22 minutes ago, C^Millman said:

Tap Example

Here is what I have used before to tap some deep Acme Threads before. Need to talk to a tap manufacture and see if they can make you something like this for your application. We had some with a 24" tapping depth capability. 2 or 3 hours tapping a hole by hand was not fun, but you did what you needed to get the job done.

Looks like that taps a standard thread shape then chases it with the squared off ACME shape. Seems that would be a single-tap way of doing a step-tap operation with multiple taps. How's the strength on that sucker?

28 minutes ago, C^Millman said:

You can do it with the right tap, but it would need to be a specifically made tap with a skipped tooth design.

Here is an example of a skipped tooth insert Advent makes. I have order taps like this for doing what you are being asked to do. What I have done is Thread with a threading tool then come back and chase with a tap using cutting oil. Coolant will not work in this situation with the tap with the ID Threading tool you are okay with the coolant. Then use a tailstock with a center and then chase the threads with the tap. Not fun and a job I really hated, but I have got these stupid things done.

I'll get on the phone with Advent, thanks. I heard one other guy talk about offset / skipped tooth but I've never done it. 

Colin, We've got pulley taps so clearance is not the issue. The issue is the thread engagement; the customer wants 75% and that's crazy for steel that deep. I'm guess it should be closer to 50-55%.

I have to tap an 11/16-16 UN thread into a 316L SST tube that's over 10x the tap dia. The customer "wants a class 2b fit" i.e. about 75% of thread engagement.

The logic in Engineering department is that the tap is only cutting a small amount at a time (1" of thread length engagement) and "if I was only tapping 1 inch deep it would work, how come you can't tap it 10" deep using the same tap?"

I'm not smart enough to answer that, but my decades of experience cutting threads tells me it's a no-brainer I just can't explain it in a way they will understand.

Any suggestions on what I can tell them to open their eyes?

Thanks. I'll check it out.

I'm looking for some m3 x 0.5 H7 taps. I found some SAE H7 taps at Guhring but can't find metric. Any sources? International is OK.

Thanks!

It's absolutely doable. It would just be limited to very specific machine/controller combinations. I'm sure IF one started a business doing that they would come up with a good way of incorporating new machine/controller combos as a way of expanding business. I think the biggest variable would be the post processor. Even with the same machine/controller the ability to have infinite different posts would make that the biggest issue.

IMO of course.

one tool breaks its a domino from there.

This was our biggest problem. Our first time doing this was with brass and the stringy chips were a biatch to get out of the way. We ended up using a special manifold on the spindle to do a wash cycle that worked most of the time.

Another issue we had is that we used pneumatic vises to do work-holding (plugged in to an auxiliary port on the mill so we could activate it using M-Codes). Unfortunately it was very difficult to adjust the vise pressure to grip the part hard enough to machine it but not so hard as to crush the material and pop the part out. One time the part popped out and the movable jaw hit the stationary jaw so hard it knocked it off the back of the vise. Good times.

To you guys who are being critical, I believe your kind of missing the point.

I did not miss the point. In fact, my first statement was to acknowledge "the point".

The real beauty of this is the attitude.

 

...it just really emphasizes the difference in attitudes. A lot people are content to say " I tried" or to just do enough to say they made an effort.

I was doing this kind of bar feeding 2 decades ago and even considered using a slitting saw similar to what this guy did, but it wasted too much time to design and build the fixture and the cycle time made it a real loser of an idea so I went with an end mill and sacrificed the little bit of lost material but gained huge on cycle time and setup time. And there is going to be cleanup using both methods so the argument that he might not need to clean up the last surface doesn't hold much water with me.

Again, it's a great idea and he clearly thinks out of the box, but like so many engineers that have little to no common sense, it is over-engineered when it comes to parting it off.

Very cool ideas for sure, but I fail to see how the time and effort to design the saw slide and the cycle time to cut it of is worth the effort unless the material is unobtainium and it's not worth throwing away material in order to use a 1/4" EM to part that sumbitch off in a fraction of the time...

We use EPDM Vault with a crappy web interface that is excruciatingly painful to use for Supply Chain but it does it's job. It would be difficult for someone you might not trust completely to cause any mischief.

I am confused, are you asking about if you can teach Mastercam to kids, or are you a kid and want to learn Mastercam?

Helium/Oxy flame polishing works wells also. We chose that over propane.

Can you post the first part of the code from the two files? (The old one that worked and the new one that doesn't)

That's a good idea. Will probably make the import faster and cleaner. I'll give it a go and see how it work.

Thanks all for the help. What a great place!

Aha! Thanks Pete.

The part up to that feature has been imported as a lump with no history and any features after that one are in the history tree.

Makes good sense. I'm not going to worry about integrity of the model, and I don't think I'll need the history try for anything so aside from another mouse click this should have no impact on doing my job.

Hi, ive been lurking here for a while and decided to create an account and get some of my questions answered.

My first problem is importing solidworks files. I'm using X5 and when I open a .sldprt I get an error saying

The feature named Combine1 could not be imported into Mastercam. It is a feature of type "CombineBodies". The history of the part up to and including that feature has been lost. The part up to that feature has been imported as a lump with no history and any features after that one are in the history tree.

The message seems to contradict itself so I'm not sure if I've got all the features on the part into Mastercam. Is this just a notification or is my part incomplete? I will end up going through the drawing and comparing it feature by feature to the model to see if it's there but that's going to take a long time.

Thanks!