Lathe thread tool setting - Page 4
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 105
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Country
    ALAND ISLANDS
    Posts
    1,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    43
    Likes (Received)
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by angelw View Post
    Typically, you would have a separate Tool Offset for each cutting edge, therefore, there is no difference to using two separate tool.
    ... it would run only on X and Z, thus 2 corections
    ... it will halved number of tool corections for a long run setup
    ... it will save index time
    ...... but is not worthy

    Quote Originally Posted by angelw View Post
    Can't answer that; I have no idea what you mean
    ...program outputs roughing at -40, and threading at -39.9

    ... operator goes to threading tool Z offset ( corection ), and adds +0.2
    ...... or
    ... operator edits the program, and replaces -39.9 with -39.7

    what whould you do ?

  2. #62
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Country
    SOUTH AFRICA
    Posts
    1,627
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1191
    Likes (Received)
    667

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deadlykitten View Post


    i am not saying that 0.1 clearance is impossible; but is not common practice to go that close to a shoulder

    Over here it is... Unless of course us South Africans are far behind the people from the Aland Islands in realising that if my machine is going to be 0.1mm out then there is a lot more wrong than just setting up a threading tool.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    11,736
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    51
    Likes (Received)
    8985

    Default

    It seems to be a pretty common belief that somehow you can program a CNC machine to do something that the control knows is impossible. If you program the thread tool to stop at a shoulder, it doesn't matter how course the thread pitch is, or how many RPMs you tell it to run, it'll stop at the shoulder or alarm out. It might mess up the thread pitch as it tries to slow down, but it's not just going to slam into the shoulder.

    I remember someone here many years ago who was convinced that you should never use constant surface speed and rapid moves at the same time on a CNC lathe. He theory was that if you moved the tool too fast in X, the spindle would accelerate or decelerate too fast and the work piece would slip in the chuck or the machine would be damaged. He couldn't understand that the spindle ramp was programmed into the spindle drive and had nothing to do with the movement of the tool (up to the maximum acceleration limit).

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Victoria Australia
    Posts
    3,727
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1469

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deadlykitten View Post
    ... it would run only on X and Z, thus 2 corections
    ... it will halved number of tool corections for a long run setup
    ... it will save index time
    ...... but is not worthy
    Again you're showing your ignorance with this Post. Two separate cutting edges on the one tool, two sets of Offsets, the same as two separate tools. As I intimated in a previous Post, Gang tooling on one Turret face lends itself to only particular work-piece configuration. Surely there must be trade classes in Aland Island where you can get tuition.


    Quote Originally Posted by deadlykitten View Post
    ...program outputs roughing at -40, and threading at -39.9

    ... operator goes to threading tool Z offset ( corection ), and adds +0.2
    ...... or
    ... operator edits the program, and replaces -39.9 with -39.7

    what whould you do ?
    Well if that's your practice and management, I can't help your bad habits. Changing program coordinates to fudge a size is the last resort; you may learn this with more practice; but no guarantees in your case.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Victoria Australia
    Posts
    3,727
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1469

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NAST555 View Post
    Over here it is... Unless of course us South Africans are far behind the people from the Aland Islands in realising that if my machine is going to be 0.1mm out then there is a lot more wrong than just setting up a threading tool.
    Hello NAST555,
    From his many Posts, a picture of inexperience, incompetence and lack of ability has emerged. There lays the problem; he's trying to punch way above his weight.

    Regards,

    Bill

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Country
    ALAND ISLANDS
    Posts
    1,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    43
    Likes (Received)
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by angelw View Post
    Two separate cutting edges on the one tool ..
    with one offset second offset is not required

    what are the conditions to achieve this ?

    Quote Originally Posted by angelw View Post
    Well if that's your practice and management, I can't help your bad habits. Changing program coordinates to fudge a size is the last resort; you may learn this with more practice; but no guarantees in your case.
    i asked what would you do ? consider that an operator changed thread tool Z offset with +0.2, while your drawing requires 0.1 threading to shoulder

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Victoria Australia
    Posts
    3,727
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1469

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deadlykitten View Post
    with one offset second offset is not required
    With every Post you simply look more foolish and none more so that this one. You have two inserts on the one tool, a turning insert and a threading insert. They will be in two separate locations, that is a given. Therefore, unless you're going to have fudged coordinates in the program, you will require a set of Offsets for each insert. That's 1 x 2 = 2 sets of Offsets.


