No 4th axis: Will Helical Interpolation do this? - Page 3
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 64
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,054
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    883

    Default

    I don't get it. Why in this day would you NOT be doing this in CAM? Please don't tell me you can't afford it because what you really can't afford is what you are doing now! For FREE for forty sessions and $149 if you buy you can get CamBam. Yeah, I know, hobby program. I can draw a cylinder, extrude it, draw a rectangle, round the corners, project rectangle onto the cylinder to get a polyline. Use engrave operation to write toolpath following the polyline. I am a slow typist, I could just about finish the program in about the time it took to write this. Think of CamBam as training wheels until you can justify the big boy toys. Life is too short to write G-code by hand.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Country
    ALAND ISLANDS
    Posts
    1,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    43
    Likes (Received)
    96

    Default

    parametric core code for osp300

    discretization available for user input as V2 inside OSC soubroutine

    its based on simple geometry

    Code:
        LVL  =     ( window side 1, among circumference )
        LVH  =     ( window side 2, among generator     )
        LVR  =     ( window corner radius               )
        LVCR =     ( cilinder radius                    )
    
    
     ( * )
    
    
        CALL OINI    ( initializations )
      ( CALL OSUB1 ) ( variant 1 : rough corners   )
        CALL OSUB2   ( variant 2 : smoothed        )
        
    RTS
    
    
    OINI
    
    
        LVL = LVL / 2
        LVH = LVH / 2
    
    
        LAX = -LVL
        LAY = +LVH
        LBX = +LVL
        LBY = +LVH
        LCX = +LVL
        LCY = -LVH
        LDX = -LVL
        LDY = -LVH
    
    
        LA1X = LAX+0
        LA1Y = LAY-LVR
        LA2X = LAX+LVR
        LA2Y = LAY-0
    
    
        LB1X = LBX-LVR
        LB1Y = LBY+0
        LB2X = LBX+0
        LB2Y = LBY-LVR
    
    
        LC1X = LCX+0
        LC1Y = LCY+LVR
        LC2X = LCX-LVR
        LC2Y = LCY+0
    
    
        LD1X = LDX+LVR
        LD1Y = LDY+0
        LD2X = LDX+0
        LD2Y = LDY+LVR
    
    
    RTS
    
    
     ( . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . )
    
    
    OSUB1
    
    
        G00 X = LA1X+2.5 Y = LA1Y Z0
        G01 X = LA1X
    
    
        LV01 = SQRT [ LVCR * LVCR - LA2X * LA2X ]
    
    
        *normal plane
        G02 X = LA2X Y = LA2Y Z = +LV01 R = LVR
        * shift plane
        G02 X = LB1X Y = LB1Y           R = LVCR
        *normal plane
        G02 X = LB2X Y = LB2Y Z = -LV01 R = LVR
        G01 X = LC1X Y = LC1Y
        G02 X = LC2X Y = LC2Y Z = +LV01 R = LVR
        * shift plane
        G02 X = LD1X Y = LD1Y           R = LVCR
        *normal plane
        G02 X = LD2X Y = LD2Y Z = -LV01 R = LVR
        G01 X = LA1X Y = LA1Y
        G00 X = LA1X+2.5
    
    
    RTS
    
    
     ( . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . )
    
    
    OSUB2
    
    
        LUH1 = ATAN2[ SQRT [ LVCR * LVCR - LB2X * LB2X ] , LB2X ]
        LUH2 = ATAN2[ SQRT [ LVCR * LVCR - LB1X * LB1X ] , LB1X ]
        LUH3 = LUH2 - LUH1
        LUAD = -90
    
    
        G00 X = LA1X+2.5 Y = LA1Y Z0
        G01 X = LA1X
    
    
        *normal plane
        CALL OSC LV01 = 1 LV02 = LA2X LV03 = LA1Y
        * shift plane
        G02 X = LB1X Y = LB1Y           R = LVCR
        *normal plane
        CALL OSC LV01 = 2 LV02 = LB1X LV03 = LB2Y
        G01 X = LC1X Y = LC1Y
        CALL OSC LV01 = 3 LV02 = LC2X LV03 = LC1Y
        * shift plane
        G02 X = LD1X Y = LD1Y           R = LVCR
        *normal plane
        CALL OSC LV01 = 4 LV02 = LD1X LV03 = LD2Y
        G01 X = LA1X Y = LA1Y
        G00 X = LA1X+2.5
    
