[adamvs]

My $.02: Hate to get old school on'ya but: after going through 4 electronic edge finders ( which are worthless for a couple of reasons ) I'm back to using my 30yr old B&S edge finder. For one, it's as acurate as the machine ~.01mm, and two it takes about 2 minutes to setup XYZ. I have it as the 'tool 1' slot on the tool table, and have added some code to the post processor in SprutCAM to add a call to T1 at the beginning of every part cycle. On subsequent part cycles you can just 'cycle start' past this tool call. For 'Z' I use a peice of paper, and it usually get's me within a thou or so, which is for the most, OK. There's something very focusing about jogging down an edge finder onto the top surface of a part. I kinda look at the Haimer as a nice to have, but I don't see a huge productivity gain....sorry.

[popspipes]

My opinions only! Finding the ctr of a hole or bore is not setting anything other then a ctr point. It tells you nothing about the bore ctr in relation to the rest of the part in regards to being parallel or perpendicular. I can't in my mind see how the haimer would tell you a part is parallel to the z axis movement on a part over a inch or 2 long. In my mind if you need a highly accurate setup there is no substitute to the dti. It can insure almost all callouts are in range. As for a edge finder I use a electronic one. When you touch the edge it lights up. Other then that it's treated the same as a mechanical edge finder.

Ben

I use a center hole in all my parts or groups of parts and fixtures to locate the center, I indicate the vise dead parallel when its mounted so there isnt a need to do it again unless the vise is moved or remounted. Most all my parts are small and several of them on a single bar, and when the part is flipped I can pick up the hole again for the back side. works for me.

[bhurts]

My point was about being parallel with z not xy. It probably makes no difference to even check this on smaller parts. It makes a big difference on larger parts that require the bore to be straight up and down in relation to other features.

Ben

[WOTDesigns]

Ben the holes are generally machined while the part is flat in the vise or on the table so putting the fixture back on the table or in the vise makes it parallel to the Z.

If it has a hole used for reference it has a bottom. The bottom is flat. The hole is parallel to the spindle when the flat bottom is parallel to the table.

Brian
WOT Designs

[bhurts]

I make a living doing repair work for aircraft components. In your shop those rules may apply since you know your reference points and setups. If I were to trust that a flat bottom means a straight hole I would be scraping parts that cost as much as a car or house on a daily basis. I would also be putting people's lives in danger. My point isn't that you or anyone else is doing anything wrong in regards to your setups or quality. It's simply that the haimer has its uses but can't be relied upon for a lot of precision applications. In those instances the go to tool will be the dti almost every time.

Ben

[WOTDesigns]

No one that I have seen implied that it replaces a DTI. It's just an edge finder. A probe. Like the $5,000 probe on my HAAS. Same concept. I still have a DTI on mag base sitting in front of the HAAS. I can set up any part faster with the Haimer than I can with my renishaw probing system but I'm not using either one to align my vises, check square or tram. Having used a Haimer for 5 years I get pretty annoyed when I have to use a standard edge finder.

It's a luxury at best and for most people that money would be better spent on a face mill or other indexable tooling or a good coaxial indicator.

Brian
WOT Designs

[Hirudin]

There will always be specific applications where specific tools will work better. It's like we're saying cordless drills are useful and people are popping their heads in and asking "well, what about when I need to drill holes underwater?". It's not the last measurement tool you're ever going to need to buy, it's just a good edge finder.

Trying to stay on topic...
Probing is very cool too! I'd say it's even better than the Taster. Well... as long as the probe/machine/software are reliable. Edge-finding with the Haimer never ended with the machine rapiding in some random direction for seemingly no reason.

[mountaindew]

The short probes are only $42 from Tormach and those have worked out pretty well for me. It took about 5 broken tips before I learned what to watch out for while using the Haimer. No. 1 for me is making sure I've selected the right axis before doing a high speed move.

