Multus U3000 vs. CTX Beta 1250 TC - Page 3
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 65
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Utah
    Posts
    4,367
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1169
    Likes (Received)
    2395

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vancbiker View Post
    M6 T1 (TOOL DESCRIPTION HERE) is the standard for my Mori.....
    Isn't that what I meant?

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Aberdeen, UK
    Posts
    3,483
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1215
    Likes (Received)
    1302

    Default

    Cameraman; re. the linear Z, not considering it currently. I doubt the touted improved dynamics are really necessary for our purposes, and I don't see the machine getting run hard enough that the increased durability will matter much. It's not an option on the Okuma anyway AFAIK.

    JJM; part size is a difficult concept. We are all over the place in size and type of parts, so I'm just trying to compromise on a machine that will handle the most common. Let's say 300mm diameter as the common max. According to the work envelope (both machines are effectively the same) I should be able to pass a 150mm long tool assembly radially over a 300mm part. Am I overlooking anything here? I am undecided on chuck size. It will either be 250 or 305mm. DMG quoted SMW KNCS quick change chucks, which I will most likely reject in favour of something more common. I have a BERG KH chuck that I had on an old Gildemeister, it was the most repeatable power chuck I ever used, really well made. But yes, the jaws are different to most.

    Rob/Boosted; I'm also not seeing the great benefit of tool names, since we will do all programming offline and tools will likely be moved between machines the whole time anyway, standard numbering should be perfectly fine. I do like that conversational cycle edit feature.

    Vanc, long term service is something I intend to talk to both about, I somehow forgot to ask DMG about that when they were here even though we talked at length about service. Our oldest machine that we bought new is very nearly 10 years old now, and is still as good as the day it was installed. I can see no reason it couldn't do another 10 just fine with adequate service. With that in mind, it's not out of the question that we might run this machine for 20 years, so yes, long term parts availability is a big deal. I don't know how Okuma stack up in that regard. I have heard here and there that they are maybe not so great on the electrical side for long term parts - motors etc. Idk if that's true or not.

    Bryan; I hear you about having a unique machine. I think we will be ok in that regard. The configurations on both machines seem to pretty common according to the reps.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    14
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    3

    Default

    150mm seems to be right, (H1 480 - E4 175), 305mm for part+tool assembly in radial direction. At least 75-100mm for holder.

    SMW quick change chucks are most common what we have here, more options for bigger jaws i guess. I don't have anything against serrated jaw chucks, both have ups and downs, it boils down to matter of preference like with tool naming. 250mm chuck sounds maybe small for 300mm diameter part, if you are starting from raw stock (Holding from OD). Though i've seem some extreme setups on this forums, so anything is possible, 770mm on 400mm chuck is biggest what i've done on one of our gammas.

    There are few builtin cycles for problem solving, FF_ANG in manufacturer cycles for moving the carrier in tilted angle while rotating the c1-axis if you have tap stuck in the part, or just plain drill. FF_MAG for tool magazine problems, if it gets stuck, FF_MAG takes care of the basic problems, but there are some of situations where you need to do some manual work.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Washington
    Posts
    4,400
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    804
    Likes (Received)
    2367

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gregormarwick View Post
    ..... DMG quoted SMW KNCS quick change chucks, which I will most likely reject in favour of something more common. .......
    The SMW quick change chucks I have worked with, while being cool and all, won't survive a crash that the same size Kitagawa or Matsumoto would live through with no problem. The SMW masters are smaller and do not engage the chuck body with nearly as much area.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Near Seattle
    Posts
    4,666
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2911
    Likes (Received)
    1232

    Default

    @gregormarwick - I urge you (and anybody else sourcing such a machine) to get drawings from the MTB good enough to build a model - ideally in a CAD system. You should model the work envelope and tool movement envelope. (You do not care about, nor need to model, the underlying physical structure of the machine.)

    In this model, you want to account for things like the gage lengths of the real tools in real tool holders. How the B-axis head will interact with the sheet metal.

