You mean the thread where I said my program points more closely
represent the print dimensions than your centerline programming
method? And it does.
That would be the thread where I said your program method is
unnecessarily difficult? And it is.
That would be the thread where I said your program method is more
prone to error? And it is.
That would be the thread where you posted code for a simple radius to
prove how easy your programming method is and your two lines of code
had 5 mistakes in it proving my point for me? Yes it is.
That would be where you proved you have no idea how and never have
programmed a CNC lathe? Yes it is.
That would be where you tried all different kinds of excuses for your
error riddled code? Yes.
a) You know, where you said you programmed to the "optional"
diameter, where there was no optional diameter given. Even still your
numbers were not correct for "that" diameter either.
b) You know, where you said your program was right for the
"Quadrant" you programmed in. A quadrant the OP doesn't have, but even
for "that" quadrant your code is error riddled and incorrect.
c) You know, the code where you admitted to one mistake but you
won't say out of the five mistakes you made which one is the mistake
you are admitting to.
d) You know, the thread where you said you can program a profile
with your centerline method that Dan or me can't but you haven't been
able after repeatedly being asked to post such a profile.
email@example.com wrote in news: firstname.lastname@example.org:
Heh. Next try explaining to him what a bar machine is and show him a
drawing of a turned part. Then explain to him that in certain types of
machines the part coordinate system and the machine coordinate system
Then again I've never seen what sort of disastrous drawings Cliffie created
during his brief periods of employment.
Cliff wrote in
You're so pathetic, it's funny.
What I said to Jon way back when was that I rarely have a need for a text
editor, so I'm just as likely to use MS Word as anything else.
And from that you now "know" that I have never used a cam system, which
coordinate system I program in, which controls I've used, and loads of
other pathetic insults.
Ask yourself; if I rarely use a text editor where does all the code come
email@example.com wrote in
Just goes to show he doesn't practice what he preaches. Not every lathe
part has it's datum point at the chuck end. Nor does every lathe part
have just one datum in the "Z" plane.
Of course it's got to be tough getting practice sitting in your house all
He-he, my lathe code comes from a basic program I wrote in 1990.
I just pick from the menu what I want to do, enter size & stuff & it
spits out code. Even asks on cutoff if I want to skim the front of a
thread at 45 (to clean up the burr) with the cutoff tool side before
cutting off. Wrote it for my Hardinge's & modified it some for my gang
tool. Will run in a DOS box in XT , but I use win 98 as I get a full
screen that way. Duel boot computer.
Why wrote in news: firstname.lastname@example.org:
I wrote a spreadsheet for a customer that spits out code for blending radii
into angles. All of the parts they machine have a feature like that and
they were struggling with the math.
I also wrote one for C-X axis interpolation. BTW, F. George wrote one in
basic that works for C-X axis interpolation. It's cool, compact and the
price is right:)
I wonder if we could get enough people together to make an open source CAM
Cliff wrote in
Well since you're the expert, tell the class how long each of these moves
1) G91 G93 G01 Z10.0 F.5
2) G91 G93 G01 Z3.0 F10.0
3) G91 G93 G01 Z.5 F1.0
Tomorrow you can answer some questions about circular interpolation in
inverse time mode for us.
(DaveB) wrote in news: email@example.com:
I wonder which lifeline he'll use? Call tech support somewhere, Google, or
"phone a friend"?
Being direct questions, he'll prolly never answer them anyway.