Messages

541

General Mach Discussion / Re: Bridgeport Knee Mill Conversion?

« on: February 02, 2018, 09:28:45 AM »

Ok, never mind, i'm binning this project as i've spent far too long on it and got nowhere

I also see some of the letter spacing is too close for a 1.5mm tool but there is no way in F360 to adjust that and importing text into F360 is full of bugs too. Clearly not the app for engraving even if it is "mill" engraving.

I might have a play with aspire but have to fix a new post as that app is tuned for my high-speed setup.

542

General Mach Discussion / Re: Bridgeport Knee Mill Conversion?

« on: February 02, 2018, 07:35:58 AM »

Ok, i'm clearly not getting this

It seems i need to be using 3d Adaptive paths, these have rest machining as well.

Tried that and as the tools get smaller it adds an ever increasing workload of finer and finer paths where it tries to perfect the previous path, this adds hours to the time so is pointless.

Trawl the 'tube and mr NYCNC had it but "fixed" it by making stock-to-leave+tolerance bigger on each tool - this may work for two tools but i have 4 and by the time it gets to T4 i am leaving 0.43mm of stock - this means too much for a cleanup pass with the 1.5mm tool at the end.

Baffled now, i did not think this would be so advanced.

543

General Mach Discussion / Re: Bridgeport Knee Mill Conversion?

« on: February 02, 2018, 06:43:24 AM »

It does not look like its connected with step over - the 1st tool is 10mm and it happily passes through a 10.15mm gap.

One big difference is that the 1st path is standard, the others are "rest" machining?

In fact its worse than i thought, there is a lot of unmachined area, see the "u" in the picture attached - it just cuts two small areas inside and leaves the rest.??

That would explain the short run time a bit.

Very odd

544

General Mach Discussion / Re: Bridgeport Knee Mill Conversion?

« on: February 02, 2018, 06:35:48 AM »

Hmm, baffled now, i presumed it would be slotting that gap?

Just tried reducing the step over to 0.43 and full depth (2mm) and it makes no difference.

545

General Mach Discussion / Re: Bridgeport Knee Mill Conversion?

« on: February 02, 2018, 05:58:14 AM »

Hmm, this little tester is teaching all sorts of things

I change tools to two-flute aluminium ones and stuck to my slower BR head at 4000 rpm, machining time is now down to a staggering 23minutes plus tool-changes

I went for 10mm to hog the bulk out, then Rest machining with 5mm, 3mm, 1.5mm - I think that gives a good step-down in tools, adding the 3mm really took the time down.

Now, what i cant figure out is why not all the letters get machined - two pictures attached, one shows the path on a letter "a" with the 3mm tool, the gap is shown in the last picture at over 2mm but the 1.5mm tool refuses to go there so the gap is left joined?

There is no finishing allowance - all paths are to final size.

Any ideas???

546

General Mach Discussion / Re: Bridgeport Knee Mill Conversion?

« on: February 01, 2018, 08:54:55 AM »

Thanks for the compliment Russ,

I'm only scratching the surface in Fusion. I'll have to print that link as they have done the page in white on black and i can't read that, gives me bad headaches, looks good though.

547

General Mach Discussion / Re: Bridgeport Knee Mill Conversion?

« on: February 01, 2018, 07:58:23 AM »

Ah, so you say go for standard path on roughing then 2d adaptive on the cleanup tools??

I'll have a play.....



Edit, nope, 2d adaptive does not have "rest" machining so spends hours cutting air

I never thought a simple job would have so many variables.

548

General Mach Discussion / Re: Bridgeport Knee Mill Conversion?

« on: February 01, 2018, 06:50:36 AM »

Clearly a lot to learn.

I just tried a 2d Adaptive path with HSM speeds, processing time went up to 2.30hrs for just the first tool (5mm) with thousands of retracts etc, would be hard on the machine i think. Picture attached.

549

General Mach Discussion / Re: Bridgeport Knee Mill Conversion?

« on: February 01, 2018, 04:32:23 AM »

Learn something every day.

Been messing around with a project, engraved aluminium signs, test subject is 360x80mm.

Testing two setups in Fusion - on the Bridgeport standard and on the high speed head.

Standard has 4 tools reducing in size from 8mm to 1.5mm
High speed has two tools - 5mm and 2mm

Fusion was giving simulation times of 2.34hrs for standard and 2.35 for high speed with ramps, i changed the ramps to plunges and times dropped to 1.18 and 1.20 so a massive waste on ramping down.

I need to check these figures out because it would indicate that i do not need a high speed head at all as the old BP is faster (at 4000rpm) Very odd indeed. I know i reduced the rates on the high-speed as its not 100% rigid being canted out from the spindle but if its the same end result i would be better off using the BP spindle as i have repeatable tooling mount then so no repeated touch-offs.

I'm not sure how successful a 1.5mm three flute HsCo tool will be on the old girl but i have a box of them so can try it

Need to crunch my numbers again in HSMAdvisor. Can it be just as simple as faster but less feed-rate due to rigidity vs slower but more aggressive cuts?

550

General Mach Discussion / Re: Bridgeport Knee Mill Conversion?

« on: January 31, 2018, 02:07:47 AM »

I could try chip control but i cant think of any system that would work apart from a massive enclosure that will not detract the bonus of having a fully open flexible knee mill Its got more travel than many VMC's do, a much longer bed at 48" and i sometimes hang stuff over or off the sides ")