Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Facing Cutter - NOT INDEXABLE

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Facing Cutter - NOT INDEXABLE

    More as an aside to Evans thread on the indexable cutter which was very well made and also to act as an example to the various people who have posted and said they don't post pictures of their work for fear of being ridiculed.

    There is also a running post on round column mills, you know those crap things everyone says are crap and you can't do squat on them [ Wonder why they keep selling them then ? ]

    I bought one years ago when there wasn't a choice and with it came a rough and ready face mill that took tools like lathe tools instead of inserts, probably about 3" diameter and usually with incorrectly ground tools , rough and ready and not a lot of use as supplied.

    At the time I was making laser mirror mounts and needed a flat surface with one set of tooling marks for cosmetic reasons which meant a flycutter or face cutter of about 8" diameter so I made one.

    Taking one of the insert tools from the original face mill I based it on this as I could get spares easily. No drawings were made, just a sketch.
    The indexing head was fitted to the mill drill and the following tool roughed out of a big lump of steel.



    No measurements were taken, it was all fly by the seats of the pants job.

    Because all the finish operations were done all at the same setting and indexed round it was deamed near enough.

    One cutter was fitted and it's opposite number fitted for balance but raised up so it wouldn't cut and a plate was flycut with the one cutter, then each tool was fitted and lowered to just rub on the plate.

    No microns or even thou's were harmed in the making of this, I have no idea what material it was other than boiler plate. I don't even know how hard the concrete floor was the mill was standing on.

    The point was it worked, it worked very well and was in use for quite a few years. So for all those people out there that have tools or projects they have made don't be put off that you think you might be ridiculed because you can't work to microns.

    .
    .

    Sir John , Earl of Bligeport & Sudspumpwater. MBE [ Motor Bike Engineer ] Nottingham England.




  • #2
    I agree whole hardily John. Making something to get the job at hand done . Not will this work . what material to use . You can think a job to death and never try.
    So it did not work nothing but a little time and if it does you learned something.
    Every one thinks this is the most precision stuff we do . Their is a time and a place for high precision . But most of the time 95% i would guess +-.005 will do just fine . and a usually work +.001 _ .000 and file and polish to fit. Trying to machine dead nuts on a old wore out machine is hard for even a top machinist . just get it close and file and polish to size works for me. Just get out and butcher some iron and see what you come up with.
    All the info about the correct way to do this are that does not really matter in the shop .It boils down to quick and dirty.Get the job done . Learn what works for you and what does not. Just keep cutting If thing do not work change something still no good change something else sooner are later you will hit something that will.
    Good post John.
    Last edited by lane; 11-15-2009, 08:14 PM.
    Every Mans Work Is A Portrait of Him Self
    http://sites.google.com/site/machinistsite/TWO-BUDDIES
    http://s178.photobucket.com/user/lan...?sort=3&page=1

    Comment


    • #3
      One cutter was fitted and it's opposite number fitted for balance but raised up so it wouldn't cut and a plate was flycut with the one cutter, then each tool was fitted and lowered to just rub on the plate.

      No microns or even thou's were harmed in the making of this, I have no idea what material it was other than boiler plate. I don't even know how hard the concrete floor was the mill was standing on.

      The point was it worked, it worked very well and was in use for quite a few years. So for all those people out there that have tools or projects they have made don't be put off that you think you might be ridiculed because you can't work to microns.
      So, you don't even know what you are doing when you are doing it? While I never claimed to be working to microns in regards to my facing cutter it does produce micron level finishes.

      Do you have any idea why that is or was my explanation to much for you to digest? I did explain how the positions of the inserts was held to high accuracy. It wasn't by means of measurement or even the accuracy of the tool used to make the parts. It was by a method as old as the hills that anybody can use on any machine at all, but you missed it.

      This post proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
      Free software for calculating bolt circles and similar: Click Here

      Comment


      • #4
        John, I have a cutter that takes 4 bits very much like Yours. I bought Mine for ten bucks for the arbor to use for shell mills, but I may have to go out and try it now that You have inspired Me.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Evan
          So, you don't even know what you are doing when you are doing it? While I never claimed to be working to microns in regards to my facing cutter it does produce micron level finishes.

          Do you have any idea why that is or was my explanation to much for you to digest? I did explain how the positions of the inserts was held to high accuracy. It wasn't by means of measurement or even the accuracy of the tool used to make the parts. It was by a method as old as the hills that anybody can use on any machine at all, but you missed it.

          This post proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
          Yes.

          No.

          No.

          No.

          Yes.

          Maybe

          DILLIGAF

          .
          .

          Sir John , Earl of Bligeport & Sudspumpwater. MBE [ Motor Bike Engineer ] Nottingham England.



          Comment


          • #6
            In other words you have no clue what I did.
            Free software for calculating bolt circles and similar: Click Here

            Comment


            • #7
              [QUOTE=John Stevenson]Yes.

              DILLIGAF = Does It Look Like I Give A F???

