I did, he gave me one for an 840D, said he could not find the 810T. I'm not asking for a developed new post, just one that came loaded allready on previous version.

I had a older version of v9.0 that had a post for a Siemans 810T lathe. I have deleted them from my system and no longer have and way to recover them. Is there a download site that I can get this from? I Don't really want to go through the hassel of creating one from scratch AGAIN. Why do older versions of MasterCam (pre X) have so many post that you can chose from but after X there are only a limited amout, and all generic. Sorry for the rant, but is really does frustrate me.

ok, here's what I have figured out. 1st., we have been checking our minor diameters wrong from the start. The minor maximum needs to be checked at a flat form of p/4, this is done by measuring a line that falls parallel to centerline, at a width or p/4 till it stops in the 60 degree vee. The measurement is taken there and only to verify that the line falls below the Minor dia. maximum dimension. the minor minimum ( means nothing) but if it does need to be check it would be done at the bottom off the 60 degree vee regardless of if its a flat or a rounded form. If it is an MJ series then it is done at the bottom for both minor max, and minor min. - Now I have to convince our Q.C. dept of this. After doing my research it makes sense to verify the minor diameter maximum this way to be assured there is no mating part engagement issues. Any input? Maybe?

This is a standard Metric series, not a "MJ". This is the problem. I have asked the Q.C. manager to please have the customer change the drawing on this and mearly state reference on the Minor Min. Diameter. He states that this is not an option and we need to make it according to print. Says that its a goverment contract and that making even as simple a change as this is a major task. Bull, I say. I've done plenty of Goverment work in the past and if explained correctly to the Engineers it has never been an issue for me. I think that they are just trying to shove there weight around personally.

The issue is that the 1.0mm pitch is standard, and that all the numbers from the calculations are correct (thread check software). I am not so sure that the parts are being checked according to standards - in this case ASME B1.13-2005, and ISO 68-1. Follow this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_metric_screw_thread You will see that the minor is being called out at the flat root width of P/4. This is why I need some Quality Control help on this. We are checking the minor at the bottom of the radius the tool is creating.

Easier said than done. This is a production job of over 1000pcs every month.

There using a comparator to verify my Minor Dia. Min is undersize. I know I am making a good thread, passes go-no go, Major measures good, pitch meassures good over wire method and pitch mics, but the minor is being cut undersize. Everywhere I look the Minor Minimum should be a reference only, and the Minor max is the important one to be verified. Question is the way there are checking it (is it correct), Im thinking it shoud be checked at a flat form of p/4 or a flat of .25 in this case.

Not sure why. I am finishing the Major Diameter before threading. Just using the full profile insert so I know i am using the correct rad., If I use a partiall profile insert the Rad. is .05 and the minor is WAY undersize (this is according to our Q.C. dept.). The problem I am having is that the customer drawing has the same information as I get from the thread check software except theres no reference () on the Minor Min. diameter callout so we are forced to hold it.

Im hoping someone can shed some light on an issue Im having. Im trying to do research on the proper way to check the minor diameter on a metric series M26 x 1 4h/4h 4 start thread. Im using thread check software for the specs and get "Max flat form minor diameter @24.917, Max flat width at minor Diameter @.25, Min. flat width at minor diameter @.144, Min rounded form minor diameter (ref) @24.917. The issue is how to check max minor and min. minor (or the correct way to check them). Hoping there are some Quality Control people here that could shed some light. The issue is that my minor Diameter the way we are checking it is undersize. We are checking the Bottom of the Radius at the root. I am using a standard 1.0mm full profile ISO insert to machine the thread and pitch, major diameters are fine. Thanks in Advance.

Larry,

 

here is the norm on that thread callout I also provided the class 6h. The info is from gage maker.

 

Jerry

Thanks. I use the same but have always pretty much ignored the Minor Min. in the past. It is not our customer that is rejecting the parts but rather our Q.C. dept.

I have always thought that the Depth of thread did not matter, This is why they manufature inserts that can cover a range of pitchs.

Larry,

 

What are the specs on your customer print? How is it clalled out, do they just call the thread and class or do they provide the pitch, major, and minor diameter also. I have found looking at a thread callout that they made modification that might be out of the norm. So with getting burn once I allways look at the complete form. Case in point, I had one thread that was a special. They called out the pitch daimeter with .01" total tolerance, however, after looking at the minor diameter and the root radius we had .002" to get the pitch and minor to fit within there spec.

 

You might also want to make sure that you are using an insert that will produce a root with of .250mm. which is what they call for in a class 4h, you are using a class 6h, you should be fine.

