I have the same card as above, it isn't even mentioned anywhere to compare it against anything of a known value, even by the manufacturer. It may have been a special deal, el cheepo for the computer manufacturer, better than nothing kind of a deal.

I am beginning to understand the problem. I Tried to cut some of that stufffff on a lathe some decades ago. It took the carbide right off the tool. I ended up using .010 deep cut at low rpm (near 15rpm or so) for a 4.0"dia die (making watch cases), handfeeding it very slowly. I hope metallurgists have succeeded to make it a little more machineable. Good luck, and let us all know ......... Rich

it isn't clear what the problems are: work hardening, holes not straight, etc. whatever the problem, could you use solid carbide drills ? they have drill presses out there that cost several thousand bucks a piece, manual ones are you drilling manually or automatically what is A-2, is it copper ? if it is copper, use lard as lubricant ...

We're going to implement tool breakage detection before and after every tool runs and Probing of critical dimensions. This should lower the scrap rate a bit. Root causes for such a high scrap rate from the VMC's are part(s) mis-loading, failure to inspect, failure to follow instructions, failure to understand directions, part damage from de-burring, etc... Implemented properly, companies can be extremely successful utilizing "Lights out" technology. Probing, Tool Breakage Detection, Tool Life Management, HMC Cells can all contrubute greatly to a company's bottom line. More than likely the cause of the company fall mentioned above was due to improper implementation, lack of understanding with regards to the technology involved and lack of training. >>>>>>>>>> I am in full agrement with all the above as to cause - effect relationship. On the surface of it. The company mentioned above, no doubt, is an extreme example of ignorance and stupidity, and top managemet neglect as to personal management. So we set this aside. I have been an operator most of my life, but have seen the situation from both sides. I am a great enthusiast of lights out technology and idiot-proving the manufacturing processes, even for myself, so I don't have to think about what I am doing. But there is a limit to this: otherwise there would only exist one-person production facilities. Where the operator is needed, he should be given full responsibility, including decision making power ( and the respect that goes with it). Those people, most of all supervisors, that don't want to participate on that level of responsibility, should be put in the background or removed. In other words, let the leadman on the floor decide what needs changing, and do what he says regardless of office-personal misconceptions. Because that is where things are going wrong, and the hirarchy works against the owners best interests. I was foreing born, and like one other foreigner said: "it is amazing how this country can work with stupid people". Meaning, low-level employees are all assumed to be stupid, don't need training, don't get training, and so on .... There is some truth to this observation. In the meantime, we categorize low-level employed and knowledgable Americans right along with the "stupid" people, as a matter of convenience, when they have a different opinion about production processes. Lets take cutter breakage: After the office peole have exhausted their recources, hand the responsiblity to the leadman and let him make decisions and make program changes and proceedural changes in accordancw with his wishes even if you "already know better". The point is: people on the floor "know best" more often than not. And they are not even given a chance. I have personally witnessed simple opportunity losses ranging in the ten-thousand dollar category week after week. I talked to another worker from another company and he said they screwed up 5000 parts due to induction soldering. People in the office interfere with the shop floor and the result is scrap. There is no such thing as a bad soldier, there are only bad officers. Rich

I know of a company that tried sero operator intervention and is presently going belly-up, losing all their work due to poor workmanship. Officially, poor maintenace of machines is blamed. But then, this was always the case and they made good parts anyway, due to opertor skill and immediate supervisor know-how. Immediate supervisors got laid off and operators were told to "go by the book 100% and not do your own thing, otherwise we (in the office) lose control". result: company sales dropped 50% in a year or so. Too much scrapp and a ruined reputation as a reliable parts supplier. Obviously, someone mis-interpreted the message: sero operator intervention is desirable. Just where is one to draw the lines ???

Polygon only refers to circular curves, not eliptical, by definition. A circle is just a special case of an elipse. An elipse is a mathematically defined curve and every point on it can be calculated. Why not make a manual program, calculating x and z moves, and forget all the fancy MC software? At the beginning time of NC, i wrote my own post processor in Radioshak TRS-80 basic language for a pocketing routine, at any angle to the x or y axis. I made the program ask me for length a,b, angle of pocket, cdia, cutter stepover, and then it spit out the numbers for x and y in incremental form. I made my own tape, put it in the machine and the program ran perfectly, putting six pockets at various angles onto a 12" nylon part with 6 flats milled on a turntable, without even one error. It ran perfectly the first time. I have not programmed NC in 20 years and wonder whether this sort of manual programming is still a feasable approach today. Maybe I can give you an idea and you can tell me any handicaps I might encounter using this appraoch in todays programming environment. I am familiar with the cad cam programs, but only starting out to re -learn. I would not want to make such a program and try running it on a machine even if I know the postprogrammer format (template). It should work, but there may be other factors I am not familiar with. Rich

I would say you need to look at your print again. The seven points given are likely only some reference, a starting point, not manufacturing dimensions. You likely need to have many more points than seven. And your job is to find out what they are, I presume, and then program. Step motors increment in .0001 or .002, so you could conceivable program a point for every such increment and o it in a three axis point to point program. But there is likely a definite curve to this that may not be mathematically definable. Like in the automotive industry: some sculptor or model builder puts on an elegant curve that a lot of peole like but which isn't mathematically definable. I am sure, in the aircraft industry things are a lot more accurate. Seven points ? There is something wrong, if I understand this thing correctly. Just my nickel's worth. I ran into print problems with every little 3-axis job I did. My company had to go back to the customer to get things straightened out. No point continuing this until you are sure of the print. You cannot just substitue your own spline or something, is my opinion.

Can you program a ball end mill to mill this angular plane in three axis mode ? The you polish off the scallops. There are formulas for scallops size and step over and cutter dia. This takes a lot longer to machine, but the bean counters will be able to make sense of it.

Yes, amazing what you guys can do with this modern software. I did such milling once, using a 5 axis gantry with a turntable, six axis moving simultaneously. As for the math, I haven't got the foggiest idea even though I know basics of calculus. They used to hire specialists. My question is, machining this ellipse, can you do it on a 5-axis machine ? Richard

Maybe the previous software used wasn't working either, but someone "fixed" it. Now the fix is gone. I may be a "whodondeit" when it worked. I am a cnc machinist (and programmer), I cannot even begin to tell you how often we as operators need to do things our way or it will not work at all. This is an understatement. Did some key person leave ? The question to ask may be: why did it work before. Just a thought.