    Building it all up in an assembly in solidworks (or equivalent in whatever cad you have) would be the way - now move the thing around and see what collides.

    Pay PARTICULAR attention to the location of things like B-axis swivel locations, and how the tool spindle is offset from the B-swivel.

    This may reveal that in practice, one machine has much better clearence for long or short tools, turning down a short part with the tailstock or 2nd chuck in use, and so forth.

    There can be some real surprizes in where swivel centers and tool spindle centerlines are - you don't have to ask me how I know this - or why I started this modeling rule for new machinery.....

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Aberdeen, UK
    Posts
    3,483
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1215
    Likes (Received)
    1302

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JJM View Post
    150mm seems to be right, (H1 480 - E4 175), 305mm for part+tool assembly in radial direction. At least 75-100mm for holder.

    SMW quick change chucks are most common what we have here, more options for bigger jaws i guess. I don't have anything against serrated jaw chucks, both have ups and downs, it boils down to matter of preference like with tool naming. 250mm chuck sounds maybe small for 300mm diameter part, if you are starting from raw stock (Holding from OD). Though i've seem some extreme setups on this forums, so anything is possible, 770mm on 400mm chuck is biggest what i've done on one of our gammas.

    There are few builtin cycles for problem solving, FF_ANG in manufacturer cycles for moving the carrier in tilted angle while rotating the c1-axis if you have tap stuck in the part, or just plain drill. FF_MAG for tool magazine problems, if it gets stuck, FF_MAG takes care of the basic problems, but there are some of situations where you need to do some manual work.
    We routinely put big pieces in the bigger lathes just to cut a step or a bore that we can then chuck onto with claw jaws in the smaller machines. I think this is preferable to having too big of a chuck. I think with a 305 or larger chuck we will run up against too many clearance issues on the smaller parts. I am leaning towards a 250mm on the main for these reasons. Also I'd want to be able to use the full speed range of the spindle, and a quick change or larger chuck means rpm limits.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vancbiker View Post
    The SMW quick change chucks I have worked with, while being cool and all, won't survive a crash that the same size Kitagawa or Matsumoto would live through with no problem. The SMW masters are smaller and do not engage the chuck body with nearly as much area.
    The jaws on the quick change are narrower altogether, I guess this is good for clearance and access, but as I said above, I expect to use lots of claw jaws for minimal clamping of raw stock, and wider jaw means better grip, at least in my head.
    Another reason that I'd rather go with something like SMW BH series is that they have mounting points on the face of the chuck that I could use for fixtures. I do a good number of parts that are not really chuckable for second op, being able to mount fixtures directly to the face of the chuck would be a boon.

    Quote Originally Posted by bryan_machine View Post
    @gregormarwick - I urge you (and anybody else sourcing such a machine) to get drawings from the MTB good enough to build a model - ideally in a CAD system. You should model the work envelope and tool movement envelope.
    DMG provide solid models of the machine in the standard package. I will find out on Monday if Okuma do the same.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    2,982
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    6958
    Likes (Received)
    2525

    Default

    RE: Max RPM with a chuck... I don't think I've ever used a lathe with a chuck up to it's max RPM. Man, even our Mazak's w/ 12" chuck will spin to 3,000 or 3,300 rpm... Way too fast for a part held only by (3) heavy steel jaws, trying to fling themselves open at speed...

    My advise if you want versatility between large diameter chucker parts, and smaller diameter/better clearance/high-RPM parts.... Invest about 20k in a quick-change chuck system and install a large diameter collet system & your lathe-chuck on this setup. It would be about a 10-minute change over, and offer the best of both worlds. The systems I've used add about 80mm to the length/face of the chuck...



