Recommened Speedio Options-Chip Conveyor? - Page 3
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 52 of 52
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    553
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    58
    Likes (Received)
    272

    Default

    I'll take a look at the Renishaw stuff as well; The Yamazen apps guy that I was working with at the old day job liked the Blum stuff better, but I think it is because of the macros and his familiarity with them. I just want the probing/toolsetting programs to work (Programs 0703, 6000, 6001, and 6003). Running the Blum 0915 tool setting program was like watching grass grow, and all the fiddling with editing it between every tool... I could touch off all 20 tools in like two minutes with the 6001 program!

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Gilroy CA
    Posts
    4,379
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3165
    Likes (Received)
    2436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2outof3 View Post
    Those bases could easily be kissed with a shell mill to make them dead nuts to the table. The laser has it's own issues.
    Yup . For 3 axis a simple probe like the Blum or the new renishaw primo is way better than that adjustable POS renishaw design. I'll never buy another OTS in my life.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,725
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    708
    Likes (Received)
    1985

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2outof3 View Post
    Those bases could easily be kissed with a shell mill to make them dead nuts to the table. The laser has it's own issues.
    That’s what I woulda done within 5 minutes of throwing an indicator on it, but alas- 67 meetings will be had before that happens!

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Missouri
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    95
    Likes (Received)
    34

    Default

    I have blum Z Nano on the brother for length. I prefer it to the renishaw.. Much easier to set up and seems to be resistant to stringy chip encounters. Tiny bit less table space, might get snug on the 500. I have a 700 16K BBT

    The Renishaw OMP40s in the spindle probes work well.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Hartford, CT
    Posts
    257
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    163
    Likes (Received)
    102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TKassoc View Post
    Not running anything else from the Primo line but I have two mill-turns that use TS27s I don't like much...

    I have never even looked at the Token deal before. Looks like they have successfully created both a subscription model and stupid operator insurance for their products. I don't need it but it might work for some shops.
    From what I was told by Renishaw, the token system is not being used in the US. You can just buy a primo line probe as a normal unit.

    I've used the Primo LTS on a Mazak Variaxis i-300 AWC as it's standard equipment. Works quite nicely as a plunger style and it has an integrated air blast for chips and coolant.

    As far as earlier discussion on double-touching renishaw probes, they have newer inspection plus software with "SupaTouch" technology that lets you optimize feed rates for the particular machine. It'll take like 80 hits of the same point while increasing the feed rate each time until it starts going over the tolerance you specify. Testing on a horizontal Mazak with a renishaw application enginner we were able to go up to 80 IPM measuring hits with 1 touch and repeat within 0.0002"!

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Medina OH
    Posts
    1,716
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    107
    Likes (Received)
    714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gkoenig View Post
    On a Metrol or Blum, you get the total error of whatever combination of surfaces the thing is mounted to, and you're in shim stock world to get it straight. At a certain Portland outfit with many Speedios, we've been having problems with errors in length measurements with different diameter end mills and dramatic differences with pointy tip tools (+/- 0.001"). Turns out, the somewhat exotic Metrol mounts aren't exactly flat, so a .625 end mill is making contact and triggering the switch before the 0.093" ball does. Both the Metrol and Blum could really use adjustable bases.
    Reeaaallllyyy....

    I mentioned to my applications guy that I felt like I was constantly chasing tool lengths. I feel like an idiot that the base did not even enter my pea sized brain as possibly not being parallel.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    California
    Posts
    1,798
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1320
    Likes (Received)
    1281

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fal Grunt View Post
    Reeaaallllyyy....

    I mentioned to my applications guy that I felt like I was constantly chasing tool lengths. I feel like an idiot that the base did not even enter my pea sized brain as possibly not being parallel.
    The mounts that Greg is mentioning are not the ones that came from Metrol but ones built by a fixture builder.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    553
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    58
    Likes (Received)
    272

    Default

    One thing I wouldn't get is the Metrol setters. We were getting chips stuck (long stringy curvy HSM chips LOL) and the tool setter was off by as much as 0.010" sometimes. I almost can't believe the base was that far out of square, but then again it may have been only the bigger tools that were off now that I think of it. But 0.010"?!? Maybe a little of both.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Medina OH
    Posts
    1,716
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    107
    Likes (Received)
    714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2outof3 View Post
    The mounts that Greg is mentioning are not the ones that came from Metrol but ones built by a fixture builder.
    Ah! nevermind then...

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    167
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Finsta View Post
    One thing I wouldn't get is the Metrol setters. We were getting chips stuck (long stringy curvy HSM chips LOL) and the tool setter was off by as much as 0.010" sometimes. I almost can't believe the base was that far out of square, but then again it may have been only the bigger tools that were off now that I think of it. But 0.010"?!? Maybe a little of both.
    How are the long chips affecting the squareness ?, or there are two issues ?. I get the squareness issues, but what happens with the long chips ?. Jammed in the plunger ?. Are the long chips problematic with all tool setters or just the Metrol ?. I'm new to this, so just want to understand.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    553
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    58
    Likes (Received)
    272

    Default

    The chips get stuck in the plunger (they work up into it from below) and they cause the readings to be off since the plunger sticks. My understanding is that the measurement is taken when the tool comes off the plunger, so if it takes an instant for the thing to unstick that would cause the machine to think the tool is shorter than it is, which is exactly what I saw!

    The Blum Z-nano doesn't appear to have this problem in its design?

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    167
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Finsta View Post
    The chips get stuck in the plunger (they work up into it from below) and they cause the readings to be off since the plunger sticks. My understanding is that the measurement is taken when the tool comes off the plunger, so if it takes an instant for the thing to unstick that would cause the machine to think the tool is shorter than it is, which is exactly what I saw!

    The Blum Z-nano doesn't appear to have this problem in its design?
    Ok, got it, thanks


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
  •