Interesting new parting off system/technique

gregormarwick · Oct 31, 2017

A new dimension in parting off

Apologies for posting marketing material, but I thought this was interesting.

I have never seen anyone do it quite like this before, but it seems pretty obvious when you see it. Is this really a new idea, or are some already doing it this way?

lionelt · Oct 31, 2017

Somewhere I have a Tangent tool holder that works very similar.

Used Square HSS blocks.

Monarchist · Oct 31, 2017

gregormarwick said:
A new dimension in parting off

Apologies for posting marketing material, but I thought this was interesting.

I have never seen anyone do it quite like this before, but it seems pretty obvious when you see it. Is this really a new idea, or are some already doing it this way?

Their key point - loading the 'face' of the insert (mostly) in line with the long-axis / body of the tool holder is not "new" all by itself. Reminiscent, rather of end-loaded "tangential' tooling in general.

As to the "improvement" claims in tests, I'd wonder how it fares compared to - for example - HS-mounted swinging parting tooling. Which, may, of course be fine for the manual lathes as had that sort of option (Hardinge et al), but less easily applied to CNC in general where this tooling is meant to live.

Seems they are onto something useful, universally applicable or not. Sandvik are, after all, fairly good at such goals, so wotever else it is, it ain't just BS.

NAST555 · Oct 31, 2017

Looks interesting. I am trying to imagine how the setup would look on a turret?

With the blade not sticking out in X per say would it not be restrictive because the turret or actual holders would get in the way of longer parts? Maybe I am not imagining it properly.

SeaMoss · Oct 31, 2017

Monarchist said:
Sandvik are, after all, fairly good at such goals, so wotever else it is, it ain't just BS.

I had the Sandvik inserts that loooked like that, stuck into a little pocket with v-shaped seat. Easy to change but nowhere near as reliable, accurate, long-lasting as the Manchester partoff system.

Instead of holding the same junky insert in the same junky pocket except turn the blade on end, I'd just go Manchester

(No, I'm not beating up on Sandvik. Most of their stuff is excellent. But their partoff line is second-rate.)

litlerob1 · Oct 31, 2017

SeaMoss said:
I had the Sandvik inserts that loooked like that, stuck into a little pocket with v-shaped seat. Easy to change but nowhere near as reliable, accurate, long-lasting as the Manchester partoff system.

Instead of holding the same junky insert in the same junky pocket except turn the blade on end, I'd just go Manchester

(No, I'm not beating up on Sandvik. Most of their stuff is excellent. But their partoff line is second-rate.)

I agree, the approach is new to me, and looks like it makes good sense. But those stupid inserts wedged into the part off blade are still going to have the same issue that any part off blade/holder has---it has no lock, it's just based on the force of the turning part to keep it in there. But I'm willing to try it out.

I would also say whatever chip evacuation is better than what is normally being used. I very rarely use part off tools any more, if I can get a positive locking Groove tool in there, I'm going to do that.

R

Jashley73 · Oct 31, 2017

I've used part-off blades from several manufacturers, and have never had any problems with blade rigidity. I also wonder how much load is applied in the down/cutting direction, vs. the feed/axis direction.

It looks like it would only be useable in a mill-turn machine, & kind of gimmicky to me.

litlerob1 · Oct 31, 2017

Jashley73 said:
I've used part-off blades from several manufacturers, and have never had any problems with blade rigidity. I also wonder how much load is applied in the down/cutting direction, vs. the feed/axis direction.

It looks like it would only be useable in a mill-turn machine, & kind of gimmicky to me.

Without question, it would, at the very least, need a Y axis.

If you haven't had an issue with blade rigidity in any application-ever, I can only think you live in an alternate Dimension. As I have never not had issues with blade rigidity. (maybe my expectations are too high, I just want it to cut straight and leave a decent finish)

gregormarwick · Oct 31, 2017

SeaMoss said:
I had the Sandvik inserts that loooked like that, stuck into a little pocket with v-shaped seat. Easy to change but nowhere near as reliable, accurate, long-lasting as the Manchester partoff system.

Instead of holding the same junky insert in the same junky pocket except turn the blade on end, I'd just go Manchester

(No, I'm not beating up on Sandvik. Most of their stuff is excellent. But their partoff line is second-rate.)

Sandvik have several part off systems, and the old manchester system cannot hold a candle to sandvik's best. You're comparing technologies from 20+ years ago.

litlerob1 said:
I agree, the approach is new to me, and looks like it makes good sense. But those stupid inserts wedged into the part off blade are still going to have the same issue that any part off blade/holder has---it has no lock, it's just based on the force of the turning part to keep it in there. But I'm willing to try it out.

