Buying first machine. Questions about Speedio vs. Okuma. - Page 4
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 267
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Country
    CANADA
    State/Province
    Ontario
    Posts
    1,441
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    986
    Likes (Received)
    1192

    Default

    No flaws I can really think of!

    Plus you can use the money saved to get more convenience and quality of life upgrades: probe, toolsetter, more toolholders so you can keep tooling setup even if it's not in the ATC, and make sure to spend the money on a QUIET compressor! You really don't want a piston compressor thumping away in your garage.

  2. Likes SVFeingold liked this post
  3. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    California
    Posts
    624
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1038
    Likes (Received)
    300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SVFeingold View Post
    I have to say Haas is looking more and more appealing. The only benefits over the Brother are the 5x capabilities, lower price, a beefier spindle, and 80% more Z travel. But those are pretty damn big benefits.

    Taking 5 steps back, the Haas is more than enough to do what I most want to do, which is prototype my own designs. I should consider myself lucky to even have the opportunity to make this choice instead of trying to fix a clapped out Bridgeport for $5k. IF I get any paid work it will be down to my skill to deliver, not the mill. Not like I'm making optical molds or titanium aero parts. I don't have to hold tenths all day. The Haas will be capable of delivering what it needs to, and as of today the capabilities of any of these machines exceed my own abilities anyway. If the paid work is eventually enough to get a big boy mill that's great, but cash is brand-agnostic. Until then I'll probably get more satisfaction from a lower monthly payment.

    As much as I want the Porsche, it may not be the smartest move right now. If I find myself needing to optimize cycle times on a 50k part run, chances are I'll be able to afford whichever mill is needed to do that.

    Anyone see a flaw in that line of reasoning?
    sounds like you're on the right track.

  4. Likes SVFeingold liked this post
  5. #63
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    California
    Posts
    624
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1038
    Likes (Received)
    300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aarongough View Post
    No flaws I can really think of!

    Plus you can use the money saved to get more convenience and quality of life upgrades: probe, toolsetter, more toolholders so you can keep tooling setup even if it's not in the ATC, and make sure to spend the money on a QUIET compressor! You really don't want a piston compressor thumping away in your garage.
    haas comes with probe and tool setter standard

  6. Likes aarongough liked this post
  7. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,026
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    816
    Likes (Received)
    2488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SVFeingold View Post
    As much as I want the Porsche, it may not be the smartest move right now. If I find myself needing to optimize cycle times on a 50k part run, chances are I'll be able to afford whichever mill is needed to do that.

    Anyone see a flaw in that line of reasoning?
    I think a Haas will serve you well. You aren't holding tenths in Maraging 350 all day. You'll like the control, and Haas's video training is amazing.

    My suspicion though, is that you are indexing on the large parts a bit too heavily. Basic 3 axis parts are a commodity and can be outsourced with relative ease to local outfits, or even Fantom/Xeometry/ProtoMold. There is a bunch of capacity pushing the value of that work down. 5 axis work (even 3 axis work that can go from 2-3 ops to 1 op in 5 axis world) is of higher value and benefits most from the kind of relationship you have with the folks you're targeting as revenue producers.

    So the fundamental question is - does it make sense to compromise the high-value capability in favor of access to the lower-value capability?

    The thing is that you are buying a 3 axis mill and bolting a small, low-accuracy, low-dynamics 5 axis table to it because you want that 700mm of 3 axis space to work with. Within a few months, you're going to find that that 700mm of 3 axis table space isn't making you any money or bringing you a lot of joy, while you're bumping your head up against the limited envelope and capabilities of the 5 axis side.

