Machinist Training

More evasion and a normal Cliffism Troll tactics for a non-answer.

Very simple question, where have you posted this example profile that
your G50 calculation method can produce that mine cannot?

More Cliffism Troll-ism BS.

I posted a detailed method for the OP of that thread on how he could
calculate his G50 settings for his machine. The method I posted is the
same method I have been using successfully for more than 15 years, the
same method recommended by FANUC Manuals, other Control manufacturers
as well as Machine Tool Manufacturer's. It is the method that the vast
majority of shops with CNC lathes use.

Cliff jumped to inaccurate conclusions and upon his bandwagon and said
I was wrong in my method because there were no calculations in the G50
method I posted for TNR. He insists that I am programming the sharp
edge and he is wrong.

Example:

At the machine tool touch off, touch the TNR on the left side (Z) and
touch off on the Bottom (X) which is the detailed method I posted. Tool
has a TNR of .015 do we not know where the center of the tool nose
radius is?

Example End

What Cliff insists upon and where I differ with him is that the
operator needs to offset the tool nose radius in his G50 calculations.

In my opinion the added difficulty and calculations at the machine are
only more opportunities for error at setup for a machine control that
cannot use the information Cliff insists is needed even for a machine
that does not have that capability. What Cliff did not know at the time
of his rant is that this Vintage Mori-Seiki, 2 axis, SL-1 Lathe has no
TNR compensation. Even after I pointed this out to Cliff he insists it
does not matter, you still have to make TNR calculations at machine set
up. I stated that unnecessarily adding TNR calculations at the machine
tool and offsetting them in a program thus the G Code program points do
not have a resemblance to the print dimensions just adds confusion and
two levels of difficulty on the shop floor for a machine tool that can
not utilize it. Doesn't matter according to Cliff, that BEST PRATICES
(his Buzzword) dictate his method is the only proper way to calculate
50's and programme machine G Code. Doesn't add difficulty at the
machine tool and his posted example two lines of code in response to
another poster had two mistakes in it proving my point that his method
is prone to error.

If Cliff has ever programmed a machine tool it would be a mill. He
knows only one way to do things and believes his way is the only way.
What Cliff will not admit is that there are different ways to do the
same task, doesn't make it wrong only makes it different.

Still no posted answer, Cliff, have you EVER programmed a CNC Lathe?

Again no answer, where is this example profile? I don't care about
prior posts, where your example profile that will stand pier review?

Post your example profile for pier review, prove your point, its simple
geometry according to you so post it. Unlike you if I am wrong I will
admit it, so post your profile and let us learn something.

Yes, exactly, to the point where you are a
know-it-all-that-doesn't-know-anything.

You can't post a profile that your method can produce that my detailed
posted method cannot because it doesn't exist.

Tom

 

What about Teksoft, are they going to work with Haas to get the post
processer to work
the way you need it to?

The 5 axis pp is an added charge, btw.

You may want to attend the Haas training and the Camworks training
together with whomever you hire, two heads are better than one...so
they say.

The Camworks training will focus mostly on the technology database, so
between the two of you, you could have the system working well enough
in a few months.

I was searching for a soildworks or cnc post from a few years ago.
Jim Peyton, Kinemetrix Industrial Deisgn & Mfg, posted his experiences
with Camworks.

The current version of Camworks is 2006EX SP2.
I've used Camworks since version 2000 or 2001.
The 2006EX version is the best so far, IMHO.

Hiring a machinist? hmmm.... that's a tough one.

Of course someone with experience, but mostly... someone you can get
along with.

Hope this helps,

email me if you have any questions.

Scott

 

Cliff,

Hey, Troll, Ya got that profile yet?

You have made nearly 1,000 news group posts since we have been asking
you to post an example profile to prove your point. You insisted my
method cannot produce good parts so it should be easy for you to post
at least ONE example profile to prove your point.

The only parameter for this profile is Keith's SL-1 lathe since that is
the lathe I posted a detailed procedure for him and you still insist it
is wrong. Post a profile that I can't turn and you can with your
convoluted, unnecessarily complex and error prone process will.

Tom

 

Cliff

I can't be centerline programming, you told me I wasn't and YOUR the
EGGSPURT.

What I object to is your unnecessarily complex method for a machine
where your method has no benefits. You add two levels of difficulty
that offer more opportunities for errors and in return no benefits
because the machine control has no TNR compensation.

Where is your sample profile posted?
According to you it should be simple for you to post.

Still waiting, where is this profile posted?

Where is your sample profile? Prove your point, post a profile I cannot
turn on Keith's lathe where you and yours can.

I keep checking for your posted profile to prove your point and stand
up to pier review. Any person of substance in your shoes would, it's a
simple thing, put up or shut up.

Still no answer, obviously you have never programmed a CNC Lathe.
Have you ever seen a CNC Lathe live and in person running?

You have written nearly 1.000 newsgroup posts since we started asking
for you to post a sample profile. Why not post your mythical profile?

