.005 isn't all that close but I def think maintaing free state flatness adds some cost. They aren't going to just suck them down on the magnet and not have them spring back. I'd be surprised if they weren't planning to at least dust side 1 and clean up side 2. We have a small Blanchard in house but most production plate work I buy the plate from an outfit that dupplies the material and does flame cut/stress relieve and blanch. I just give them the final specs.

Curious how thick. You may want to talk to your heat treater as far as keeping them reasonably flat and stress free. 4340 is an oil quench so they want to move when they hit the quench tank but can be flattened during tempering/sr.

Zoob I sent you a PM.

Zoober that's crazy. Our sister company does strictly medical. They have about a million stars with LNS feeders. I'll ask our maintenance guy on Monday about it. My only experience with the "spare" m codes is for firing external 4th axis indexers. As Zoober explained the control sends a signal and waits for a signal back. In the case of the indexer it performs it's next preprogrammed action then sends a return signal to the control allowing it to continue. In the case if the indexer you can also send a "release" signal to the control before completing the next programmed action. An example would be for simultaneous milling in A and X to mill a helix. This requires correct timing to work. The machine builder decides what unused m codes are made available so you'd have to check the machine manuals. We always had our 3rd party machine service guys come in and hook them up. As far as I know they just tap into an existing terminal block with a 2 conductor cable usually with a mil spec type connector that plugs into the external device. If you do happen to be doing this for an external indexer, another option may be the RS232 using macro b d print statements. I'd say if you can't find it in your machine manual wiring diagrams talk to your service guys.

I was at a vendor yesterday who uses E2. I spoke with them a little about it. They are happy with it. Been using it 7 years. They did mention some quirks like data not updating in certain spots but it sounded like the usual quirks most systems have that sort of learn to work around. The major point I wanted to pass along is the owner of this shop highly discouraged using E2s scheduling module and instead recommended JobPack. JobPack is 3rd party graphical finite scheduling software that interfaces with a bunch of ERP systems including E2. I'm assuming that if you are currently using a home brew system you don't have scheduling in the system. If scheduling is something you are looking for you may want to. Investigate.

Used Jobboss for years as well as Vantage (now Epicor.) Epicor is the mid to large enterprise system. Jobboss small to medium. Jobboss has a large installed user base and is very robust. It's modules are well tested. If you are a job shop and it fits your budget you probably won't go wrong or regret it. But that doesn't mean something else won't be fine for you. I last used Jobboss about 3 yrs ago (currently using Epicor 9). Although Epicor is a more powerful system I still find myself longing for some of the ease of use features in Jobboss. I've never used E2. I have several vendors who use it Though. Ive heard a few grumbles but it seems to work for them.

We have both. And I will say inventor seems to do a little better with importing step files. As a modeler I think swx is probably better. Personally I miss my direct modeler (key Creator) for model prep and layout work.

I would talk to Greenleaf. http://www.greenleaf..._-1_10103_10090 Also if using ball tools I think you should consider fixturing the part at a 15° or so incline relative to the spindle C/L.

For Boeing Philadelphia the validation method for step supar files is "As Received" which I understand to mean individual model validation is not required. Any PAS software including CAD does need to be validated however. I am familiar with teh Kubotek product and if required to provide individual model translation validations will go that route, but thus far I am told it will not be required for our work. All I am asking at the moment is if anyone has a test model they use for PAS validation. Of course we can create one or use a sample Boeing file but I wasn't sure if there is a generic test model floating around of some sort.

It should work although putting .07874 in and selecting the Inches per thread radio button is more straight forward IMO. When you say it doesn't work, what result are you getting? As is pointed out, your diameters are incorrect. /edit... nevermind I missed the post where you figured it out.

Great idea! Not trying to be nitpicky but it's a new FORUM Gcode is speaking of.

Hi folks, Any Boeing suppliers here that have been through a DPD/MBD audit to D6-51991? The standard requires that we either validate each translation or "validate" our software. We are using exclusively .stp files provided by Boeing and intend to simply perform a validation of each new software revision using a test model. Does anyone have a step file already available for this purpose? I am assuming our test model should represent all possible feature types but in step land I am not sure what that means specifically. Any experience in this area would be appreciated. Thanks

Can you determine it empirically by taking a test cut at a programmed angle and calculating the cosine error based on the angle error?

Extend the drive surface and regen the tool path.

Agree with previous posters that adding skims is the only way to remove the entry / exit marks completely but as Gavetta suggests arc on your lead in could help. If operators are jacking up parameters it will probably increase the mark. I'm curious What kind of tolerance are you dealing, what's the material and how big is the hole?

Evil Machinist please call your office.

Our sinker is very old. I am sure the newer machines with more sophisticated power supplies do better but on our old machine it burns very S L O W.

quote: Haas GR512... very tight tolerances +/-.0001"

quote: I am trying to come up with a work holding method. Even a small vise would probebly distort the part to much. Any suggestions?Can you come up with a layout that incorporates multiple parts into a larger sheet or strip and tab them?

We have Charmilles 2030TW. super accurate machine with amazingly reliable threader. We also had a 240 and sent it back. My experience with the 240 is the same as Shazam described. The 240 and similar machines are low end asian built machines to compete in the cheaper market with machines like fanuc etc. They are not real Charmillles machine in my opinion.

http://www.precisiontwistdrill.com/techhel.../2B_3B_size.asp

Thanks guys, good stuff. Any more input is still welcome. Bruce, I am up in the air about the numbering. The upside to internal numbers is that we can easily change catalog numbers or as MSC often does, incorporate their new catalog numbers when they deactivate numbers. Mgmt wants all tooling in the bill of materials for every part. Using the vendor catalog numbers means updating hundreds of BOMs each time a catalog number changes where as using an internal number just means changing the vendor part number in the inventory master file in the ERP system for that tool one time. Another example would be when new carbide grades are introduced. If we are making a wholesale switch across the board, we would rather not update hundreds of BOMs again. On the floor, the guys will still be using setup sheets which would have both numbers. With that said, your point is well taken and we will need to look a little harder at it for the reasons you mentioned. We have updated to X but haven't implemented it yet. I need to dig up the threads here on tool numbering in libraries etc. I know that has been discussed adnausum. quote: I would look and see if one of your suppliers would be willing to do the same thing. Just try and retain final control of what gets put in it.Do you mean that Iscar put it in but allows you to put other manufacturers tools in it as well?

Has anyone been successful at standardizing and consolodating tooling in their small to mid sized job shop? For example, Developing internal part numbers versus using supplier catalog numbers. What things were you able to standardize and what things not. How to best reflect standards in MCX tool libraries (etc.) I can grab 10 jobs that use a 1/4" drill around here and our job history will show 4 different part numbers with 2 different ones bought for the same job for no good reason. Any experience in this area that you would be willing to share would be greatly apreciated.

Easier to ask for forgiveness than permission ... so I hear.