Fusion 640T ID Groove complications
Close
Login to Your Account
Likes Likes:  0
Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2021
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Michigan
    Posts
    16
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Exclamation Fusion 640T ID Groove complications

    Attached you will find pictures of what I could come up with as far as a program goes. I get an alarm for illegal designated tool width on sequence 12 and it wont let me go any further. I have a tool described in the tool data as a .06" wide ID groover with a .03" radius.
    Can anyone tell me what the numbers should be in the program, or how I can trick the ol' bag into believing it?
    It has my whole shop stumped at the moment and frankly, I'm quite embarrassed.
    20210820_095622.jpg20210820_094521.jpg20210820_094554.jpg

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,010
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    737
    Likes (Received)
    1225

    Default

    You have no designated width in your processes. In addition, when generating a groove with parallel sides, the start point and finish point in Z must be the same. I am a bit confused by your drawing.
    Last edited by Gobo; 08-21-2021 at 05:20 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Se Ma USA
    Posts
    2,287
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    183
    Likes (Received)
    1256

    Default

    Change tool radius to .0299?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2021
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Michigan
    Posts
    16
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Default

    I was able to figure it all out. I understand I didn't have a designated groove width in the line. My point was I couldn't figure out what it needed to be. Really any of it. After 4 molds, I was able to get it very close and the numbers in the program are not what you might think they would be. The tool has to travel to the mid-section of the insert in order to complete its pass. As a result I had to make the designated width , .030 larger than the difference between the start/finish Z values. The finish Z values are now close to eachother but off by just a few thousandths. The finish x value is what had to be very off. In order for my insert to finish at a certain Z, it needed to travel an undefined distance in X, past the original final point of .560". So by using the calculate function on the finish X values, and starting with the same finish z value (roughly .8155"), I put myself very close. These drawing from our customer are far from being stable by any means. So for the #3 groove sequence it looks like this now width=.118 sptx=.315 spt=.906 fptx=.62 fptz=.818 angle of 60 degrees. #2 groove sequence looks like this now width=.1856 sptx=.394 sptz=.6575 fptx=.5737 fptz=.8131 andle of 30 degrees.
    TPC overlap had to be set to Zero.
    Without using G-code to program a final pass, I do have a very small and hardly noticeable overlap however, that radius does measure .041 so as an industrial part I'm going to send it on.
    Hopefully this information helps. The CAD drawing in mazatrol did not look right according to the drawing, but it did work. Good day.


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
  •