Like figuring out and posting this mythical profile of yours I can't
turn on Keith's lathe and you can?
You ARE what your propose jb to be.

Tom

 

Cliff,

Ya got that sample profile figured out and posted yet?
HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE YOU TO DO A SIMPLE PROFILE TO PROVE YOUR POINT?

Your work can't stand up to a little peer review? Your mouth is big
enough lets see where your work?

Tom

 

More bad lathe advice from Cliff.

 

You prefer the "a bit more complication" & the kludges
(ASSUMING he's getting good parts in the general case)?
Remember: He has no TNR comp it seems and confuses
centerline programming with other things, just as you have
confused what he seems to be trying to do with WSP -- or
with the control calculating things for you .... even though
you did not seem to notice what the logic of it all was.
Newbies .... <sheesh> ....

<G><G>.

 

He explains why with this post:

================================================================
From: Cliff <>
Newsgroups: comp.cad.solidworks
Subject: Finally wrote-up my "How to Design Parts" section...
Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 19:54:09 -0400
Message-ID: <>

I checked CAD data for GM (among others) for a bit too long <g>.
================================================================

 

This thread has been terminated as it has fallen over the cliff.

Bo

 

http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

HTH

 

Cliff, the never-was,

You seem to be mixing up and confusing your buzzwords not to mention
yourself. More nonsense from you and still no posted profile to prove
your point.

Normal Cliff posting by Buzzwords, Tourette Syndrome, insults, false
accusations and troll tics. Easy to see why he can't find or keep a
job.

Tom

 

Minor technical terms used by the cognoscenti, sorry.
Tried drawing pictures yet?

 

Cliff,

I wish you would post your profile so we can have a rational and
intelligent discussion on that profile and programming in general.

Finally I am coming to the conclusion as hard as I try get you to carry
on a rational and intelligent discussion it is just beyond you. I have
tried nice cop, bad cop with you and nothing has jogged you into
posting a real response with a sample profile to prove your point,
stand up to peer review and discussion.

So I will back off , I have lowered myself to your level recently but
I refuse to become a troll like you and will stop.

I feel sorry for you,
Tom

 

Simple math is a kludge? Yeah your way is better, sure. He should make
setting the tool difficult for the operator to accomodate you inability
to visualize spatial relationships.

Why wouldn't he? He seems to understand simple math, coordinate systems
etc..

??

You are the one who clearly doesn't get it. You have yet to make a
single valid point as to why he should set the coordinates to the center
of the tool tip radii rather than the "X" and "Z" edges of the radii.

Let me help you out here. I know the lathe has no TNRC. So there is no
need for you to keep telling me that I've forgotten or missed that fact.
I haven't. You claimed the math was too complicated or couldn't be done
or somesuch nonsense, so I posted a simple example for you. Yet you
still didn't get it.

You claimed that there exists geometry that can't be programmed using
the tool touch off method described. When asked for foorp, you can
neither describe nor draw any such geometry.

When you provided a little bit of code you used a coordinate from the
edge of the radius rather than the center, proving the difficulty and
pointlessness of programming lathe coordinates from the center of the
TNR.

Yeah right. So list a couple of lathes and the controls you have
programmed.

Is all of this attention tickling your <G> spot again?

 

Heh.

I should see if I still have a copy of GM's lathe programming standards
kicking around. I put a bunch of lathes into a GM plant. They weren't
programmed with coordinates from the TNR centerline either. Nor were the
lathes that the new ones replaced.

Go figure.

 

My points were quite clear .... as many will probably be happy
to tell you <G>.

BTW, With your tool zero datum out there in space what
would happen if you did have tool radius comp?

 

Setting the tools is simple compared to all the edits needed to kludge
the programs.
And using one common method that always works .... like centerline
programming .... that reduces variables as well.

Think about it a bit more. Some things may look good but ... he probably
only measures diameters & faces.

He's the one overcomplicating, IF he makes good parts (general case).

Not what I said.

Nope. IIRC I may have cut along the OD as stated, not to finished diameter,
just as I did the stated face.

So then everyone should switch? LOL ...

Some things are just amusing.

 

They have such a beastie? LOL ...

 

What could a career CAD checker possibly know about programming or even
operating CNC machines other than what he read in some decades old out of
print books?

Cliff can't talk the talk or walk the walk, but in a way don't you sort
of admire his tenaciousness in sticking with his fantastical beliefs?

 

Black Dragon,

Cliff spending a career checking CAD data for a large corporation makes
perfect sense really. Spent a career checking numbers, little or no
contact with people where he can hide his antisocial behavior, boss's
he can baffle with bullshit and buzzwords and a corporate culture where
he can hide and spend all his time in a little cubicle checking CAD
data all day long day in and day out. Wish he could buy a clue and
understand machines and machining is more than just numbers, it is as
much an art as math and science and Cliff is no artist. An artist would
keep his eyes, ears and mind open to learn.

Tom