 

Jerry

Thay do call out Major Diameter, Pitch Diameter, and Minor Diameter ranges. However I have always thought that when checking the minor you just want to be sure that minot max. does not exceed requirments (Gaging at Maximum Mat. condition), and min. is just a reference.

Phil,

Sorry, I was discumboobiated. Just made edit to original post. Does it make more sense now?

I am having some issues our Quality Control Dept., I have parts that have a M26 X 1 4h/4h 4start external thread callout. I have always machined threads using a partial profile threading insert. I am being told that my Minor Dia. Min. is undersize and they are rejecting my parts. It is specified to be 24.654mm and I am out about .1mm undersize. I have always assumed that major Diamter, pitch diameter, and minor max. was all that was critical and minor min. was simply a reference unless there's a thin wall condition. Am I wrong? Can anyone stear me to a standard. I know that a UN callout minor diameters are a calculated reference but cant find that on Metric series. Thanks in advance for all the help with this.

Cant find X4 english???

Followed link but cant find X4 version for English. Am I missing something? Does this work with Lathe?

Just checked a certified plug gage with pitch micrometers. Size is .92810-48 - pitch should read .9146 +.0002 Got an .0008-.0010 error on the + side. Not a good way to go IMO.

Just to be fair. Are there any Q.C. guys here that agree with checking these threads using Pitch micrometers?

Thanks guys. Great responses. Keep them coming. I will relay all information with management and strongly suggest purchasing gages for all of our production parts.

We are having some issues with Q.C. dept. (imagine that). Day to day we machine fine threads on lens barrels. We normally use a couple methods for checking them, home made plug, and ring gages, 3 wire method, and fitting to mating parts. We have recently started a Q.C. dept. that checks our parts. Issue is they are using pitch micrometers to check with and not getting same reading as our methods. Trying to tell them that 3 wire method and there pitch mics are different by as much as .002" (o.d. threads and always on the + side). They say they will reject parts if they are not checking good using pitch mics. Bottom line is they fit mating parts and check good with wire method. Normally we machine anywhere from 48tpi, to 64tpi on dias. from .75" - 1.5" on Ultem2200 and 6061 alum. I need some ammunition from fellow machinist and Q.C. personal to determine best practices. My worries are that we could be making out of tolerance parts and Q.C. will accept them, customer may have certified ring gages and may have no-go conditions. Thanks in advance and sorry to stir this pot up.

Thank you neebeeee. Good info.

Had a part simular to that. Used an expansion arbor (homemade out of brass). Make it the 2.2" o.d. and long enough to bottom out on c'bore face.

Thanks Guys,

This is a product that we have outsourced in the past. We dropped the ball on getting order in on time and are forced to make the product in-house this run. Not a prototype part (300pcs) also the color is black so no Vapor Polish is required. From the history from our vendor and receiving inspection we have had multiple issues with non-conformance. Think I am getting in too deep with these parts and may need to consult with Engineering(yuk). Can annealed stock be roughed and then stress relieved? Does anyone know a good source on the web to get this information? Thanks.

I am in the process of trying to machine unfilled Polycarbonate. This particular part is about 1-1/4" dia x 1-1/8" long. This is a lens barrel and tolerances of dias, seats, and geometric dimensioning of +,-.001, perpendicularity of .0005, wall thickness of finished part is about 1/8", multiple dias., seats. I am getting annealed stock but was wondering if these should be roughed 1st, then stress relieved or let sit for a couple days prior to finish machining. Worrys are thermal expansion and dimensional changes after finishing. Any help with people that have experience with this would be greatly apprciated. Thanks in advance.

Thanks Ken,

Trying to work with the newer Mplmater for our machines. Some of our post go back to Ver.6 and really would like to get updated. I can hard code it into the newer post but was looking at all alternatives. Thanks again.

we have 4 hardinges, they all use old posts.

I just hard coded the M98 P1 into the ltlchg$ section and the M98 P2 into the pl_retract section.

with newer posts you could get pretty creative on how to input them.

 

HTH, Ken

Thanks Ken,

Trying to work with the newer Mplmater for our machines. Some of our post go back to Ver.6 and really would like to get updated. I can hard code it into the newer post but was looking at all alternatives. Thanks again.

we have 4 hardinges, they all use old posts.

I just hard coded the M98 P1 into the ltlchg$ section and the M98 P2 into the pl_retract section.

with newer posts you could get pretty creative on how to input them.

 

HTH, Ken