New Lathe: Live tooling turning wrong direction

We have a new Victor VTurn-A26Y, Fanuc Oi-TD in work and as mentioned in the title the live tooling is rotating the wrong direction on M3 and M4. BMT-65 turret and a standard radial tool. I've even taken the tool out to make sure it doesn't have a magical reverse gear inside. The chuck is operating correctly.

Anybody know of a one that i could turn to a zero to reverse this or do i need to call the install guys back?

Seems like they should take care of it for you.

Yeah i'm sure they will tomorrow i was just hoping to have it running tonight.

Might you possibly be standing on the wrong side of it?

I feel like i'm standing on my head looking at it at this stage. The end mill i had in it was clearly turning backwards. As were the next two tools i brought over to compare.

Three phase motor? reverse any two power leads and it will run in reverse. Three phase leads are often all the same color and hard to tell which phase is which.
Bill D

Bill D said:

Three phase motor? reverse any two power leads and it will run in reverse. Three phase leads are often all the same color and hard to tell which phase is which.
Bill D

Click to expand...

Its a servo system, forget that suggestion.

To the O.P. Are these straight / inline live radial tools. Or right angle axial tools. You do know one has a pair of gears, and will run in reverse to a radial tool that has no gears. One style will always seem to spin backwards.

Its just a matter of programming the correct M3 or M4 to ensure the direction is correct.

I'd also check your manual. It should have an appendix of M codes. More often than not the live tooling will have a different M code like M13 or M14 for live tools, and keep M3 & M4 exclusively for the main spindle. Machines with sub spindles often have there own M code also. Depends on the O.E.M how they assign them. Not Fanuc.

Regards Phil.

Thanks for the responses guys.

It's with straight inline radial tools, and without the tool i had checked it just to be sure. Yeah other machines iv'e worked on live tools are M93/M94(Leadwell), others required a P11/P12(Doosan) after an M3 to specify. All i can see on the M-code list for this machine is M45/M46 to engage C-Axis and M3 to turn the spindle. Even if i jog it in manual it does it. I'll call the machine guys as soon as they're in i'm sure its something pretty simple.

are the axial tools going the right way? the way some holders are geared for speeds/ torque you have to tell them backwards.....and to make it even more confusing I have a dual ( sub and main facing) live axial that you have to tell it forwards on main, back wards on sub....

could also be a parameter

tonymor said:

Thanks for the responses guys.

It's with straight inline radial tools, and without the tool i had checked it just to be sure. Yeah other machines iv'e worked on live tools are M93/M94(Leadwell), others required a P11/P12(Doosan) after an M3 to specify. All i can see on the M-code list for this machine is M45/M46 to engage C-Axis and M3 to turn the spindle. Even if i jog it in manual it does it. I'll call the machine guys as soon as they're in i'm sure its something pretty simple.

Click to expand...

I assume you've tried M4 instead then?

Ok i see now these axial tools do rotate in the opposite direction, which would mean they will be the correct orientation on an M3. Moral of the story is there isn't really a correct orientation on live tooling? It all depends what tooling you've got in the machine.

Thanks for the help guys iv'e worked on a few different brands of lathes but hadn't come across this yet.

tonymor said:

Ok i see now these axial tools do rotate in the opposite direction, which would mean they will be the correct orientation on an M3. Moral of the story is there isn't really a correct orientation on live tooling? It all depends what tooling you've got in the machine.

Thanks for the help guys iv'e worked on a few different brands of lathes but hadn't come across this yet.

Click to expand...

The design should be such that M3 (or some other M code for live tool) cuts the material. That is, when looking in the outward direction of the tool axis, M3 should result in CW rotation. On your machine, as reported by you, it is CCW. Not a good design, as nobody would expect this.

sinha said:

The design should be such that M3 (or some other M code for live tool) cuts the material. That is, when looking in the outward direction of the tool axis, M3 should result in CW rotation. On your machine, as reported by you, it is CCW. Not a good design, as nobody would expect this.

Click to expand...

Hello Sinha.

That would depend if its a direct drive straight tool, or one that's at a right angle. The right angle one has a set of bevel gears, so will run backwards.

This tool runs exactly the same direction as the drive input shaft in the turret.


This one will run reverse direction, to the input shaft.



Each of those will rotate in a different direction when plugged into the same turret / input shaft direction.

It's a matter of specifying the correct direction M3 or M4 (Or what ever particular M Code) for that tool.

You cant beat mechanics. I've never found a convention. It comes down to the O.E.M tossing a coin as to which style is the primary live tool, Radial or Axial. I've seen them both way's even on lathes with Y axe's. I dont see the problem, program M3/M4 for what ever works. Inter changing either of those tools, makes ones of them run backwards.

I'd expect when this guy approaches the O.E.M (Victor) vendor. They will be mesmerized ,as to what the problem was.

Best regards. Phil.

Phil,

Thanks for explaining in detail.
Do you also have the drawing showing the internal details of the mechanism.

Sinha

sinha said:

The design should be such that M3 (or some other M code for live tool) cuts the material. That is, when looking in the outward direction of the tool axis, M3 should result in CW rotation. On your machine, as reported by you, it is CCW. Not a good design, as nobody would expect this.

Click to expand...

Ordinarily, they DO indeed "expect this".

Standardizing rotation for the convenience of the unaware is not practical.

Cost would go up. Usefulness could go down if a R/A tool were to require extra gearing to output in the same direction as straight tooling.

The already larger housing volume required would increase, the hangout could increase, the rigidity could drop, and the daylight budget be reduced.