I would also say whatever chip evacuation is better than what is normally being used. I very rarely use part off tools any more, if I can get a positive locking Groove tool in there, I'm going to do that.

R

Sandvik ditched the wedge style inserts decades ago. I'm not sure why they're going back to them now, there must be a good reason. Maybe related to the coolant path in the blade. I also use parting tools rarely but clamped grooving tools are only capable of shallow parting, so sometimes needs must.

Jashley73 said:
I've used part-off blades from several manufacturers, and have never had any problems with blade rigidity. I also wonder how much load is applied in the down/cutting direction, vs. the feed/axis direction.

It looks like it would only be useable in a mill-turn machine, & kind of gimmicky to me.

I also have never really had any rigidity problems with conventional parting blades within their own limits, but perhaps this enables pushing the boundaries a bit, wider inserts, deeper parting depth etc.

For sure of limited utility on Y axis turret machines.

doug925 · Oct 31, 2017

If Sandvik's numbers are to be believed, then, this new approach (to me anyway) seems to warrant a closer look.

Demo: Three times higher feed rate with Y-axis parting - YouTube

They are claiming 0.018" IPR Vs 0.006" in 4340 :scratchchin:

gregormarwick · Oct 31, 2017

doug925 said:
If Sandvik's numbers are to be believed, then, this new approach (to me anyway) seems to warrant a closer look.

Demo: Three times higher feed rate with Y-axis parting - YouTube

They are claiming 0.018" IPR Vs 0.006" in 4340

I hadn't seen that video when I posted. Makes things fall into place a bit. I previously stated that it had limited utility in a turning centre but that's obviously not the case now that I think about it.

I have +/- 40mm on Y and 3" bar capacity, so I would be able to part off any bar that I could fit in the spindle no problem.

hanermo · Oct 31, 2017

I have no personal experience at those levels..
but *anything* sandvik or iscar says is always true re. cutting stuff.

They are *extremely* good at what they do- and are always happy to prove and demonstrate it.

I think there is a physics reason for the 3x improvement.
To me, it suggests that the high momentum // inertia of the workpiece is used to advantage preloading the cutting bit and workpiece and spindle, leading to much less vibration or possibly binding.

Also, possibly/probably, maybe better chip evacuation. This might be because of special geometry at the insert.
It could be that steadier cutting with less chatter allows for more space for chips to come off via thinner/molded inserts etc.

Just like hsm/chip thinning etc. has increased cutting performance a lot, via better application of physics rather than bigger heavier machines.
Just like some diamond/pvd etc. tooling has increased alu cutting speeds and reliabilities tremendously, and production speeds/unit are 10x from a short while ago.

HuFlungDung · Oct 31, 2017

Wow, interesting! Like one commenter in the comments below the video said, why not do this with regular turning and threading tools as well. I'm astonished at the feed rate, having never experienced a parting off chip that is .018" thick

I was trying to imagine applying this to manual lathe. Basically, stand the tool up on top of the cross slide and still feed in with the X axis. I can't imagine making such a toolholder part of any quick change system, but maybe here's where it becomes necessary to go with the rear toolpost setup, albeit in a different sense than any other rear toolpost.

Jashley73 · Oct 31, 2017

litlerob1 said:
If you haven't had an issue with blade rigidity in any application-ever, I can only think you live in an alternate Dimension. As I have never not had issues with blade rigidity. (maybe my expectations are too high, I just want it to cut straight and leave a decent finish)

The only machine I ever had any issues with part-off rigidity, was on a Haas TL1 that was notoriously prone to chatter, in nearly any turning application. (I think it was more of a specific machine/casting, or leveling issue more than tooling rigidity...)

I've used Seco, Iscar, Dorian & other part-off systems, and have never had issues with chatter in parting. I remember a specific job where we were making very wide grooves - like 3" wide - in 17-4PH stainless, and feeding .008"/rev - no issues.

I'm also not trying to pick on Sandvik - they make high quality products - but I'd like to see a more thorough comparison before drinking the cool-aid. I'd like to see them make several comparisons. .006" feed/rev with both tools, then .008", then .012, then .016 and so on... Then, we'd get to see the threshold for rigidity between both systems...

HuFlungDung · Oct 31, 2017

Jashley73 said:
The only machine I ever had any issues with part-off rigidity, was on a Haas TL1 that was notoriously prone to chatter, in nearly any turning application. (I think it was more of a specific machine/casting, or leveling issue more than tooling rigidity...)