For you folks that have them do yourselves a favor and read the manual and apply the info therein toward setting it up properly. The info therein is a lot more reliable than most of what you read in on-line forums.

Mike

Mike

Plus shipping and handling my favorite dig on every info commercial on tv
As a former professional estimator I don't miss to many costs.

I make a living doing repair work for aircraft components. In your shop those rules may apply since you know your reference points and setups. If I were to trust that a flat bottom means a straight hole I would be scraping parts that cost as much as a car or house on a daily basis. I would also be putting people's lives in danger. My point isn't that you or anyone else is doing anything wrong in regards to your setups or quality. It's simply that the haimer has its uses but can't be relied upon for a lot of precision applications. In those instances the go to tool will be the dti almost every time.

Ben

I agree with this, and I have noted a few times in other threads if you going to use it for a precision run of parts and material, I would take the time to check its accuracy carefully.

And also noted it does not do thin material well and you still need normal wobble edge finders for holes and thin edges. as for time to locate x,y,z and hit run I can 90% of the time do it in less then 120 seconds mostly I like the no m3 and m5 for spindle on off.


Is it worth the money yes yes yes. one of the most used tools in my rack and in sprutcam and mach it is tool 1 and I always know when sprut asks for tool one its time to setup or re-fixture part and find x,y,z

bottom line you need precision indicators to set it up and check it and also for very precise locations the hamier imho just does not do!
md

[WOTDesigns]

There will always be specific applications where specific tools will work better. It's like we're saying cordless drills are useful and people are popping their heads in and asking "well, what about when I need to drill holes underwater?". It's not the last measurement tool you're ever going to need to buy, it's just a good edge finder.

Trying to stay on topic...
Probing is very cool too! I'd say it's even better than the Taster. Well... as long as the probe/machine/software are reliable. Edge-finding with the Haimer never ended with the machine rapiding in some random direction for seemingly no reason.

Excellent metaphor! That's exactly what I was thinking.

Probing (when reliable) is a pretty cool change. I have a budding machinist over yesterday who purchased my x3. He was watching me run the HAAS and was quite confused when he saw my "assembly line" set up (same idea as pictured in previous post). I machine a carrier without stop, then flip over into soft jaws for step 2 but they are just flat steps. Then flip on its side in a vise for step 3 again with no stop. He was perplexed as it machined off the carrier in step 2 THEN it grabbed the probe, came down and touched off each side of X axis on the part by itself. Like watching a kid in a candy store.

There are several features that blend between the 3 Ops so using stops (accurate to 0.001-0.003 in my experience) cause obvious glaring errors in the blend and look terrible. The probe makes that a breeze.

Unfortunately I have crashed the probe BODY into a part already. I must have accidentally hit page down before cycle start after Probing so instead of changing tools it went 400ipm down into the part. The renishaw is amazing. It's still accurate to beyond reasonable measure (0.0002in) even though the threaded part where the tip screws in spins eccentricity. Using the 4 screws like the Haimer I was able to adjust the tip to run within 0.002in and it's calibration routing is incredible at calculating the error in every direction. It rotates 90* and probes a ring gage over and over and over to map the error then constantly compensates for it. Spindle orientation obviously makes that possible. I can call M19 and lock the spindle for pnuematic spindle use or a specific angle for it to Orient to...

But much like the Haimer I could do it all with a piece of paper, a $12 edge finder and a DTI on a zero master or similar mount.

I'll be honest... I only got into machining to justify buying cool toys. I guess it's like me trying to understand why someone spends 40K on a car. I'm like "it has no bed and it's slower than my bike... I don't get it" to each their own. It would be a boring world if we all had the same taste.

Brian
WOT Designs

[adamvs]

As for finding the center of a tooling ball I'm not sure where the perceived difficulty lies. Just eyeball center and touch one side then the opposite AT THE SAME HEIGHT without moving the other axis and divide by two, move to zero Then do the other axis. If u really want accuracy repeat the first axis again. Now you have x&y so go to zero and touch Z. Pretty darn simple.