So very much wiser to keep the tooling compact, strong, and simple, just tell the host machine to power it in the opposite direction. If the WAY you tell it is inconsistent? You should get out more.

Mechanically, it is a good design, not bad.

Which begs the question.. WHY.. do you want drawings of the internals of a mechanism you consider "not a good design"?

sinha said:

Thanks for explaining in detail.
Do you also have the drawing showing the internal details of the mechanism.

Click to expand...

I'd have rebuilt several hundred of those live tools. Its a nice sideline. I have a couple of customers where you can just about rely on getting one per week.

I had a customer with 6 off MS series Index machines. 6 spindle CNC auto's. I'd get a WTO tool from them twice weekly.

I've never thought about photographing one.The inline / straight ones are are easy. Its just a small spindle in a housing. Most carry good grade of bearings. P4 or the old ABEC7. But they are tiny size's. Like 7202,7203, 7204 15 - 17 -20 mm shafts,.

The right angle ones are a can of worms. They have a set of spiral bevel gears on the input and output shafts. (To get the right angle). Think of it like an Car Differential.

More often than not they have flimsy shim spacers to set the gear mesh. They go down to 10um (1/2 thou ish). And will have multiple shims. I cant buy those here, so more often than not, I grind 2mm off the shoulder, and fit a real spacer that I can grind / lap adjust, to get the correct gear mesh.

I have a few live tools sitting on my bench now. Straights and right angles, I'll try and remember to get you some pictures, by mid week.

Regards Phil

Monarchist said:

Which begs the question.. WHY.. do you want drawings of the internals of a mechanism you consider "not a good design"?

Click to expand...

That's not fair play Bill.

Sinha is a true and trusted member, You can't get to 780 posts into this caper. Noted author of a CNC programming / macro guide. Second to best to my compatriot, Bill AngelW.
If he is asking an opinion about live tools, that's because he mightn't have seen all of the options in India.

You on the other hand,you wouldn't know a lathe live tool / toy if I'd bored you a new arsehole with one.

Monarchist said:

Cost would go up. Usefulness could go down if a R/A tool were to require extra gearing to output in the same direction as straight tooling.

Click to expand...

You can slant it any way you wish. But you were out of line slandering Sinha, and you can only be making up your version of live tools. Wouldn't the truth of the matter be, your making this shit up from what you have read here in the past 4 hours?

Which part of the 10EE use's live tools?

Phil.

machtool said:

That's not fair play Bill.

Click to expand...

True. Synthesist minds do not "play fair". Not that patient.

The answer I - still YET- hope to hear is:

"There has to be a better way, and I think I have identified it."

Further, it has nought to do with the gearing. A challenge was in that.

Sinha is..

Click to expand...

A bright mind, and proven so...

I am handicapped. Essentially all of the people I know personally from India are expats, genius-level IQ's or near-as-dammit, and dollar millionaires more than once over.

That is not the whole country. It is simply a byproduct of where they - and I - worked or met.

What I expect to see is that the REAL problem is that an unpredictable "player" makes code portability more difficult than it should be. I need a "polarity bit" fed-back.

Ideally, the very installation of the tooling would be able to convey information to the host as to its 'gender' (and more), such that the human would not need to change code.

The "code" would have inventoried the tooling's characteristics and done it for him.

This is not new in the world. It is probably not even new to CNC Machine Tools.

If I needed "four hours" for anything it would simply be to go find out who it is that has already been shipping that solution, and not just since last week - but for many years already.

You and/or Sinha should... already know about such solutions.

Synthesists being lazy bastards, I can now save the "four hours" and expect the two of you - and others - to tell us what worked and did not work on those existing systems, and what it is that needs to be improved.

Which part of the 10EE use's live tools?

Click to expand...

TS ram turret or cross slide would be the best candidates, Phil.

If I had NEED of it, I'd send a drawing and a substantial check to Chad (Ox) and they would be a reality in short order. Clever guy and proven so, and I am lazy.

There's a lot of that going around, BTW... Clever. Inventive. Creative.

Not limited to any one country or ethnicity, either.

Never was. Never will be.

Why.. would you believe it? We even have quite a few devilishly ingenious folks wandering about in ...of all places ...Australia!

Met a few of 'em have yah?

Go look in the mirror yah old curmudgeon. Before you forget who it is as is lookin' back atcha. DAMHIKT.

Monarchist said:

.....What I expect to see is that the REAL problem is that an unpredictable "player" makes code portability more difficult than it should be.

Click to expand...

I've never met a machine tool builder that cared about code portability outside their own brand. In fact the opposite is somewhat true. Once a builder has an installation in place their sales team use program compatibility as a selling tool to sway subsequent orders their direction.

Monarchist said:

I need a "polarity bit" fed-back.

Ideally, the very installation of the tooling would be able to convey information to the host as to its 'gender' (and more), such that the human would not need to change code.

Click to expand...

Since most live tooled lathes are programmed in some form of CAM software, determining which rotation codes to output would be easier/simpler/cheaper done by tool definition or orientation in CAM and the post processor. The machine tool builder's ladder could also do the job with tweaks to the tool numbering scheme.

Vancbiker said:

The machine tool builder's ladder could also do the job with tweaks to the tool numbering scheme.

Click to expand...

Aye, I believe all the "needfuls" are being done, already. In more than one way.

Also that there remains room - a great deal of room - for further improvement.

Someone - or many someones - who grabs that opportunity in a good way, should be able to make a few sheckels on the back of such improvements as well.

More likely to be software/firmware coders than metals-manglers, but there you have it. Whatever works.