I've used Seco, Iscar, Dorian & other part-off systems, and have never had issues with chatter in parting. I remember a specific job where we were making very wide grooves - like 3" wide - in 17-4PH stainless, and feeding .008"/rev - no issues.

I'm also not trying to pick on Sandvik - they make high quality products - but I'd like to see a more thorough comparison before drinking the cool-aid. I'd like to see them make several comparisons. .006" feed/rev with both tools, then .008", then .012, then .016 and so on... Then, we'd get to see the threshold for rigidity between both systems...

Isn't it simply logically more rigid? You've got the entire length of the blade (essentially 6") supporting the tool instead of 1.25" (the cross section of a typical partoff blade).

I've often wished for part off blades that were much taller than what is offered in order to try to get more rigidity, which also means more stability and a straighter cut.

Ox · Oct 31, 2017

Jashley73 said:
The only machine I ever had any issues with part-off rigidity, was on a Haas TL1 that was notoriously prone to chatter, in nearly any turning application. (I think it was more of a specific machine/casting, or leveling issue more than tooling rigidity...)

I've used Seco, Iscar, Dorian & other part-off systems, and have never had issues with chatter in parting. I remember a specific job where we were making very wide grooves - like 3" wide - in 17-4PH stainless, and feeding .008"/rev - no issues.

I'm also not trying to pick on Sandvik - they make high quality products - but I'd like to see a more thorough comparison before drinking the cool-aid. I'd like to see them make several comparisons. .006" feed/rev with both tools, then .008", then .012, then .016 and so on... Then, we'd get to see the threshold for rigidity between both systems...

Maybe Walter has a better design coming out soon?

:stirthepot:

---------------------

Think Snow Eh!
Ox

Mechanola · Oct 31, 2017

Tried this once with a manual lathe, limitations are with blade lengths, widths, heights, and clamping. A new tool holder plus an interface to turrets (VDI) is welcome. It was about time someone introduced that to CNC machining. Congrats, Sandvik!

Monarchist · Oct 31, 2017

HuFlungDung said:
I was trying to imagine applying this to manual lathe. Basically, stand the tool up on top of the cross slide and still feed in with the X axis. I can't imagine making such a toolholder part of any quick change system

Not exactly "quick change", but reasonably fast to add or remove, once fabbed-up. Old School large, SLOW lathes, one placed a large Ell shape of steel plate atop the cross, alongside and fastened to the side of the 4-Way, tool welded to the top. Mind - there wasn't ordinarily a compound ON those lathes. Spent most of its days ten feet down the chip tray.

Draw a vertical line from point of tool-tip contact downward towards the bed? There was HSS, mild steel, or CI on ever' bit of that line, not one damned molecule of ignorant "air".

Crude, rude, socially unacceptable, sexually undefinable, and politically unreliable Brute Force and Bloody Ignorance... and did I say "slow"?

But "flex"... was no longer an issue.

CNC, "time" IS a major issue, standard mountups, too, as Blacksmith tech don't fit no damned toolchanger magazines, etc.. so a good deal more finesse is on the punch list. Physics, geometry, force-vector diagram are much the same though. "Less than zero" hang-out, so to speak.

If Sandvik has "gotten it right", and there IS that much to be gained? They will have competition, and Real Soon Now. If no one else enters that game? Gains may be too dependent on special circumstances.

EndlessWaltz · Oct 31, 2017

Based on the tooling block in the turret...why would you not be cutting downward instead of upward in similar fashion using Y-axis. Then per the old school logic you would would be putting the pressure towards the casting correct???

But cool idea!!

Ox · Oct 31, 2017

EndlessWaltz said:
Based on the tooling block in the turret...why would you not be cutting downward instead of upward in similar fashion using Y-axis. Then per the old school logic you would would be putting the pressure towards the casting correct???

But cool idea!!

My guess is that the tool is flippable, so M3 or M4 - your choice.

But most folks run M3, so it is shown as M3.

I would say that the way that it is shown is puting the pressure into the slant bed casting much moreso that the other direction. You see it differently?

With that said tho - Depending on the offset (in Y)) of the tool, it could require a large amount of Y travel (reach), and Y+ usually will have more available reach than Y-, so your Y travel could decide which direction that you want to run it anyhow.

--------------------

Think Snow Eh!
Ox

Interesting new parting off system/technique

Diamond

Stainless

Diamond

Stainless

Banned

Diamond

Titanium

Diamond

Diamond

Titanium

Diamond

Titanium

Diamond

Titanium

Diamond

Diamond

Stainless

Diamond

Cast Iron

Diamond

Similar threads