$725 for the body, $175 for 10 inserts, $350x3 for 3 adapters, $500 for the CAT40 shank. $2500.

Just got a quote on the stack of capto holders and the 2 inch cutter body. Anybody wanna guess the total? LOL

JP - That's the last ditch effort I'm trying to avoid. Rob - PC is the first place we looked as well. Unfortunately they're just a smidge too short. Dave - Luckily there isn't really any roughing. I can get to most of the features from the side, so this just has to finish face a large area and leave a sharp corner in a few places. It's semiconductor industry - so like everything they make - the most challenging features aren't even related to the function or fit of the part. They're just there to troll the machine shops.

Anybody got any suggestions? I need to reach 11.1 deep. I'd really prefer 1.75 rather than 2 inch, because the feature being cut has a 1.0 radius, and I'm quite sure it's not going to like hitting a full radius hanging out a foot. 11.1 is the actual reach, so the total gage length will need to be closer to 12. We use all Mitsubishi stuff here, but I can't seem to find a 10 inch face mill arbor. I was thinking a stack of Sandvik Capto adapters with some ungodly expensive Sandvik facemill on the end? BTW - I need to order in the next 3-4 hours, so we can have it tomorrow.

Awesome. can't wait to sit down with a cold beer (or 6) and watch it at home.

Maybe I'm not picturing it right in my head - but isn't the thread going to have a huge groove in the pitch of that initial entry?

Forgot all about this. Will the webinar be available for re-viewing?

How much did that bad boy set you back Bob?

Did you try calling Yamazen? Kevin's Brothers probably don't use % signs, because I'm guessing he's using ethernet or USB to transfer programs. % signs are usually only for RS232 transfer.

Have you checked to make sure the files that won't send, actually have the correct extension? You could be naming it dadunbar.nc , but the computer is adding a hidden extension of whatever format you're truly in, like dadanbuar.nc.txt

Holy xxxx Dwain! 5th Axis must love you!

I've never used the Mazak system, even though all of our machines have it. Are your programs just calling tools 1 through 120, or are they calling serial numbered tools?

Dwain, how do you like that vise?

Call Ellison and ask them if that machine has a keyboard logger.

Do you mean work offsets or tool offsets? The Matrix control has 2000 tool offsets, so I just start using the first D offset above the highest actual magazine pocket, and keep counting up from there. Not sure what I'm gonna do if I ever hit 2000, but I'll worry about crossing that bridge when it comes. LOL

Like everything else in manufacturing, there's always trade offs and compromises. That can still work, but now you're using a much more expensive machine, with much more expensive workholding, to make parts at an output that's still quite a bit lower than a horizontal with dedicated fixturing. If using the 5 axis machine as a mini horizontal lets you access a feature that you'd otherwise need an extra operation for - then it's a tradeoff that can be worth making. Here's an example of a simple little manifold we made in pretty good volumes, and did it on a trunnion machine just for that reason. 3 sides are raw stock, so it's one and done. If it didn't need that extra hole on the top, we would have just made them on a less expensive machine, with higher throughput, like one of its sister parts:

No doubt. We do that occasionally with our 5 axis work. OP10 is a raptor op, OP20 is on the FMS. And that's the perfect process for parts of that style, volume, and price. But if you're trying to use that process in place of a volume production process - you'll never even get the job. That extra dollar worth of material, or the extra handling to put a dovetail on the blank, will put you right out of the mix.

Depends on what you mean, and the sizes you're talking about. If you're talking about just measuring a width, or a bore, step height - etc, even your Haas machines (as long as they're in good shape) will get you .0002 or better results. If you're talking about measuring a 39 inch long part on a 40x20 machine, don't count on it unless you're in an air conditioned building with coolant temperature control. The location tolerance is a little trickier - since you bring the repeatability of the the tool taper, squareness of the Z axis, etc into play. But you should still be able to repeatably set your offsets within .0005 or better.

I don't disagree with what you're saying in general - only with the idea that the same cellular attitude is ideal for for all parts and customers. Sure, you can put three $80,000 verticals in a C shape, making 1 or 2 parts at a time, with a guy walking in between them for two weeks - as long as you're not competing against a guy loading a $300,000 horizontal and walking away for an hour to load other machines, and coming back to 16 finished parts.

Just because it's a solution, doesn't mean it's always the best solution, the most cost effective solution, or the most profitable solution. Different industries, different types of parts, different types of customers - etc, all require a different approach. Just here in my shop, we have completely different processing methods for different customers from different industries. The mindset that works on a $4,000 manifold, ordered in QTY 2, is polar opposite from the mindset that works on $20 dollar aluminum enclosures that require polishing, anodizing, laser etching - in 500pc quantities. The only common denominator is that continuous improvement, common sense, and reduction of wasted energy is a driving factor in how everything is handled. One of our newest and most profitable customers is a large corporation that bought the privately owned machine shop who was their largest and best supplier. They ran the internal shop right into the ground, and chased away everybody with any talent with over-the-top lean initiatives that threw all common sense out the window.

This is why it's impossible to try to point to one version of "lean" that works for everybody, or for anybody to claim their version is the right version. That horrifically inefficient cell would never work for you guys, because you're selling that part for $5 dollars, and trying to earn a living in the process. But when an OEM does it - that horrifically inefficient cell looks brilliant - because they aren't trying to make $5 dollars on that shaft. They're trying to get that $5 dollar shaft to the assembly department a day sooner, so they can ship a $5 million dollar landing gear a day sooner. They don't need 5 of them sitting on a shelf, because they aren't shipping 5 of them that week. They don't want to wait an extra day while you build 5 of the previous part number, because they only need one of the previous part number. A buddy of mine owns a very successful business, moving about $10 million a year, where they machine and fabricate their own product line comprising several thousand catalog part numbers. They have a gantry loaded B axis lathe, four bar fed sub spindle Y axis lathes, 3 gantry loaded dual spindle dual turret lathes, two palletech systems, palletized lasers, robot welders, etc. Most of the parts they make, are made in full year quantities. This might be 10pcs, or 500pcs - and also depending on raw material cost. Trying to "single part flow" and "make to order" would be a complete joke in this shop. When some guy calls up and wants to order a bracket for $20 dollars, you can't single piece flow that through a laser, a press brake, and a powder coater - and still sell it for $20 dollars. Not to mention, the customer would cancel the order if they found out it wasn't going to ship that day. There are soooooo many variables involved in manufacturing, the initial emphasis just needs to be on common sense, continuous improvement, and reducing wasted energy (via the former two). Trying to apply somebody else's complete "lean" system, is a disaster waiting to happen. Modern Machine Shop has had a couple stories on a shop up in Washington called ProCNC (Josh here on the board works there). They take lean to the extreme, but it's tailored fantastically to exactly what they're doing, and how they want to operate.

VM-3 out, a51nx in. Trade up of the century.

It's a little different with a strain gage style probe - since it's just ON/OFF. The trigger repeatability on a Renishaw strain gage probe is .25 micron for a 2 inch stylus, and .35 micron for a 4 inch stylus - so it's really just a .0001mm difference, or .00000039 inches.

We don't let them see the side yards - because that's where we hid all the garbage from the front and back yard.