    RE: Okuma control & jogging multiple axes... It's not that the control is limited. The operator panel on Okuma's milling machines are setup differently. Instead of having +X & -X jog buttons ( and same for all other axes) their mill controls are setup differently. Instead, you select an axis (X, Y, Z, A, B, C, etc...) and then press "-" or "+" to jog the machine. It's just a different setup. And let's be honest here - who want's to jog their very expensive, complicated, and fragile mill-turn machine in multiple axes at a time...? Taking your time here isn't necessarily a bad thing...

    One humongously helpful feature on the Okuma control, is having ALL of the alarm manuals loaded onto the control. When the machine throws an alarm, you simply press the "?" far left soft-key, and it will open the alarm manual to the exact alarm the control has displayed. This is extremely helpful when you're trying to bust through a tricky issue.

    The control also has the collision-avoidance software. Maybe this is a big gimmick, and maybe it requires a ton of very disciplined work to ensure it's accurate in order to work correctly/safely, but it will stop machine motion before a collision.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Utah
    Posts
    4,367
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1169
    Likes (Received)
    2395

    Default

    I was thinking about this jog thing. I guess I don't use the Manual Rapid buttons (that is what we are talking about, not the MPG). Most of the Manual motion control I do is from MDI, because I don't want to violate any boundaries. If CAS is set up correctly, and you enter a command in MDI that will rotate B into your part--you get an Alarm B. So I just do it that way. I still use the MPG for little things. (which is a sore spot (make sure you ask for it at purchase)). It doesn't cost anything, but I needed to ask for it when it wasn't with the Parcel. 4 weeks later I got it.

    I think Boosted is running a 3 Axis Vertical, which is fine for Manual Rapid all over the place, you can see everything. But you find me a 5 Axis guy that Rapids A, B, X and Z all at the same time, the thought makes me a little nervous. But shit maybe??

    R

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    193
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    34
    Likes (Received)
    95

    Default

    Rob, did you look at pictures I posted? I am running a Siemens 840D on my 5 axis DMU50. I also took a picture of the mask on a canned cycle for you.

    I don't want to drag this argument out forever, but I really think you need to consider the fact that you are spreading disinformation. When you make statements like "The OSP is hands down the best; it's not worth discussing", that is misleading, because it implies that you have an intimate knowledge of the differences in each platform. Again, I am a satisfied Okuma user, just like you. I just don't think the OSP the best controller ever.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Aberdeen, UK
    Posts
    3,483
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1215
    Likes (Received)
    1302

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jashley73 View Post
    RE: Max RPM with a chuck... I don't think I've ever used a lathe with a chuck up to it's max RPM. Man, even our Mazak's w/ 12" chuck will spin to 3,000 or 3,300 rpm... Way too fast for a part held only by (3) heavy steel jaws, trying to fling themselves open at speed...

    My advise if you want versatility between large diameter chucker parts, and smaller diameter/better clearance/high-RPM parts.... Invest about 20k in a quick-change chuck system and install a large diameter collet system & your lathe-chuck on this setup. It would be about a 10-minute change over, and offer the best of both worlds. The systems I've used add about 80mm to the length/face of the chuck...
    The old Gildemeister that I used to have had a 5k rpm spindle with a 200mm berg chuck that was extremely well balanced, and had ceramic spindle bearings. It left absolutely beautiful finishes compared to any of our other lathes that are rpm limited when running parts that could use the surface speed, and the precision was wonderful. I did 300mm-ish parts in that lathe all the time too, by doing like I said previously and prepping the stock in a bigger lathe first.
    Using claw jaws internally is a good way to not have to worry about the chuck opening up under speed!

    When that old Gildemeister finally bit the dust we replaced it with a Doosan w/ 250mm Samchully chuck. It tops out at 3.5k and suffers from heat in the headstock and belt vibration at certain speed ranges, so we rarely run over 2k. Basically, it sucks for fine work, so I really want to get back to what we had with the old Gildemeister.

    This is a part of the reason that I am not keen on the quick change jaw chuck - it has a lower max. rpm compared to an equivalent wedge jaw chuck.

