Thanks for posting this! A couple of questions please: (1) From my experience with the Datron 68796, it's perfectly capable of removing a 2x2 mm chamfer in a single pass, although I did it with a more powerful spindle. Why the outward spiral on the larger holes? Is the Neo spindle not powerful enough to take the 2x2 mm cut in a single pass, or maybe it's not stable enough and you ended up with a bad surface finish? (2) You chose a fixture, rather than just clamping the part using vacuum. The milling seems rather light, and the part should be big enough for vacuum hold-down for such light milling - would just placing the part on the vacuum table and probing it not be an option? Is the pump too weak to deal with the leakage around the part?
(1) I chose this tool path due to the thinness of the features around this chamfer. Low cutting forces were needed. (2) The L shaped part leaves very little surface area for vacuum. I do have the lowest power vacuum pump, so holding really small areas is a challenge/risk. There is always a balance between cycle time and a stable process. Because I typically run low quantities I prefer stable process. Also in production the repeatability and speed of the fixture for this part was faster than probing each part. Plus I already had this fixture from previous production before I owned the Neo.
Thanks for posting this! A couple of questions please:
(1) From my experience with the Datron 68796, it's perfectly capable of removing a 2x2 mm chamfer in a single pass, although I did it with a more powerful spindle. Why the outward spiral on the larger holes? Is the Neo spindle not powerful enough to take the 2x2 mm cut in a single pass, or maybe it's not stable enough and you ended up with a bad surface finish?
(2) You chose a fixture, rather than just clamping the part using vacuum. The milling seems rather light, and the part should be big enough for vacuum hold-down for such light milling - would just placing the part on the vacuum table and probing it not be an option? Is the pump too weak to deal with the leakage around the part?
(1) I chose this tool path due to the thinness of the features around this chamfer. Low cutting forces were needed. (2) The L shaped part leaves very little surface area for vacuum. I do have the lowest power vacuum pump, so holding really small areas is a challenge/risk. There is always a balance between cycle time and a stable process. Because I typically run low quantities I prefer stable process. Also in production the repeatability and speed of the fixture for this part was faster than probing each part. Plus I already had this fixture from previous production before I owned the Neo.
@@soliddesignenterprises thanks for the clarification