Custom Watch Body V2 -- Probing Gone Wrong!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 апр 2023
- I'm always trying to make my machining more accurate and repeatable. For my watch body project, I decided to try out 3-point probing. I thought this would be more accurate than probing the back-left corner. However, this became a story of probing gone wrong.
Support me on Patreon: / johnsl
It takes courage to post failures. Thanks for uploading.
Thanks. I'm hoping this, and the next video, will help others avoid this.
Hi John, just found your channel and love the software/machinist combo. My first role in a shop was working on a bunch of the newer compact mills and some VF-2's. I wrote a bunch of custom macro programs for our specific use cases. Reached out to renishaw directly about using smaller probe tips and they had no information on tips of that diameter. IIRC, we used something in the realm of .028"... I see someone already commented about using the vector calibration cycles. All of the 9000 programs for the measurement cycles are editable... you can do some amazing things with them. Unfortunately they are not well commented and as you know g-code is an eyesore... If you ever would like to collaborate on some measurement routines I'd love to help out
Hi John, can you tell me where you got that small tip for your probe? I have looked around and am having trouble identifying the right match, I have the same probe as you (HAAS ordered). Thank you kind sir (BTW, love you content!!!)
Did you use Vector Calibration before the vectored touch-off method?
Bingo, you spotted the problem. I've almost finished editing the video showing the two modes.
@@JohnSL Yeah, this is a bummer because the small probe diameter masked the behavior. With the conventional size ruby, it would have been off by a bunch when those missing 30 degree segments were absent from the calibration. Absolutely awesome that you found all the unused Renishaw programs that most never realize are there.
Hi John, do you have to eat the cost of the 5 watch bodies.
No, Thomas supplied extras because we expected some failures. I didn't expect this many failures, though. It took me a while to figure out the cause, which I'll cover in the next video.
Keep it simple. Hose clamp for the win.
Yup, definitely!
Look on the bright side: working with smaller parts means less material loss (and cost) when something goes awry with the machining process. Imagine trashing 5 aluminum engine blocks ... ouch.
Not always the case. Those intricate 3D prototype prints are probably quite expensive although small. Whereas an engine block is usually cast or die-cast. But if you mean a billet block, yeah ouch. But those are usually laserwelded if you made a mistake. For small intricate parts the material cost might be minimal but the time and tooling you wasted might be quite substantial.
The cost on these wasn't bad, so it was mainly my time. That's a bit painful and frustrating. But what I learned, in the end, is worth it.