    Re. the quickchange collet/chuck; I don't think I would use it, at least not enough to justify the cost and loss of envelope. I have collet chucks on some of the other lathes and I can count on one hand the number of times in the last 10 years that I've even wanted to use them, let alone actually used them.

    That said, I will give it some consideration, thanks.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Utah
    Posts
    4,367
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1169
    Likes (Received)
    2395

    Default

    Boosted, I have an opinion. I admit that it is an opinion. It's still my opinion. But I think Gregor has enough information to investigate what he wants to. "Misinformation" is not the same as an opinion. I have not posted anything untrue about either control. Therefore I have not posted "Misinformation", I have posted my opinion, as the truth, which it is-to me.

    R

  12. Likes Vancbiker liked this post
  13. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    3,428
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1474
    Likes (Received)
    1620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jashley73 View Post
    RE: Max RPM with a chuck... I don't think I've ever used a lathe with a chuck up to it's max RPM. Man, even our Mazak's w/ 12" chuck will spin to 3,000 or 3,300 rpm... Way too fast for a part held only by (3) heavy steel jaws, trying to fling themselves open at speed...

    My advise if you want versatility between large diameter chucker parts, and smaller diameter/better clearance/high-RPM parts.... Invest about 20k in a quick-change chuck system and install a large diameter collet system & your lathe-chuck on this setup. It would be about a 10-minute change over, and offer the best of both worlds. The systems I've used add about 80mm to the length/face of the chuck...



    RE: Okuma control & jogging multiple axes... It's not that the control is limited. The operator panel on Okuma's milling machines are setup differently. Instead of having +X & -X jog buttons ( and same for all other axes) their mill controls are setup differently. Instead, you select an axis (X, Y, Z, A, B, C, etc...) and then press "-" or "+" to jog the machine. It's just a different setup. And let's be honest here - who want's to jog their very expensive, complicated, and fragile mill-turn machine in multiple axes at a time...? Taking your time here isn't necessarily a bad thing...

    One humongously helpful feature on the Okuma control, is having ALL of the alarm manuals loaded onto the control. When the machine throws an alarm, you simply press the "?" far left soft-key, and it will open the alarm manual to the exact alarm the control has displayed. This is extremely helpful when you're trying to bust through a tricky issue.

    The control also has the collision-avoidance software. Maybe this is a big gimmick, and maybe it requires a ton of very disciplined work to ensure it's accurate in order to work correctly/safely, but it will stop machine motion before a collision.
    I know on the Integrex it has xb and bx (or something like that) for jog modes. I heard from a Mazak setup tech it was incase you were in a part or something at an angle with the B axis so you could move the machine manually on the same vector to get the tool out or whatever.

  14. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    3,428
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1474
    Likes (Received)
    1620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by litlerob1 View Post
    Boosted, I have an opinion. I admit that it is an opinion. It's still my opinion. But I think Gregor has enough information to investigate what he wants to. "Misinformation" is not the same as an opinion. I have not posted anything untrue about either control. Therefore I have not posted "Misinformation", I have posted my opinion, as the truth, which it is-to me.

    R
    Annndd that is how all this works. There are facts such as the sun the moon and the stars, etc etc. And there are "facts" like I (myself) think Mastercam (insert machine brand, tool brand, etc here) is great software. It is a fact to me with my experience with other softwares, but it surely isn't a "fact" to the people who hate Mastercam. Like Rob said it is "my fact" but that is about as far as it goes.

  15. #54
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Washington
    Posts
    4,400
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    804
    Likes (Received)
    2367

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1974 View Post
    I know on the Integrex it has xb and bx (or something like that) for jog modes. I heard from a Mazak setup tech it was incase you were in a part or something at an angle with the B axis so you could move the machine manually on the same vector to get the tool out or whatever.
    Every machine that I have worked on that tilts the head for one or more rotary axes has had a similar function. Are there some that don't?