    Quote Originally Posted by deadlykitten View Post
    i asked what would you do ? you hear that an operator changed thread tool offset with +0.2, while your drawing requires 0.1 threading to shoulder / what do you do ?
    An operator changing the coordinates of a program for the sake of fudging would not happen on my watch, period.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    California
    Posts
    723
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    106
    Likes (Received)
    369

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deadlykitten View Post
    with one offset second offset is not required

    what are the conditions to achieve this ?



    i asked what would you do ? consider that an operator changed thread tool Z offset with +0.2, while your drawing requires 0.1 threading to shoulder
    What if that same idiot operator (yourself) changed it to +2.0? What if.. what if.. +20.0?

    What if you're just stupid?

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Country
    ALAND ISLANDS
    Posts
    1,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    43
    Likes (Received)
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by angelw View Post
    Changing program coordinates to fudge a size is the last resort
    actually, last resort is messing with control methods something like decalibrating a micrometer or grinding gauges ?

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Victoria Australia
    Posts
    3,727
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1469

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deadlykitten View Post
    actually, last resort is messing with control methods something like decalibrating a micrometer or grinding gauges ?
    Actually, last resort would be for some dumb schmuck to take any advice that you put forward.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Country
    ALAND ISLANDS
    Posts
    1,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    43
    Likes (Received)
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by angelw View Post
    You have two inserts on the one tool
    i was thinking a single insert but it may work also with 2 inserts, as long as insert crafting precision and clamping repetability are known

    Quote Originally Posted by angelw View Post
    An operator changing the coordinates of a program for the sake of fudging would not happen on my watch, period
    not the program, but tool offset is a simple question ... you are informed that an operator changed Z offset with 0.2, or at least 0.1. what do you do ?

    he is telling you that the thread tool is going to close to the shoulder, and he is asking for increased clearance or at least a control method; what do you do ?

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Country
    CHINA
    Posts
    1,576
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ewlsey View Post
    I remember someone here many years ago who was convinced that you should never use constant surface speed and rapid moves at the same time on a CNC lathe.
    That is one of my pet peeves with turning software though. A lot of them love css, which is stupid for roughing.

    Say you are roughing a shaft that's 8" long. The dumb CAM system uses G96. Take your roughing pass at, say, 800 rpm, then the tool withdraws in X and the spindle slows down, tool rapids back to start point in Z spindle does nothing, actually staying at a speed that is slower than what the pass was, tool rapids in in X, spindle tries to change from 750 to 900 in 1/12th of a second. Awful.

    Manual programming; no need to slow down as the tool faces back, it's only a tiny change in surface speed and we're not taking off any metal to speak of. Then while the damn thing is rapidding to start point, look ahead to the diameter of the next pass and accelerate spindle to that speed. Then when the cutter drops down to the smaller dia at 400 ipm or whatever, the spindle will already be there.

    Too many of the CAM systems I looked at were too stupid to figure out this elementary process. Up-down up-down up-down, dumb. And you could hear that the spindle was not at the proper speed when the tool entered the cut, too.

    Just dumb

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Country
    ALAND ISLANDS
    Posts
    1,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    43
    Likes (Received)
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SeaMoss View Post
    That is one of my pet peeves with turning software though. A lot of them love css, which is stupid for roughing.

    Say you are roughing a shaft that's 8" long. The dumb CAM system uses G96. Take your roughing pass at, say, 800 rpm, then the tool withdraws in X and the spindle slows down, tool rapids back to start point in Z spindle does nothing, actually staying at a speed that is slower than what the pass was, tool rapids in in X, spindle tries to change from 750 to 900 in 1/12th of a second. Awful.

    Manual programming; no need to slow down as the tool faces back, it's only a tiny change in surface speed and we're not taking off any metal to speak of. Then while the damn thing is rapidding to start point, look ahead to the diameter of the next pass and accelerate spindle to that speed. Then when the cutter drops down to the smaller dia at 400 ipm or whatever, the spindle will already be there.

    Too many of the CAM systems I looked at were too stupid to figure out this elementary process. Up-down up-down up-down, dumb. And you could hear that the spindle was not at the proper speed when the tool entered the cut, too.

    Just dumb
    wrong thread SeaMoss using ccs when roughing is ok only if a lot of material has to be removed among diameter

    thus ccs for roughing is ok if X travel is long enough

    good coding should avoid unnecessary rpm changes

    also changing gears is recomended if X travel is great

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Victoria Australia
    Posts
    3,727
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1469

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deadlykitten View Post
    i was thinking a single insert but it may work also with 2 inserts, as long as insert crafting precision and clamping repetability are known
    Even coming from you, the foolishness of the above statement is astonishing. What you're saying is that the Turning Op to the shoulder and the Threading Op is to be made with the same insert. This Post surpasses the dumbness of Johnny Larue by a country mile.

