The other thread
May 27th brewertr wrote:
Top posted that thread, NO ANSWER, above is just 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.
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?
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 calculate50'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.