  8. Likes CNC Hacker, SVFeingold liked this post
  9. #65
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    California
    Posts
    140
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    137
    Likes (Received)
    52

    Default

    So the fundamental question is - does it make sense to compromise the high-value capability in favor of access to the lower-value capability?
    If I went with a standard 3x VMC it'd probably be VF-2 sized at 1,000mm. That's an interesting point though. Question is which will I bump my head against more often...the lack of 3x work envelope, or 5x work envelope? The majority of parts my prior teams have made are 3x, with some that could benefit from 5x but not out of necessity. The bigger 3x envelope opens up work that I know they need, at the risk of not getting 5x work that is hypothetical. The value for that team is that I know the work, the application, and the requirements. I won't have to call them to figure out what intent they have for a certain tolerance quite so often. I have low overhead, and I can turn emergency parts more readily since I don't mind working nights on a weekend. Those things don't change whether it's 3x or 5x really. If my goal is enough work to pay for the mill there are more than enough parts potentially coming from them that will do it without having to try and machine everything. I don't have the capacity to do a 40 part order in a week anyway, and plenty of the parts are like 2-3m long so I'm already limited regardless.

    That being said there is no contract signed and it's always possible that 3x works doesn't actually materialize the way I'd like. Or maybe I can encourage them to make bolder design choices that necessitate 5x.

    If I can't make that relationship work but I can open others that are 5x more profitable that's a worthy trade. And I just don't have the experience to make this decision which is why I'm leaning on you guys for advice. It sounds like nearly unanimous agreement that better 5x capabilities are the way to go. And for me personally, it'd be more fun and open up more opportunities for my own products, which is what this is all really about in the first place.

  10. #66
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    California
    Posts
    624
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1038
    Likes (Received)
    300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SVFeingold View Post
    If I went with a standard 3x VMC it'd probably be VF-2 sized at 1,000mm. That's an interesting point though. Question is which will I bump my head against more often...the lack of 3x work envelope, or 5x work envelope? The majority of parts my prior teams have made are 3x, with some that could benefit from 5x but not out of necessity. The bigger 3x envelope opens up work that I know they need, at the risk of not getting 5x work that is hypothetical. The value for that team is that I know the work, the application, and the requirements. I won't have to call them to figure out what intent they have for a certain tolerance quite so often. I have low overhead, and I can turn emergency parts more readily since I don't mind working nights on a weekend. Those things don't change whether it's 3x or 5x really. If my goal is enough work to pay for the mill there are more than enough parts potentially coming from them that will do it without having to try and machine everything. I don't have the capacity to do a 40 part order in a week anyway, and plenty of the parts are like 2-3m long so I'm already limited regardless.

    That being said there is no contract signed and it's always possible that 3x works doesn't actually materialize the way I'd like. Or maybe I can encourage them to make bolder design choices that necessitate 5x.

    If I can't make that relationship work but I can open others that are 5x more profitable that's a worthy trade. And I just don't have the experience to make this decision which is why I'm leaning on you guys for advice. It sounds like nearly unanimous agreement that better 5x capabilities are the way to go. And for me personally, it'd be more fun and open up more opportunities for my own products, which is what this is all really about in the first place.
    the way i look at it is: you can always do 3x work on a 5x machine, but not the other way around without spending more $$. so unless you REALLY need the large part swing capacity, its a no brainer imo.

  11. Likes CNC Hacker liked this post
  12. #67
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    California
    Posts
    140
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    137
    Likes (Received)
    52

    Default

    I just pulled the UMC500 model into CAD to check door clearance. From the bottom of the casting (feet removed) to the top of the outermost sheet metal is ~88.5" So it'll just fit through the door. However, the tool carousel and some of the top sheet metal would have to come off. That's all fine except...it looks like the z-axis rails exceed that clearance along with the way covers, and I don't think those are coming off...

    2020-03-08-17_48_31-solidworks-premium-2017-x64-edition-umc-500_ss_solid_model_2019-06_r1_ste.jpg

    2020-03-08-18_06_26-solidworks-premium-2017-x64-edition-umc-500_ss_solid_model_2019-06_r1_ste.jpg

    That's a bummer if so because I was getting really excited about this thing.

    I did come into a few minor revelations by putting some of my parts in and playing with the envelope.

    One, I already see the value in DWO. After tweaking the position of a part just right to get it to fit well in the envelope, the last thing I want to do is have to precisely measure it's location, offset the CAM program, and then spend hours trying to tap it into the right location without a CMM. Even with one. Ugh.