              For the benefit of the readers with a sheltered upbringing.

              Comment


              • #8
                Yes you made a rotating whatsit that by virtue of it rotating removes metal, just like the one I made although mine didn't use inserts.

                A fly cutter works exactly the same way, next thing you will tell us you invented rotation.
                I'll bet Grampa Williams is turning in his grave ?

                .
                .

                Sir John , Earl of Bligeport & Sudspumpwater. MBE [ Motor Bike Engineer ] Nottingham England.



                Comment


                • #9
                  DILLIGAF? I know what the last four letters mean what about the first four?
                  Nice work John.
                  Thank you Mark.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    [QUOTE=Mark McGrath]
                    Originally posted by John Stevenson
                    Yes.

                    DILLIGAF = Does It Look Like I Give A F???

                    For the benefit of the readers with a sheltered upbringing.

                    Ha......

                    Thanks for the translation. I get confused by modern alphabet speak

                    Cheers
                    Mac.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      What's the big deal about working to microns? Hell, this has about a ten microinch finish and I'm only just starting to learn how to use the machine.



                      Have I said how much I like my new surface grinder?

                      Doc.
                      Doc's Machine. (Probably not what you expect.)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Big difference in accuracy required making a pocket for an insert verses a slot for a turning tool. The latter you can adjust afterwards.

                        Geoff

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          You not only don't know how I made my facing cutter so accurately without a single measuring instrument in sight you also don't even get that it is that I am talking about even though I explained it in my initial post. Not everyone would understand what I was referring to but you should have grasped it right away.

                          I designed the facing head to be constructible by anybody with a mill and a lathe. No special unobtanium or instruments, no special skills required. I did this because I was going to write it up as an article which George is, make that WAS, interested in publishing. For that reason I left out one particular picture that shows just how the very accurate placement of the inserts was made possible.

                          What I said in my intitial post was this:

                          "The tool was designed so that the critical dimensions fall out of the sequence of operations and the geometry of the machining setup."

                          You should have known that I was using a fixture at the least. In fact it is even simpler than that.

                          That geometry is this:



                          The placement of the part in the vice is constrained and indexed by a plain 3/4 nut that was bored and press fit on the shaft. It only needs to have the faces concentric to a thou or so to insure 2 tenths accuracy of the final insert location because of the geometry of the setup. The part is resting on the edge of the vice, the straight edge of the flat of the nut and the lip of the head is caught against the inside of the frame of the vise. Alternately a chunk of metal could have been clamped behind the nut to act as a stop.

                          The pockets are roughed with the head being indexed via the nut. Then the precise placement of the inserts is determined by switching to a smaller cutter, setting the height where ever it looks good and locking the quill.

                          Each pocket is then milled out to make a seat for the insert. They will all be the same unless the mill is made of rubber. Once more around the clock to mill the backstop of the pockets and the relief for the corner of the insert, this time with the X axis locked.

                          Not once was a measuring instrument in danger of being used inaccurately or even removed from it's drawer.
                          Last edited by Evan; 11-15-2009, 08:02 PM.
                          Free software for calculating bolt circles and similar: Click Here

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ammcoman2
                            Big difference in accuracy required making a pocket for an insert verses a slot for a turning tool. The latter you can adjust afterwards.

                            Geoff
                            Very, very true so it makes it more suitable for anyone with less skills.
                            The problem is Evan is skilled but he makes out that only he can do all these things and scares away people with lesser and beginners skills from even having a go.

                            By virtue of a tool rotation in a mill, provided the spindle is in tram, i.e, perfectly vertical it will generate a flat surface, It can't do any other, surface finish is down to the way the tool is ground, speeds and feeds.

                            It's not rocket science.

                            I have a 4 insert cutter here and swapped the inserts the other day as they are badly worn and I want a good finish. I only have two left out of the box of 10, didn't realise I was out, changed two opposite inserts and ground the other two back so they didn't interfere. Dropped the feed down one notch and still got a mirror finish on the work.

                            It would have worked with just one insert.

                            Again it's not rocket science.

                            Being equally spaced to microns isn't necessary anyway, in fact it can be a disadvantage, reamer manufactures know this and purposely grind the flutes odd spaced to stop the threepenny bit effect, Machinery handbook even has tables for this, same of facing cuts, it stops one tool falling into the previous groove as does the nose radius.

                            .
                            .

                            Sir John , Earl of Bligeport & Sudspumpwater. MBE [ Motor Bike Engineer ] Nottingham England.



                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I admire John's face mill for it's simplicity and economy and I admire Evan's face mill because it looks like something store bought.

                              And yes, sometimes I am reluctant to show some of my shop contraptions because they were slapped together hastily out of scrap material and look shoddy and only work so-so.

                              Evan is retired and has time to pursue perfection and to tinker with new methods. I think that's great. I hope I can do the same someday.

                              John is a working stiff like me and has to do things quickly and economically, and he does it amazingly well.

                              You both make a tremendous contribution to this forum and I wish you'd get along.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X