  16. Likes cameraman, Mike1974 liked this post
  17. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,706
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3217
    Likes (Received)
    711

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1974 View Post
    I know on the Integrex it has xb and bx (or something like that) for jog modes. I heard from a Mazak setup tech it was incase you were in a part or something at an angle with the B axis so you could move the machine manually on the same vector to get the tool out or whatever.
    For 5 axis programs in general having the ability for a machine to do safe tool retracts (at weird angles) mid-interrupted- cycle if something 'eff's up is a really important / nice feature.


    On the Mazak (Mill turn) "Zoo" of offerings for quick prototype or fixture work having to make tapered components quasi manually on the control means you have to have two simultaneously controlled axes i.e. coordinated Z and X axes (on a vector) If you are that kind of machinists, that can be quite fluid, fast and intuitive... (without having to program everything to death for simple quick hands on work.). But I also suspect a LOT of "Bumps" happen that way too, when you get in the habit of that. Collision avoidance planes, boundaries and bounding boxes can be set graphically on the control but I suspect most "peeps" after a couple of months dispense with fiddling with that a lot to save time.

  18. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    3,428
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1474
    Likes (Received)
    1620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vancbiker View Post
    Every machine that I have worked on that tilts the head for one or more rotary axes has had a similar function. Are there some that don't?

    I don't know, but there were some questions on why you need that ability...

  19. #57
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Utah
    Posts
    4,367
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1169
    Likes (Received)
    2395

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1974 View Post
    I don't know, but there were some questions on why you need that ability...
    If you are Drilling a hole at B45° X2.Z-1. along the 45° angle and the power goes out. IE

    R

  20. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Aberdeen, UK
    Posts
    3,483
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1215
    Likes (Received)
    1302

    Default

    We hit a hurdle with the Multus and CTX, in that both are on long lead times - wouldn't get one until October/November and we have work coming in thick and fast right now.

    Doosan approached us with their SMX, and they have a couple of stock machines available that would work.

    We were considering this when DMG came back and said that they have an NTX2000 that's become available. They are offering us a solid deal on this machine but it's still £100k more than the Doosan. I have no doubt that it's £100k better than the Doosan, and it seems like my management are on board with that, at least more than I expected them to be.

    I am prepared to make a concession on having a Fanuc based control for the sake of getting a machine in quickly, and getting a good quality one.

    One thing that is bothering me is the HSK spindle. I really wanted a C6 spindle. I will need to use anti-vibration boring bars in this machine from time to time, that is a given. I have a bunch of those on C6, and also plain shank. HSK-C6 adapters are not a thing. HSK to smaller capto is, but that is kind of inconsequential.

    How do I interface anti-vibration boring bars to a HSK-63A spindle? I could make a HSK-63 to C6 adapter using off the shelf parts (C6 socket, HSK blank) but the added gauge length would affect the operation of the bar. I could buy some new plain shank bars and shrink them into bored HSK blanks, with the same caveat as above. I could buy a HSK-C4 adapter and get some C4 bars, but that means getting longer x D bars for the same reach which is more expensive. I don't like any of these options very much.

    How do others interface long boring bars to a HSK-63A spindle?

  21. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,354
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    877
    Likes (Received)
    1449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gregormarwick View Post
    We were considering this when DMG came back and said that they have an NTX2000 that's become available. They are offering us a solid deal on this machine but it's still £100k more than the Doosan. I have no doubt that it's £100k better than the Doosan, and it seems like my management are on board with that, at least more than I expected them to be.

    I am prepared to make a concession on having a Fanuc based control for the sake of getting a machine in quickly, and getting a good quality one.

    One thing that is bothering me is the HSK spindle.
    The NTX2000 normally comes with C6 as standard. HSK63 is an option. Is this particular machine a customer cancellation?

  22. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    2,982
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    6958
    Likes (Received)
    2525

    Default

    Can you inquire about converting the machine back to C6 Capto? HSK is really going to tie you hands on available turning tools. (As you already know...)


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
  •