    Two, I'm curious how parts that exceed the envelope are typically handled. For instance, I have a part that's roughly 450x450x80mm. It just exceeds the Y-travel, not counting the tool radius. However, by rotating the C-axis all of the part can be brought into the work envelope and machined. The question is, does the machine or CAM know this? For instance, if I threw a simple contour on the outside of that part, would the CAM/control automatically rotate the part during the contour while the tool stays inside the work envelope, or would the post throw an error about being out-of-bounds?

    Three, the way the machine is set up lets you machine the ends of long parts much more effectively. With a 3x VMC I'd need a lot of Z travel to reach the ends. The part itself is 19" long. Then you need clearance for the holder and tool. Even on a VF-2 it's getting tight. On this however, you just rotate the trunion 90° and by offsetting the part slightly I still have 6" of Z work envelope remaining, and the part can remain rigidly supported instead of hanging its ass 20" off the table. So despite the UMC have 4" less Z travel than the VF-2, you can effectively get quite a bit MORE by taking care in orienting the part.

    EDIT: I just looked at the promotional vid. If I had to guess, I would say that the Z rails are bolted to the spindle side, and the bearing blocks mounted to the frame. The "head" of that frame is well below the 89" clearance height in CAD, so if this is true then it's possible that by removing some top sheet metal, the way covers, the tool carousel, and lowering the spindle, it might actually fit. Can anyone confirm or deny?

    2020-03-08-18_22_40-umc-500ss-_-5-axis-mill-_-40-taper-_-super-speed-_-vertical-mills-haas-cnc.jpg

    2020-03-08-18_23_14-umc-500ss-_-5-axis-mill-_-40-taper-_-super-speed-_-vertical-mills-haas-cnc.jpg

    EDIT 2: Answered my own question. Turns out those bearings are in the CAD. Indeed the bearings are mounted as I suspected. The top of the bearing block is ~85" from the bottom of the casting. So...removing way covers and a fair bit of sheet metal should do the trick, if Haas is up to the task.

    2020-03-08-18_33_38-solidworks-premium-2017-x64-edition-umc-500_ss_solid_model_2019-06_r1_ste.jpg

    EDIT 3: Whoops, a cursory glance at the last image makes it obvious I bumped the model prior to adding mates. With the mates in place to put the block in the right position, that distance is actually closer to 80".

  13. Likes empwoer, cameraman, bryan_machine liked this post
  14. #68
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    220
    Likes (Received)
    710

    Default

    Yes you can face mill a large part without moving in y it spins half way around and goes back the other way
    So it can be done on. Large parts
    Don


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  15. #69
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    California
    Posts
    624
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1038
    Likes (Received)
    300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SVFeingold View Post
    I just pulled the UMC500 model into CAD to check door clearance. From the bottom of the casting (feet removed) to the top of the outermost sheet metal is ~88.5" So it'll just fit through the door. However, the tool carousel and some of the top sheet metal would have to come off. That's all fine except...it looks like the z-axis rails exceed that clearance along with the way covers, and I don't think those are coming off...

    2020-03-08-17_48_31-solidworks-premium-2017-x64-edition-umc-500_ss_solid_model_2019-06_r1_ste.jpg



    2020-03-08-18_06_26-solidworks-premium-2017-x64-edition-umc-500_ss_solid_model_2019-06_r1_ste.jpg

    That's a bummer if so because I was getting really excited about this thing.

    I did come into a few minor revelations by putting some of my parts in and playing with the envelope.

    One, I already see the value in DWO. After tweaking the position of a part just right to get it to fit well in the envelope, the last thing I want to do is have to precisely measure it's location, offset the CAM program, and then spend hours trying to tap it into the right location without a CMM. Even with one. Ugh.

    Two, I'm curious how parts that exceed the envelope are typically handled. For instance, I have a part that's roughly 450x450x80mm. It just exceeds the Y-travel, not counting the tool radius. However, by rotating the C-axis all of the part can be brought into the work envelope and machined. The question is, does the machine or CAM know this? For instance, if I threw a simple contour on the outside of that part, would the CAM/control automatically rotate the part during the contour while the tool stays inside the work envelope, or would the post throw an error about being out-of-bounds?