    
    RTS
    
    
     ( . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . )
    
    
    OSC ( quadrant Xc Yc )
    
    
        IF [ LV01 EQ 1 ] N11
        IF [ LV01 EQ 2 ] N12
        IF [ LV01 EQ 3 ] N13
                    GOTO N14
    
    
            N11 LUA  = 180
                LUB  = 180 - LUH1
                LUBD = - LUH3
                GOTO NHALT 
            N12 LUA  =  90
                LUB  = LUH2
                LUBD = - LUH3
                GOTO NHALT
            N13 LUA  = 360
                LUB  = LUH1
                LUBD = + LUH3
                GOTO NHALT
            N14 LUA  = 270
                LUB  = 180 - LUH2
                LUBD = + LUH3
                GOTO NHALT
            NHALT
    
    
        V1 = 0
        V2 = 10
        NAGAIN V1 = V1 + 1
              G02 X+LV02+LVR*COS[LUA+[LUAD/V2]*V1]
                  Y+LV03+LVR*COS[LUA+[LUAD/V2]*V1]
                  Z+LVCR * [ 1 - LVCR * COS [ LUB + [ LUBD / V2 ] * V1] ]
               IF [ V1 LT V2 ] NAGAIN
    
    
    RTS
    
    
     ( . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . )

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Country
    ALAND ISLANDS
    Posts
    1,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    43
    Likes (Received)
    96

    Default

    output of shared structure is pretty similar to the code shared by Goo Proto in #11

    just an observation : i aproximate an arch with 10 segments, while code from #11 uses 11

    when you are near the cnc, a parametric structure has all the benefits : fast editable, faster trials, etc ...

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Country
    CHINA
    Posts
    1,576
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ox View Post
    I have no clue why you think that a 5x would be in any way quicker than the 3x on this?
    Because he could use a corner-rounding or chamfer mill and make one pass around the perimeter. Contouring it with a ball end is gonna be a lot more passes.

    That is, if it has to match the print and he isn't gonna just break the edge in a half-ass manner.

  5. Likes JNieman liked this post
  6. #45
    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
    Because he could use a corner-rounding or chamfer mill and make one pass around the perimeter. Contouring it with a ball end is gonna be a lot more passes.

    That is, if it has to match the print and he isn't gonna just break the edge in a half-ass manner.
    3axis + reversed_chamfer_tool is more than enough

  7. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Country
    CHINA
    Posts
    1,576
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deadlykitten View Post
    3axis + reversed_chamfer_tool is more than enough
    Won't make what's on the drawing ...

  8. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    2,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1354
    Likes (Received)
    2721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ox View Post
    I have no clue why you think that a 5x would be in any way quicker than the 3x on this?

    Especially if you are thinking HMC with live 4th. For that to be any differ'n't than this guys 3x, the part would need to be in C/L of the B, and that would be no faster than a 4x vert, and likely slower than this guy tossing it in a vise.

    A 4x would be easier to prog on this part, but his 3x will be quicker part-to-part, run at a cheaper rate, and he can skim his own off the top.


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

    Think Snow Eh!
    Ox
    First part that might be making a difference - I'm assuming the chamfer need to look even (equal leg length) and equal angle, and consistent all around.

    With that said, keeping a standard chamfer tool at the CORRECT angle would absolutely accomplish it in a straight linear or arc movement at one level, no multi passes, no ball milling, no blending, no stepover, nothing. But this requires the part to be rotated so that the spindle is perpendicular to the vector of tangency of the feature being milled and the tube surface.

    Would not need to be in CL of B. So long as the tool can reach the edge when the pallet kicks at an angle. Kick the tube vertical in fixtures, pack them as much as tool holder / chamfer tool allows, and go to town.

    I only mention 5 axis because it could accomplish the same.

    Meanwhile on a 3 axis machine, the chamfer is more and more imperfect as it gets away from top-dead-center of the tube. It'd be absolutely terribly off at the edges parallel to axial without making multiple passes.

    Mill windows. Buzz chamfer around in single pass. Time for parts loading again.

