Hello Guest it is March 08, 2021, 03:43:59 AM

Author Topic: Lathe Tool Compensation Is there a better way??  (Read 12516 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dan13

*
  •  1,208 1,208
    • View Profile
    • DY Engineering
Re: Lathe Tool Compensation Is there a better way??
« Reply #10 on: January 16, 2010, 09:35:13 AM »
Hood,

Why do you need to accurately position the probe? All you have need to do is setup the tool table - each tool with respect to the master tool. Can do this with the probe mounted just anywhere. Only thing to do then would be touch of the dia of the workpiece with one of the tools.

Daniel
Re: Lathe Tool Compensation Is there a better way??
« Reply #11 on: January 16, 2010, 11:07:12 AM »
Daniel have you done much lathe work.  ??? ;D ;D ;D

It would be in the way where ever you put it if it wasn't removable

Phil
The Good Thing About Mach3, Is It's very Configurable

The Bad Thing About Mach3, Is It's Too Configurable

Offline Dan13

*
  •  1,208 1,208
    • View Profile
    • DY Engineering
Re: Lathe Tool Compensation Is there a better way??
« Reply #12 on: January 16, 2010, 12:45:16 PM »
Phil,

Yes I do some lathe work ;) I think you just misunderstood me - I wasn't meaning it not being removable, was just suggesting that its position didn't have to be accurate and repeatable.

Daniel

Offline Hood

*
  •  25,838 25,838
  • Carnoustie, Scotland
    • View Profile
Re: Lathe Tool Compensation Is there a better way??
« Reply #13 on: January 16, 2010, 04:52:52 PM »
Daniel
 I am not following how you would be able to touch off the probe if it is not accurately positioned. The distance it is at on the X would not be an issue, the distance it would be on the Z would likewise not be an issue but the orientation would be if using a cylindrical probe.

Hood

Offline Dan13

*
  •  1,208 1,208
    • View Profile
    • DY Engineering
Re: Lathe Tool Compensation Is there a better way??
« Reply #14 on: January 17, 2010, 02:04:23 AM »
Hood,

Now I'm not following you... :D

All I'm saying is that you could put the probe just anywhere in the space and it doesn't have to be the same point it was at the last time. Why use a cylindrical probe? Saw on another thread here someone who used a carbide square insert for his probe.

Daniel

Offline Hood

*
  •  25,838 25,838
  • Carnoustie, Scotland
    • View Profile
Re: Lathe Tool Compensation Is there a better way??
« Reply #15 on: January 17, 2010, 06:42:38 AM »
OK carbide square insert, doesnt matter, still has to placed accurately.  If you could not position the faces true to the two axis then it would be a waste of time as being a slightly different position on the Z axis with the next tool when you touched off the X would give you a wrong diameter. Similar if the face was not true to the X axis, if you were not at the same X dia when touching off the Z would be different.
 

Hood

Offline Dan13

*
  •  1,208 1,208
    • View Profile
    • DY Engineering
Re: Lathe Tool Compensation Is there a better way??
« Reply #16 on: January 17, 2010, 06:55:31 AM »
Ah... But I thought you mentioned position accuracy in one of your first posts here, not orientation of the probe. This was why I said you didn't have to worry about position. But why not do it the way I think you said you were doing it - make a cylindrical probe that you can hold in your chuck and this way it will be perfectly true to the axes, then touch off all the tools and set up the tool table and then remove the probe. This way you can even make the position accurate if you like.

Daniel

Offline Hood

*
  •  25,838 25,838
  • Carnoustie, Scotland
    • View Profile
Re: Lathe Tool Compensation Is there a better way??
« Reply #17 on: January 17, 2010, 08:43:06 AM »
I am doing it the way I said and it is a manual operation, I need to chuck the "probe" and take a face and dia cut with the master tool and then I can set up any tool to that. If I have a part in the chuck and for some reason decide a tool, that I dont have set up in a slot, is needed my only choices are to estimate by touching off the part or take a light cut and measure or remove the part and replace with the probe.
 What I was talking about was having a semi automated process with a probe that could be retracted and your probe was the reference so you would just put a tool in, make sure you are in a suitable position (manual part of operation) and then press a button, the probe would deploy, the tool would touch off in X and Z and the offsets would be set. No need for messing about machining the probe with the master tool first. That is why I said positioning accuracy would be the hard part and positioning in respect of not only X and Z but also in regards to trueness of X and Z axis of the probe.

Hood

Offline Dan13

*
  •  1,208 1,208
    • View Profile
    • DY Engineering
Re: Lathe Tool Compensation Is there a better way??
« Reply #18 on: January 17, 2010, 08:48:30 AM »
Why not make an electronic probe that you can chuck and no need to machine it each time? Still has the drawback that you can't use it if you have a part in the chuck, but at least it'd be semi-automated.

Daniel

Offline Hood

*
  •  25,838 25,838
  • Carnoustie, Scotland
    • View Profile
Re: Lathe Tool Compensation Is there a better way??
« Reply #19 on: January 17, 2010, 09:04:42 AM »
I basically have an "electric probe" already  but to get the accuracy needed it has to be machined each time, just chucking in a 3 jaw to me is not accurate enough for something like this.

Hood