    Three, the way the machine is set up lets you machine the ends of long parts much more effectively. With a 3x VMC I'd need a lot of Z travel to reach the ends. The part itself is 19" long. Then you need clearance for the holder and tool. Even on a VF-2 it's getting tight. On this however, you just rotate the trunion 90° and by offsetting the part slightly I still have 6" of Z work envelope remaining, and the part can remain rigidly supported instead of hanging its ass 20" off the table. So despite the UMC have 4" less Z travel than the VF-2, you can effectively get quite a bit MORE by taking care in orienting the part.

    EDIT: I just looked at the promotional vid. If I had to guess, I would say that the Z rails are bolted to the spindle side, and the bearing blocks mounted to the frame. The "head" of that frame is well below the 89" clearance height in CAD, so if this is true then it's possible that by removing some top sheet metal, the way covers, the tool carousel, and lowering the spindle, it might actually fit. Can anyone confirm or deny?

    2020-03-08-18_22_40-umc-500ss-_-5-axis-mill-_-40-taper-_-super-speed-_-vertical-mills-haas-cnc.jpg

    2020-03-08-18_23_14-umc-500ss-_-5-axis-mill-_-40-taper-_-super-speed-_-vertical-mills-haas-cnc.jpg

    EDIT 2: Answered my own question. Turns out those bearings are in the CAD. Indeed the bearings are mounted as I suspected. The top of the bearing block is ~85" from the bottom of the casting. So...removing way covers and a fair bit of sheet metal should do the trick, if Haas is up to the task.

    2020-03-08-18_33_38-solidworks-premium-2017-x64-edition-umc-500_ss_solid_model_2019-06_r1_ste.jpg
    for #2, you'll have to specify that in cam.

  16. #70
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,316
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3796
    Likes (Received)
    944

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SVFeingold View Post
    I have to say Haas is looking more and more appealing. The only benefits over the Brother are the 5x capabilities, lower price, a beefier spindle, and 80% more Z travel. But those are pretty damn big benefits.

    Taking 5 steps back, the Haas is more than enough to do what I most want to do, which is prototype my own designs. I should consider myself lucky to even have the opportunity to make this choice instead of trying to fix a clapped out Bridgeport for $5k. IF I get any paid work it will be down to my skill to deliver, not the mill. Not like I'm making optical molds or titanium aero parts. I don't have to hold tenths all day. The Haas will be capable of delivering what it needs to, and as of today the capabilities of any of these machines exceed my own abilities anyway. If the paid work is eventually enough to get a big boy mill that's great, but cash is brand-agnostic. Until then I'll probably get more satisfaction from a lower monthly payment.

    As much as I want the Porsche, it may not be the smartest move right now. If I find myself needing to optimize cycle times on a 50k part run, chances are I'll be able to afford whichever mill is needed to do that.

    Anyone see a flaw in that line of reasoning?
    Big draw for me is the possibility of HSK … (better Z control ) but don't know anyone running a HAAS HSK spindle yet ? (How well they implemented the interface/ spindle nose ) - I might do a "bumpity" on an older thread I started to see how folks are making out with HaaSK.

    -- That's the thing if as you say you're not doing optical molds not aerospace trickier geometries in challenging materials with near b*stard form tolerances and automation is not a "worry" and you can be hands on then it's hard to beat HAAS on price versus capability.

    Your rms surface finish tollerences on certain materials are not impossible with the right tooling.

    OK... the HAAS UMC 500 indicates 103" elevation / "height" but the layout diagram shows that it might scrunch down to 99" (maybe it can scrunch down further ) @SVFeingold you indicated an 89" garage clearance (door) without having to "edit" you garage. ;-)

    Maybe empower knows the maximum scrunchability of the UMC 500 ?

    UMC-750 | 5-Axis Mill | 40-Taper | Vertical Mills – Haas CNC Machines

    ^^^ Here's the super special secret link ;-) to the NEW UMC 750 reboot

    https://www.haascnc.com/content/dam/..._2020-02r1.pdf

    Here's the layout diagram for the NEW Rebooted but kicked UMC 750 ss

    Seems to show that the NEW Rebooted UMC 750 ss (2020) can scrunch down to 98" height / elevation from a 103" max operating height ?