    Edit-to-Add: If my eyes suck and that's actually a corner round, and not a chamfer, this applies exactly the same, but with a corner rounding tool. Even more profitable since you're not 3d-ball-milling an aesthetic edge break that'd take forever.

  9. #48
    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
    Won't make what's on the drawing ...
    ... it is only a chamfer

  10. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    2,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1354
    Likes (Received)
    2721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deadlykitten View Post
    ... it is only a chamfer
    Never underestimate how picky a customer can be when they introduce the word "aesthetic".

    I've learned the hard way that the word "aesthetic" raises all sorts of flags unless my next question is met with "Oh, we just mean we don't want to see burrs or gouges in the edges. I don't care SPECIFICALLY how that's done." Then I'm ok.

  11. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Country
    ALAND ISLANDS
    Posts
    1,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    43
    Likes (Received)
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JNieman View Post
    Never underestimate how picky a customer can be when they introduce the word "aesthetic".

    I've learned the hard way that the word "aesthetic" raises all sorts of flags unless my next question is met with "Oh, we just mean we don't want to see burrs or gouges in the edges. I don't care SPECIFICALLY how that's done." Then I'm ok.
    hy i know what you mean ...

    i am not afraid of such situations when i have to negociate such aspects

    i am afraid when i know that i may be rejected because of them : some clients can refuse parts that we craft here, only to get them from another place where quality is much lower; those are heavy games

  12. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    West Unity, Ohio
    Posts
    25,071
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    5310
    Likes (Received)
    7827

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JNieman View Post
    First part that might be making a difference - I'm assuming the chamfer need to look even (equal leg length) and equal angle, and consistent all around.

    With that said, keeping a standard chamfer tool at the CORRECT angle would absolutely accomplish it in a straight linear or arc movement at one level, no multi passes, no ball milling, no blending, no stepover, nothing. But this requires the part to be rotated so that the spindle is perpendicular to the vector of tangency of the feature being milled and the tube surface.

    Would not need to be in CL of B. So long as the tool can reach the edge when the pallet kicks at an angle. Kick the tube vertical in fixtures, pack them as much as tool holder / chamfer tool allows, and go to town.

    I only mention 5 axis because it could accomplish the same.

    Meanwhile on a 3 axis machine, the chamfer is more and more imperfect as it gets away from top-dead-center of the tube. It'd be absolutely terribly off at the edges parallel to axial without making multiple passes.

    Mill windows. Buzz chamfer around in single pass. Time for parts loading again.

    Edit-to-Add: If my eyes suck and that's actually a corner round, and not a chamfer, this applies exactly the same, but with a corner rounding tool. Even more profitable since you're not 3d-ball-milling an aesthetic edge break that'd take forever.

    If it were a corner rounded - I'd tend to agree with you, but this being a 45, and with any good code of any sort will make the same part on 3x. I don't see at all why you think it's daffycult enough to put on a machine with 2x the costs.

    I don't know why anyone would use a ball mill on this in the first place?

    However - it does seem like the way things are these days - "let's throw money at it and see if it goes away".


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

    Think Snow Eh!
    Ox

  13. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,062
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    634
    Likes (Received)
    1025

    Default

    If he's putting on a big honkin chamfer, say .030 or so,I think it will look a little weird doing it in 3 axis. Rotary is the way to go to be more visually pleasing.

    If its just to deburr, one pass around with a chamfer mill or ball mill to give a .005/.007 edge break should be good.

  14. Likes JNieman liked this post
  15. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    2,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1354
    Likes (Received)
    2721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ox View Post
    If it were a corner rounded - I'd tend to agree with you, but this being a 45, and with any good code of any sort will make the same part on 3x. I don't see at all why you think it's daffycult enough to put on a machine with 2x the costs.

    I don't know why anyone would use a ball mill on this in the first place?

    However - it does seem like the way things are these days - "let's throw money at it and see if it goes away".


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

    Think Snow Eh!
    Ox
    If it's just an edge break to deburr, like I mentioned, no big deal. If it's to put a more significant chamfer on it, for aesthetic purpose, the customer (IME) has nitpicky requirements for "looks" and it usually revolves around being consistent. I'm just saying that you can't get consistent geometry of chamfer around a cylindrical surface with a single pass of a standard chamfer tool in one axis.

