11-23-2014, 11:13 PM
Not sure Darren, because it was repeating fine as I made multiple passes. By starting off with inputting the Ø 0.375" end mill as Ø 0.500" and incrementing down by 0.031 per pass, it cut great. After each pass I have to go in and edit the program for the smaller diameter, reset position manually to the "absolute zero" datum and go. Somehow after the last pass you see in the video (of the top, round section), I returned to the absolute zero, spotted the 2 holes and drilled them. I then plunged a 1/16" end mill for the notch on the opposite end, and it looks like it came into the correct location. As a last thought, I put a 90º countersink in a drill chuck and returned to the zero point, but as soon as I touched the countersink to the Ø 0.315 hole, I could tell something had gone awry.
I just wish I could afford to strip out that ancient control and servos (or stepping motors?) and control, and put something more modern, reliable and easier to program. I had to rewrite the program for the periphery shape probably 10 times to get it to run one continuous toolpath. Every time I made a change on a single line, it would them stop at each block, and worse, sometimes default to rapid traverse across certain blocks.
It's better than nothing, but just barely.
I just wish I could afford to strip out that ancient control and servos (or stepping motors?) and control, and put something more modern, reliable and easier to program. I had to rewrite the program for the periphery shape probably 10 times to get it to run one continuous toolpath. Every time I made a change on a single line, it would them stop at each block, and worse, sometimes default to rapid traverse across certain blocks.
It's better than nothing, but just barely.