How come we don't have Stock Back available here?
Having it available will make it a lot easier to defined how much stock is in the chuck.... which isn't the case now. We can only state how far behind the model back the chuck face is. Which isn't necessarily how the operator would do it. From Stock Front is handy for making sure enough stock is hanging out the chuck during setup though. But often you will be thinking about how much stock you have to hold on to in the chuck jaws. Put it this way, I don't think there is any harm in having Stock back in that list so people can use it if they want to, it's just as valid as having Model back there.
Scott Moyse
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.
RevOps Strategy Manager at Toolpath. New Zealand based.
Co-founder of the Grumpy Sloth full aluminium billet mechanical keyboard project
Solved! Go to Solution.
Solved by cj.abraham. Go to Solution.
We can put that option in there, agree there is not harm in that.
However, the model back definition in the most powerful of the definitions in this case. I agree that the operator doesn't set up a machine based on the model position, but that's irrelevant. The relevant part is that by having the stock front based of the model front, and the chuck front based off the model back, then the stock front to chuck front distance is always parametrically updated. This information can eventually be put on a setup sheet and will never have to be manually calculated. The point is that, despite the modes being called model front/back, the resulting stock front to chuck front distance is the important information, and the model back/front to chuck distance is irrelevant when setting up the machine.
@cj.abraham wrote:
We can put that option in there, agree there is not harm in that.
However, the model back definition in the most powerful of the definitions in this case. I agree that the operator doesn't set up a machine based on the model position, but that's irrelevant. The relevant part is that by having the stock front based of the model front, and the chuck front based off the model back, then the stock front to chuck front distance is always parametrically updated. This information can eventually be put on a setup sheet and will never have to be manually calculated. The point is that, despite the modes being called model front/back, the resulting stock front to chuck front distance is the important information, and the model back/front to chuck distance is irrelevant when setting up the machine.
From Stock Back also has parametric behaviour if the stock is driven from Model Back. But maybe the stock definition is where having the ability to choose how much stock is in the chuck would be more beneficial?
Of course REAL parametric power here would exist if HSM supported the use of the CAD system's parameters as well. Man what we could do with that & iLogic in Inventor HSM. phwoar.
Scott Moyse
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.
RevOps Strategy Manager at Toolpath. New Zealand based.
Co-founder of the Grumpy Sloth full aluminium billet mechanical keyboard project
That's taking the long route, though. You can say model back to chuck front 0.1", or stock back to model back 0.6" then stock back to chuck front 0.5". Same thing, but one has more room for error.
Also, if I hand you a bar of unknown length and a program, would you rather be told the distance the stock goes in the chuck, or the distance the stock sticks out of the chuck?
If I tell an operator the stickout length, they could easily cut the bar to the length they feel comfortable holding onto in the chuck. If all I tell them is "put the stock in the chuck this far" then how do they know if the bar is too long or too short? Stock Front to Chuck Front inherently has more information, which is why Stock Back was initially left out.
Also, what if the part is run from a bar feeder? is there even such a thing as stock in chuck? wouldn't that be infinite?
I totally get where you are coming from and don't disagree with any of it. I'm just trying to think of the other scenarios.
What if you have an offcut you want to use and you want to specify the amount you are comfortable holding onto, then make sure everything misses from there? Or you simply want to explicitly set the amount of material you are comfortable holding onto as a default, and take that into account when defining the amount of material that needs to be cut for a job?
Scott Moyse
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.
RevOps Strategy Manager at Toolpath. New Zealand based.
Co-founder of the Grumpy Sloth full aluminium billet mechanical keyboard project
Also what do you think about it also reporting the amount of stock that's in the chuck, so it calculates it on the fly if you use the methods you are discussing? Surely it's a value you always want to keep a track of?
Scott Moyse
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.
RevOps Strategy Manager at Toolpath. New Zealand based.
Co-founder of the Grumpy Sloth full aluminium billet mechanical keyboard project
+1 for adding back stock.
@cj.abraham I would say it is not the "long route". In your examples you are making the assumption that the operator can control the stock stick out from the chuck. It seems to be a common view of turning from adsk. I would encourage them to also think about those who don't use bars or don't machine a part complete in one setup and part off. My material range is 8" to 14" diameter. These is no way to control stick out other than parallels. However 99% if the time the stock is going to be shoved back in a set of hard jaws.
In that situation I need to know how far I can turn the OD without hitting the jaws. So if my jaws are .65" deep I can set the chuck face to -.65" from back of stock. Now I can see how far I can turn the part. Realizing a portion of the part may actually be in the jaws and require me to blend turn it from the other side. Regardless if the stock length changes I am still chucking the same depth in the machine. So from me I want to stop .05" from jaws regardless of stock changing length.
Can you have the Stock In Chuck value setup with an expression or something so it shows it until it's overridden?
Scott Moyse
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.
RevOps Strategy Manager at Toolpath. New Zealand based.
Co-founder of the Grumpy Sloth full aluminium billet mechanical keyboard project
@cj.abraham what is the intended method of setting the chuck plane when actually using a modeled chuck as in the image attached? I admittedly would likely not be using a modeled chuck and jaws for my work, but it almost feels like there needs to be an option for "from selection" or if a body is selected for the chuck definition that it defaults to the front of the body.
I only have access to the Fusion version, but am posting here as this is where the discussion started.
While waiting for this to be implemented you can use the expression
-job_stockLength+.650in
.65 = Hard jaw depth
And use the setting from stock front.
Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.