On your HAAS that might be reliable. But this is the Tormach area and you have backlash to consider..so I'm thinking you need to compensate by your backlash error / 2. I usually just sweep round features with a DTI. But if they're small the Haimer wins ...hmmm. might have to get one ( and some extra tips )!
The other day I was putting holes in brake rotor hats for a late 70's F1 car. Anyway it was pretty clear the hole patterns had to not only be very concentric but very accurate. So I swept the center bore, attaining zero by moving X, Y in a positive dirction against the ball screw. Each hole could be spotted, drilled and reamed, by approaching it from a positive directions on the ball screws. So the CAM strategy was to spot, drill holes that were approached on a positive X, Y path. If the 'next' hole involed a reversal of the axis direction, the spindle got brought back to some arbitrary negative X, Y, then that hole was approached.

[WOTDesigns]

I am getting the feeling you have (like i) spent a good deal of time on a manual machine.

I'll give the benefit of the doubt that your inference that backlash can cause error in one set up method but not another was just a misunderstanding in the verbiage.

1) if the backlash in the machine generates an unacceptable level of error in the set up process then anything other than a boring head or drilling holes (as u described) will be unacceptable regardless of the set up.

2) I ALWAYS, 100% OF THE TIME remove backlash from the haimer set up by over jogging the second point and backing up to zero from the same direction as the initial point then if necessary raise head, jog 1/2 known backlash to zero and rezero. That'll put er within 0.0005 which is a hell of a lot more than the tormach needs.

I ran my X3 for years with 0.003-0.005 in backlash and held 0.0005-0.0015 in tolerances by using the combination of your described approach and using the dual direction touch off.

Sweeping after moving in a single direction is great... Unless u touch the table... Now there is error from the backlash. By using the table to consume the backlash with movement you will completely eliminate THE BACKLASH from generating any error IN THE DATUM. Whether or not the machine is accurate enough to use an accurate datum is subjective.

Now... As I've said 3 times in this thread now... I use a dti every single day. I machine brake rotors and hats every single month. I'll post a picture in an hour of the 400 I have to go quote this morning and I prefer to sweep them on the Tormach over using the probe. Partially because the probe can't reach even though it is much faster and has an accuracy greater than the machine.

This is kind of like debating 150mph tire brands to put on a car that tops out at 100mph. Either method exceeds the accuracy of the machine so it really, really doesn't matter

Brian
WOT Designs

[WOTDesigns]

I'll give you a pucker worthy picture while I'm there too: think McLaren

Brian
WOT Designs

[adamvs]

I'll give the benefit of the doubt that your inference that backlash can cause error in one set up method but not another was just a misunderstanding in the verbiage.

Naw, it was a misunderstanding in experiece with probes. The overstep technique solves the backlash issue, not being a user, the brain was going off the video.

[MichaelHenry]

Plus shipping and handling my favorite dig on every info commercial on tv
As a former professional estimator I don't miss to many costs.

I usually order enough stuff from Tormach that the cost for shipping the probes isn't a factor <g>.

Mike

[WOTDesigns]

Naw, it was a misunderstanding in experiece with probes. The overstep technique solves the backlash issue, not being a user, the brain was going off the video.

It's definitely over kill to remove the 0.001" backlash in a machine this size considering the combined error from a circle interpolation will exceed to value anyways but it's just habit from manual machining, but I always figure allowing the accumulation of avoidable error is just sloppy machining and bad practice.

Now the HAAS on the other hand... I don't think twice about probing X+/X- to pick up a bore, boss, or body. Then again I can put 200lbs of body weight into a wrench when tightening a clamp (not often) and the dti on the vise jaw won't move... Not so much on the Tormach.