    A consistent chamfer size, and consistent angle at the edge .... you're not at the same angle to the spindle, in a 3 axis machine.


    That's all I'm saying. In which case, a horizontal (yes, a more expensive machine) would make them faster than any damned thing, and cheaper (which is how expensive machines pay for themselves quickly)
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails chamfer.jpg  

  16. Likes HuFlungDung liked this post
  17. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,062
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    634
    Likes (Received)
    1025

    Default

    Not to argue, because maybe I don't understand what you're saying, but...

    On a 3 axis chamfer you will always be 45 to the wall of the pocket.
    On a 4 axis chamfer you will always be at 45 to the outside of the cylinder.

    If a print called out .030 x 45 I think you could argue the point by measuring the straight wall that's left and saying "look it's .030 less than the wall thickness"

    I have a super picky customer (medical) and this has come up before.
    I usually catch it and ask which way they prefer.

  18. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    2,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1354
    Likes (Received)
    2721

    Default

    I've encountered uber-picking quality people on this same topic regarding semiconductors and heat exchangers (note, it wasn't even the thermally critical areas...) as well as a special WRENCH we made... it was the handle... of the 'twisted' wrench. They didn't like the inconsistent appearance of the edge break. They accepted them but wanted to advise us to correct the "discrepancy" on future orders. *eye roll*

    That's the only reason I'm picking that nit in this thread. "Aesthetic" raises flags with me depending on the customer, and sometimes a simple thing gets made non-simple for one process, and may require considering another.

    ....still think at the least, OP should consider getting someone to program it in CAM software instead of trying to do it by hand.

  19. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,062
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    634
    Likes (Received)
    1025

    Default

    Isn't Fusion 360 cheap/free for small shops?

    If you have a CNC mill, even as a hobby machine, you're really limiting yourself not having some kind of CAM.

  20. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Whitehall, MI
    Posts
    565
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    116
    Likes (Received)
    139

    Default

    I use a ball mill to deburr odd shaped things. It's just one pass around the contours, not multiple passes. It took me a while to find out how to create the geometry for things like this. If you just create lines at the edges of the pocket on the solid and try and drive a 3d contour path with it, you usually won't be to happy with the results.

    And if you aren't in a hurry and want to understand more I think doing it by hand can be a great learning experience. The computer is the easy part, knowing what you want out of it is usually the actual work part of it

    And some things are actually easier by hand, at least until you can find out how to use the CAM better. Had a job the other day where there was a 3d arc-ramp cut, and I couldn't get MCAM to do G2/G3 in the code, all I could get was line segment output, which left facets on the part. Just programmed a 2d toolpath and added Z's in manually, and it did exactly what I wanted.

  21. Likes Jgryz450 liked this post
  22. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Idaho
    Posts
    650
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    132
    Likes (Received)
    703

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ox View Post
    If it were a corner rounded - I'd tend to agree with you, but this being a 45, and with any good code of any sort will make the same part on 3x. I don't see at all why you think it's daffycult enough to put on a machine with 2x the costs.

    I don't know why anyone would use a ball mill on this in the first place?

    However - it does seem like the way things are these days - "let's throw money at it and see if it goes away".


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

    Think Snow Eh!
    Ox
    In theory, using a ball endmill is a good way to approximate a 3D Chamfer. It isn't a surfacing routine, just one pass where the CAM package calculates which portion of the ball best approximates the 45 degree chamfer at that point. As the radius of the ball increases, the deviation decreases. In practicality, I have never been successful (patient enough) to do more than experiment with this. It generally requires such a large endmill that you can't get into any tight corners. I should probably revisit this, since I do tons of 3D chamfers, but in my experience as long as the change in slope of the chamfer is substantially less than the angle of the cutter, you can get a good looking chamfer that will pass the most stringent CMM QC check. As usual, your mileage may vary, and this is all contingent on the right CAM package.

  23. #59
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Whitehall, MI
    Posts
    565
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    116
    Likes (Received)
    139

    Default

    This is where I learned how to create the geometry. I follow this process and the chamfers come out very nice and even

    https://www.emastercam.com/forums/to...comment-906073

  24. #60
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    167
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    96

    Default

    I use the trace tool path in InventorHSM to break 3d edges with a ball mill. Quick and easy. I suspect fusion has similar function.


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
  •