's, but it seems that the B&S isn't very consistent when it come to repeatability. I can set up a and check the same part and get numbers that vary .005" or worse, where as the zeiss will repeat withing .0001......easily and consistently. It's not very reassuring to the machinist when we're trying to hold +/- .0003 diameter with a .002" true position.

Thanks, I will try that. Cheers

Good idea, only thing is, only two of our computers are networked, and of course the one that is not, is the one I set up the post on. : (

Hey all- We've been using X2 for about six months now, we have 3 seats of X2 upgraded from V9, and as we adapt to it, I spent the better part of an evening at work tweaking the MPFAN generic post to work just the way I (and most others around here)like it, and I achieved this, finally (woohoo). Anyway, I wanted to be able to use this same post on our other computers without having to spend many more frustrating hours trying to figure it all out again. On V9 is was easy enough to simply copy the post over to the other seats, but X2 seems to be a bit more involved than that. Can someone please give me a little guidance in doing this. Thanks.

I still use it all the time.

I did look in the machinist handbook, unless I totally missed it, I didn't find it, (which wouldn't suprise me). But thanks anyways guys.

Hey guys- I was wondering if there is a spec or just a general rule when it comes to the width of a thread relief up against a shoulder on a shaft. I heard that it was 1 1/2 the width of the thread pitch. Sounds logical, but..........?? Thanks

Ok, let's say that there is some accumulative error the deeper the tap goes. Now, when the spindle reverses and the Z axis starts traveling back up, is (should) everyhing going to sync up exactly the same way as it went in, or is there going to be the same error deviation, but only the opposite this time?

Especially if it's a HAAS.