Heading back to pick up another 52 18lb floating rotors now... The handling on these I charge more than to machine the dang things. That weight adds up on the back pretty fast



Brian
WOT Designs

[WOTDesigns]

I can't find a picture of the set up on the Tormach or the finished part but this was a scary damn part. These are carbon ceramic rotors from a McLaren P1... Each one costs more than the Tormach. Spent 2 weeks and $600 testing to be able to machine just 4 of these... On the Tormach.

What ended up working? Not the $280 pcb end Mills, or specialty carbide... Nope... A $9 Dewalt concrete grinding cup. LMFAO. Had to mount, balance and dress it, but it worked like a champ.

Attachment 265154

Brian
WOT Designs

[RCaffin]

It's definitely over kill to remove the 0.001" backlash in a machine this size considering the combined error from a circle interpolation will exceed to value anyways

Um ... 0.001" is 25 microns. Are you saying that ball screws and bearings are going to be that sloppy? Um ...

I do try to be a shade more accurate than that - more like 5 microns. Certainly I can edge-find with a spinning wiggler to about that resolution.

Cheers
Roger

[WOTDesigns]

This is a Tormach forum and I made several very crystal clear post regarding the differences between my different machines and in the portion of the post you cut out in your quote I said I DO USUALLY REMOVE THE BACKLASH. Literally the next line after what you quoted:

but I always figure allowing the accumulation of avoidable error is just sloppy machining and bad practice.

The backlash alone in the Tormach exceeds 0.001 and the machine flexes under LOAD (1200LBS) . Your you aren't holding 5 microns with circle interpolation without magic and pixie dust

Brian
WOT Designs

[RCaffin]

This is a Tormach forum

Ah, OK. I was not aware that Tormachs have that much backlash. My mistake. (Do they really?)

the machine flexes under LOAD (1200LBS)

I suspect I am missing something here. Who puts a 1,200 lb load on a Tormach? Seems a bit unfair to the poor thing? Or have I misunderstood (again)?

you aren't holding 5 microns with circle interpolation without magic and pixie dust

Here I will dispute - although maybe / maybe not for a Tormach.
It's not hard to get sub-micron steps with a ball screw. It's not hard at all to do the maths for circle interpolation to way-sub-micron accuracy. (I would not be surprised if the internal maths for something like Mach3 couldn't give nanometre accuracy.) So apart from backlash there is no reason to require magic pixie dust. That said, I simply don't believe in 'backlash compensation' as a reliable thing.

Where does that leave me? Wondering about our manufacturing jeweller who designs and machines in a volume of about 30 mm cubed. I suspect he must be running below 5 microns on a routine basis.

Cheers
Roger

[SCzEngrgGroup]

It's not hard to get sub-micron steps with a ball screw. It's not hard at all to do the maths for circle interpolation to way-sub-micron accuracy. (I would not be surprised if the internal maths for something like Mach3 couldn't give nanometre accuracy.) So apart from backlash there is no reason to require magic pixie dust. That said, I simply don't believe in 'backlash compensation' as a reliable thing.

Getting (theortical) sub-micron steps on a ballscrew is easy. Getting almost any accuracy you need in the math is easy. Getting true sub-micro accuracy on real part dimensions, with parts made on a real machine, in the real world, is another thing entirely. Any machine in this size/weight class has quite easily measurable deflection, even on relatively easy cuts. Thermal effects alone can take you out of the sub-micron range. Ballscrew lead error will nearly take you out of the sub-micron range. The highly noon-linear position response of stepper motors, especially when micro-stepping, can easily take you out of the sub-micron range. Tool deflection, and runout, can easily take you out of the sub-micron range. You may be able to get that kind of accuracy from time-to-time, over a small range of travel, but even then there will be a large amount of luck involved. Add all that up, and you're lucky to average +/-0.001". But repeatable, consistent, repetitive day-in, day-out accuracy in the sub-micron range? Just ain't gonna happen in any machine in this class. That takes far more mass, far more rigidity, more accurate screws, thermally compensated linear position feedback, and many other costly enhancements.

Regards,
Ray L.