    I'm not sure there is an astounding price difference between the UMC 500 ss vs. the UMC REBOOT 750 ss ?

    You mentioned tool management being a big issue to pull focus on for you ~ New 750 Reboot has 50 tools as standard.

    * Note I didn't see your very nice above posts while I was typing slowly and hit send.

  17. #71
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    California
    Posts
    140
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    137
    Likes (Received)
    52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by empwoer View Post
    for #2, you'll have to specify that in cam.
    How exactly would you do this? I currently have a subscription to HSMWorks and I'm setting up programs for various parts just to get the hang of it. Would this be something I specify in a job setup, or in the individual operation somehow? Or for instance would I have to split it into multiple operations with a re-orientation on each one? I'm kinda thinking...fix the spindle in Y, rotate the C, and have the spindle move in X to follow the contour as the part rotates.

  18. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    California
    Posts
    140
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    137
    Likes (Received)
    52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cameraman View Post
    Big draw for me is the possibility of HSK … (better Z control ) but don't know anyone running a HAAS HSK spindle yet? (How well they implemented the interface/ spindle nose ) - I might do a "bumpity" on an older thread I started to see how folks are making out with HaaSK.
    Is the HSK worth the extra cost, and what I imagine also much higher cost and difficulty of obtaining toolholders?

    Seems to show that the NEW Rebooted UMC 750 ss (2020) can scrunch down to 98" height / elevation from a 103" max operating height ?

    I'm not sure there is an astounding price difference between the UMC 500 ss vs. the UMC REBOOT 750 ss ?
    I'd definitely be willing to stretch for the 750, but my ceiling height is only 113"... Looks like the machine is just too tall. I did however just notice this bit in the UMC layout drawings:

    **Height reduction achievable with no leveling feet or bolts, and removing roof, X axis way covers, spindle shroud, fan, and support brackets

  19. #73
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,316
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3796
    Likes (Received)
    944

    Default

    Sometimes worth thinking about not aligning the part orthogonally to the orthogonal axes of the machine. I.e. rotate the part on two planes for fixturing … That long diagonal can give you more "space" that folks don't normally think about ~ 3 axis mold work sometimes you find a part slanted at 45 or 30 degrees on one or two planes.

  20. #74
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,316
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3796
    Likes (Received)
    944

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SVFeingold View Post
    Is the HSK worth the extra cost, and what I imagine also much higher cost and difficulty of obtaining toolholders?



    I'd definitely be willing to stretch for the 750, but my ceiling height is only 113"... Looks like the machine is just too tall. I did however just notice this bit in the UMC layout drawings:
    Has anyone ever done a "sunken " machine shop in their garage lol.

    HSK that's up to you... I'm a fan of that for many reasons but have no idea what HAAS has done with that. (yet) but they seem pretty serious about it.

    Normally bell mouthing / mushrooming with conventional 40 taper + thermal effects can mess with your Z and z offsets - HAAS on their control seem to over compensate their Z spindle growth by backing away from the part. Pretty much I believe their claim that they never "Violate " the geometry of the part... You just have to sneak down onto your final surface.

    The HSK should be more consistent (z wise) for higher RPM tending towards 15K rpm being in-concept a dual contact interface , better at 15K RPM than conventional CT/CAT 40.

    HAAS did't/ hasn't implemented the Dual contact 40 taper "Big K" interface.

  21. Likes SVFeingold liked this post
  22. #75
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    California
    Posts
    140
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    137
    Likes (Received)
    52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cameraman View Post
    Sometimes worth thinking about not aligning the part orthogonally to the orthogonal axes of the machine. I.e. rotate the part on two planes for fixturing … That long diagonal can give you more "space" that folks don't normally think about ~ 3 axis mold work sometimes you find a part slanted at 45 or 30 degrees on one or two planes.
    This is a good point, something I'm thinking about. One thing that's concerning at the moment: say I have a prismatic part (maybe 16x16x3) that fits within the work envelope but covers the entire platter. How the fuck do you hold that thing...? Mount an even larger subplate to the platter and clamp it to that?