    Not that you had much credibility before, but after that statement you now have Zero. What a Wanker!! If you want to progress, sign up for a beginner's course ASAP.

    Its priceless how you can make yourself look more unskilled with every Post just when I thought you had hit rock bottom.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Country
    ALAND ISLANDS
    Posts
    1,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    43
    Likes (Received)
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by angelw View Post
    What you're saying is that the Turning Op to the shoulder and the Threading Op is to be made with the same insert
    ... clearance 0.1 will always be 0.1
    ... program duration reduces with [index time]+[2 rapids]+[a bit]
    ... maybe more inserts will fail, but overall costs will lower
    ... there will be a burr on that face, on an area like a donut, where :
    ...... hole of the donut = thread
    ...... width of the donut = threat height
    ...... this burr will not contribute to comercial aspect, but it's surface may be too little to count, and the client may accept it

    only issue is if the face and the nut must deliver true contact among 360 degrees ( like for an ermetic assamble )

    and even in this case all may be ok, if burr surface is < 30% ( eq ) of the contact area between nut and face

    however, ermetic assamble for example, can be crafted with more than 0.1 clearance between thread and shoulder



    you still did not answered the "operator" question

    how do you set the thread tool on the lathe, so to deliver 0.1 clearance to shoulder ?
    what do you do if the operator modifies Z offset for threading tool with 0.1 .. 0.2, so to increase the clearance, and be more comfortable with the setup ?

  16. #76
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Country
    SOUTH AFRICA
    Posts
    1,627
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1191
    Likes (Received)
    667

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by angelw View Post
    Even coming from you, the foolishness of the above statement is astonishing. What you're saying is that the Turning Op to the shoulder and the Threading Op is to be made with the same insert. This Post surpasses the dumbness of Johnny Larue by a country mile.
    Made my day Bill

  17. Likes litlerob1 liked this post
  18. #77
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Country
    ALAND ISLANDS
    Posts
    1,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    43
    Likes (Received)
    96

    Default

    here, have another question :

    when threading at 0.1 to a shoulder, there is :
    ... [ roughing tool ] , that delivers the cilinder
    ... [ threading tool ] , that delivers the thread

    what radius should be used on the [ roughing tool ] ? 0.4? 0.05?

    is it normal for that radius to be bigger than the clearance between thread and shoulder ?

  19. #78
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Country
    ALAND ISLANDS
    Posts
    1,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    43
    Likes (Received)
    96

    Default

    when threading at 0.1 to a shoulder, is good to :
    ... know the destination / functionality of the final assemble
    ... take into consideration lathe size
    ... be aware of the downtime created into production

    and i am done with this thread

  20. #79
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Victoria Australia
    Posts
    3,727
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1469

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deadlykitten View Post
    ... clearance 0.1 will always be 0.1
    ... program duration reduces with [index time]+[2 rapids]+[a bit]
    ... maybe more inserts will fail, but overall costs will lower
    ... there will be a burr on that face, on an area like a donut, where :
    ...... hole of the donut = thread
    ...... width of the donut = threat height
    ...... this burr will not contribute to comercial aspect, but it's surface may be too little to count, and the client may accept it

    only issue is if the face and the nut must deliver true contact among 360 degrees ( like for an ermetic assamble )

    and even in this case all may be ok, if burr surface is < 30% ( eq ) of the contact area between nut and face

    however, ermetic assamble for example, can be crafted with more than 0.1 clearance between thread and shoulder



    you still did not answered the "operator" question

    how do you set the thread tool on the lathe, so to deliver 0.1 clearance to shoulder ?
    what do you do if the operator modifies Z offset for threading tool with 0.1 .. 0.2, so to increase the clearance, and be more comfortable with the setup ?
    You're a Joke and the sad thing is that you seem not to know it. The hypotheticals you put are not worth bothering with. The fact is that programming a Threading Tool to go within 0.1 of a shoulder is eminently possible and without all your ifs, buts and maybe's. Just because you're not a confident enough programmer/operator doesn't make it not so.

    As I stated on my previous Post, with each Post you just look and prove yourself to be increasingly stupid. To suggest the same tool be used as a Turning and Threading Tool beggar belief, particularly when you have been banging on about "stability in production". Good luck trying to cut the face of the shoulder with a Threading Tool.

    You're in way over your head, so I'd suggest Stop Digging. You've reached the depth of foolishness where I'm feeling embarrassed for you.

  21. Likes litlerob1 liked this post
  22. #80
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    189
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    86
    Likes (Received)
    40

    Default

    I have been following this post and have made an observation, forgive me for asking but. Do you know what a Deadlykitten and a Timex watch have in common,They both take a licking and keep on ticking.


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
  •