On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Chris Radek <ch...@timeguy.com> wrote:
snip > Maybe doubling yours would keep you happy for a while. I am not sure > what all would be involved in removing these limitations, and I don't > know of anyone working on it currently. It would be nice if the > tool table could be arbitrarily large. > > Meanwhile, I wonder if we could just enlarge it by a factor of 10 or > 100 and forget about it for a while. I don't know the problems with > this - maybe someone else will comment. > > I would think either factor enlargement would eliminate the problem for everyone. I have yet to see a standard tool list work well. You end up with too many tool descriptions making it difficult for programmers to remember or use. You then need at least one special tool for almost every job. For example, for a 1/2 inch end mill you will need to describe a zero rad, .015 rad, .031 rad, .062 rad, .125 rad, .187 rad and .25 rad. You then need to describe the different flute lengths for each tool. You then need to describe the different tool stick out lengths. You will then need to describe the tool holder for each tool and sometimes different tool holders for the same cutter description as needed by the job. Multiply that by each tool size available and you end up with MANY tool descriptions and most are never used. Shops try to standardize the tools used and many end up with less than 50 standard tools that are useful in many applications. What is called a standard tool list is usually a master tool list for the jobs ran on a particular machine or cell. The master tool list is for reference when loading new cutters and is subject to change when the work load changes. There are almost no machines with tool changer magazines in excess of 250 tools. There are some multi-machine 'FMS' work centers with tool hives that have one thousand or two thousand tools. These will have a large master tool list. These hives are a replacement for the tool pile on the table or in a rack. The hives load the requested tool set into the magazine when needed. They also replace worn or time expired tools as needed. Handling tools 1 thru 10 as the tools for job 1 and tools 11 thru 20 as the tools for job 2 -etc is a good thing. This allows the tools to remain set up and the tool lengths remembered for the next run of job 1 or job 2. This takes a substantial investment of spindle adapters (tool holders) so you can leave tools set up if you have 10 or 100 or 500 or more jobs to run on multiple machines. My vote is for easy tool offset set/reset when changing a tool because of use or breakage. My vote is for 'automatic' tool set when changing jobs. Load the tool in the spindle, push a button, the tool is measured and the offset stored, a tool change presents the next tool number in the spindle, you load the tool in the spindle, push a button - ad nauseam. :) Please don't take this as my request for anything or that I am unhappy about anything. This is just my personal rant just in case someone is wanting to change things and needs a goal. :) I like the random tool change and the tool list as it is. My only thought is I would like the tool list to be read real time so when I change an offset it is immediately applied. A consistent rule for cutter/holder description is the best I have seen. This could allow EMC2 to harvest the tool number and description and populate the tool table using the gcode program when it is loaded. thanks Stuart -- dos centavos ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