    Quote Originally Posted by cameraman View Post
    Has anyone ever done a "sunken " machine shop in their garage lol.
    I just can't wait to see the landlord's face. "Why the fuck is there a pit in the floor?"

  23. Likes cameraman liked this post
  24. #76
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    California
    Posts
    624
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1038
    Likes (Received)
    300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SVFeingold View Post
    How exactly would you do this? I currently have a subscription to HSMWorks and I'm setting up programs for various parts just to get the hang of it. Would this be something I specify in a job setup, or in the individual operation somehow? Or for instance would I have to split it into multiple operations with a re-orientation on each one? I'm kinda thinking...fix the spindle in Y, rotate the C, and have the spindle move in X to follow the contour as the part rotates.
    this would be done in each operation using tool orientation.

  25. #77
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,316
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3796
    Likes (Received)
    944

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SVFeingold View Post
    This is a good point, something I'm thinking about. One thing that's concerning at the moment: say I have a prismatic part (maybe 16x16x3) that fits within the work envelope but covers the entire platter. How the fuck do you hold that thing...? Mount an even larger subplate to the platter and clamp it to that?



    I just can't wait to see the landlord's face. "Why the fuck is there a pit in the floor?"
    There are a number of fun ways to solve your fixturing possibilities... [In more modern flexible / modular ways ]… I'm more old school fixture plate "Gumby".



    Here's a setup that has a lot flexibility for the range of parts you want to get to.

    Not to pimp Lang. (necessarily).

    Older UMC 750

  26. #78
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    California
    Posts
    140
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    137
    Likes (Received)
    52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cameraman View Post
    There are a number of fun ways to solve your fixturing possibilities... [In more modern flexible / modular ways ]… I'm more old school fixture plate "Gumby".
    So the question becomes...how to hold a part with a big flat bottom face, that's already bumping against the max size you can fit, without adding any mounting features to the bottom. I guess just a really long vise? Or leaving extra stock to be face off later, to which you can add some mounting features, but then you have the same issue when you flip the part over...

  27. #79
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,316
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3796
    Likes (Received)
    944

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SVFeingold View Post
    So the question becomes...how to hold a part with a big flat bottom face, that's already bumping against the max size you can fit, without adding any mounting features to the bottom. I guess just a really long vise? Or leaving extra stock to be face off later, to which you can add some mounting features, but then you have the same issue when you flip the part over...
    I'll come back later (as I have to skype the wife in another state and the clock is running down TMI)

    That is a fun question and also kinda highlights the fact that the HAAS UMC's have a lot of room around the c axis rotary so you can build cantilevered fixture plates larger than the table and use all kinds of eccentric or toe clamping systems... Like

    Mitee-Bite Products LLC. | Innovator of compact, low-profile edge clamps

    ^^^ Not pimping miteebite etc.

    They are seemingly fairly cheap. Their expanding (cylindrical) clamps look promising for fixture plate work (more aerospace style) also then onto to diamond pin / oval + tapered pins and then explore windowed parts and tabs (that you can saw through) and even some folks use vacuum plates and if your like the Tormach peeps then super glue. Or even double sided industrial tape.

  28. #80
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    California
    Posts
    140
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    137
    Likes (Received)
    52

    Default

    BTW, just to put a number on the accuracy. 20 arc-seconds at a 225mm radius (example part) is about a 20um chord length. Which I think is sufficient for my purposes. I haven't worked out what that would mean for, say, a 10mm bore axis on the end of that part that needs to be parallel to the top or bottom face to within X. As far as true position type tolerances within a particular orientation (when doing 3+2) it seems the rotary is out of the equation as it's clamped. Ignoring of course the aforementioned issue on a deep hole.

    I could see that accuracy maybe being an issue for surface finishing while doing simultaneous 5-axis. Again, what that means in practice I have no idea. Then again
    I doubt an Okuma 460-5AX has an accuracy better than like...5 arcseconds if that, and it can do this. Not sure how that rates for y'all but as far as I'm concerned that's a fantastic finish unless you need a mirror. So there's got to be more to the story than raw indexing accuracy when it comes to high quality finishing during 5-axis moves. I mean it's not like even a Hermle has a sub-arcsecond accuracy, right?


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •