Topic: Our cutting shop - starting to take shape (Read 81288 times)

PhilStubbs · « **Reply #120 on:** October 06, 2012, 06:37:43 PM »

It will only be for truck bumpers that will be mig welded, a little grinding is no big deal. It sounds like the cheap CBC plasma makes the most sense in this situation. I appreciate all of the info. I just don't see anything more in the budget

mandrel-bends · « **Reply #121 on:** October 09, 2012, 12:45:07 PM »

I would agree. I wanted to clarify the higher costs with waterjet as it sounded like you were interested in comparing it. It's cheaper then laser, but far more expensive then plasma - either conventional or hydef.

In fact, just this last week I spent another $2k in parts trying to keep this omax pump running, and I'm likely going to be spending another $80k this year buying a bigger intensifier (75HP) to replace this omax pump because quite frankly - it sucks - because it keeps breaking. We will run no direct drive pumps here soon!

PhilStubbs · « **Reply #122 on:** October 09, 2012, 02:52:46 PM »

Lol. Yea, you did a good job of convincing me that water jet is too expensive. In this situation the grinding with plasma is a non issue since the initial cost is so different. It will cut 3-4 bumpers a week unless something magical happens that I can't foresee.

PhilStubbs · « **Reply #123 on:** October 29, 2012, 11:45:24 AM »

Do you have or know where to get these?

mandrel-bends · « **Reply #124 on:** October 30, 2012, 11:41:18 PM »

I think those are hi-tech anti-reversion chambers. I would try hi-tech. Those are specialized end forms that we don't do.

PhilStubbs · « **Reply #125 on:** October 31, 2012, 06:41:30 AM »

It is a pic from a hy-tech article. I'm guessing that exact shape is patented, just thought I would check with you first for something similar.

walter · « **Reply #126 on:** October 31, 2012, 08:53:21 PM »

how works that?

PhilStubbs · « **Reply #127 on:** October 31, 2012, 09:14:17 PM »

the quick answer is that it is a check valve for the header tube. google "anti-reversion chamber" or whatever that is in spanish. lol

mandrel-bends · « **Reply #128 on:** November 01, 2012, 03:27:04 PM »

I posted a "how to" w/ dimensions for something similar with transition cones in one of my m5 exhaust thread builds on here. These shapes are patented, which is why I dont sell them directly. They are easily built though.

PhilStubbs · « **Reply #129 on:** November 01, 2012, 07:38:31 PM »

I talked to John Grudynski of Hytech. He said he would sell them in any size made from stainless for $20ea. They wouldn't be complicated to make, but at $20ea my time is better spent doing other things.

mandrel-bends · « **Reply #130 on:** December 19, 2012, 07:14:55 PM »

Here's the jet edge running some 1/2" SS at 5.9IPM (Q=3). We finally got our machine post from sigmanest a couple weeks ago. Machine has been a virtual paper weight for months while they coded the post. We could run small jobs, but nothing like the 2 meg gcode file we are running here. Bastard thing always sprays me anytime I'm near it. This was no exception. Runs nice. Happy this project is finally done and making money. I have about a $100k (cash) in this machine at this point w/ controller retrofit and everything. I just saw one of these machines go used for $85k w/ the original allen bradley 9 controller. Jet Edge wants $70k to put on their new control, so I think I came out pretty good on it.

http://youtu.be/egkgMX4dgFg

Passenger · « **Reply #131 on:** December 20, 2012, 05:54:22 PM »

Weeks to make a post for a 2.5d parts? How the hell is that a 2 meg g code file? Looks sub 150k if you aren't using sub routines, if you do use subs should be able to get that code down to 30 k or less. What am I missing here?

I just don't understand how it could so complicated if its running G code.

2 meg is a program size you would see for 3d surfacing.

Glad you got it up and running, sucks to have machines down

mandrel-bends · « **Reply #132 on:** December 20, 2012, 07:02:43 PM »

You could run normal g-code. It was a bunch of custom stuff. Some z lift logic (a crash avoidance algorithm that drove them crazy), multi torch processing with waterjet and mixed mode plasma, an etch algorithm, some speed pierce features like oscillating/circular pierce by material type, nozzle/orifice combo, and of course material thickness.

I couldnt really use the machine without the pierce enhancements - it takes pierce times from say 15 seconds with a stationary pierce to 0.8 seconds with a circular pierce, and when you have 1400 pierces on a plate its a big difference. We cut a lot of 2" material, and the 2" takes almost 10 minutes to pierce stationary. With circular, it's about a minute and a half.

I don't know enough about subroutines to answer why they dont use them, but each part is different due to optimized lead-in and lead-out locations for tip-up avoidance, which may make it difficult to do some of that. I know our code for the flow machines which is in .ord, their own optimized thing, a 20x40 sheet were 125-150k as well.

I think they just thought I was being crazy, but all these things make the machine much more useful and far more profitable.

Passenger · « **Reply #133 on:** December 20, 2012, 07:56:16 PM »

Quote from: mandrel-bends on December 20, 2012, 07:02:43 PM

You could run normal g-code. It was a bunch of custom stuff. Some z lift logic (a crash avoidance algorithm that drove them crazy), multi torch processing with waterjet and mixed mode plasma, an etch algorithm, some speed pierce features like oscillating/circular pierce by material type, nozzle/orifice combo, and of course material thickness.

I couldnt really use the machine without the pierce enhancements - it takes pierce times from say 15 seconds with a stationary pierce to 0.8 seconds with a circular pierce, and when you have 1400 pierces on a plate its a big difference. We cut a lot of 2" material, and the 2" takes almost 10 minutes to pierce stationary. With circular, it's about a minute and a half.

I don't know enough about subroutines to answer why they dont use them, but each part is different due to optimized lead-in and lead-out locations for tip-up avoidance, which may make it difficult to do some of that. I know our code for the flow machines which is in .ord, their own optimized thing, a 20x40 sheet were 125-150k as well.

I think they just thought I was being crazy, but all these things make the machine much more useful and far more profitable.

You can't use a Macro (does this control support macro B?) or a custom G code and create a canned cycle for the lift logic? What is the code for the oscillating/circular pierce? Can you not use g2/G3 Helical interpolation?

I understand the needs for the enhancements but I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around what the problem is on implementing them into the post, of course if you can't run type A, B or C type G code that would maybe explain it...

Sub routines are awesome, depending on controller type ( A, B, C and age) you can use local or extended sub routines. Some controllers also support program copy, which will allow you to do the same basic thing as local subroutines.

So for example. I see you have a whole bunch of rectangle parts there, using extended subs, which is most common you can program them like this.

O1234 (Main program)
G00 G90 G54 (calls rapid positioning, absolute coordinate programming, and the G54 coordinate system)
X Y Z (call out your start position)
G1 Z (Feed movement, and move to your Z plane) Not sure if you need to call a torch offset? G43 H...
M98 P1235 L32 (sub routine call, sub program number, repeat 32 times)
xyz (now these are all the start positions for the sub routine for each part)
xyz
xyz
etc.

O1235 (sub routine)
G1 x-4.
y-5.5
x0.
y0.
etc etc
M99 (return to main program)

ratcityrex · « **Reply #134 on:** December 20, 2012, 08:57:23 PM »

Poof, my head just exploded with all the technical babble. Me caveman, post porn!

PhilStubbs · « **Reply #135 on:** December 20, 2012, 10:26:30 PM »

I understood about 6% of it. Lol

mandrel-bends · « **Reply #136 on:** December 21, 2012, 03:40:56 AM »

The posted code and resultant size is probably indicative of the original post they used to build my customizations. I think they used as basic of a gcode post as possible to start, and tweaked and added my modifications to suit, as my machine was basically a one-off. I know the flow posts are highly sophisticated and a 4x8 sheet nested on a flow post is about 400k (ord format) instead of my 1-2mb.

My control is not program size or memory limited, so it's not really necessary to run more sophisticated things like macros and sub's. In fact, I just load the parts onto the sheet, tell it how thick it is, what the plate dimensions and material type is, specify part quantities, hit auto nest, auto nc and post. The file is transferred over ethernet to the machine and all they have to do is load it and hit go. No tweaking necessary. It's basically stupid proof, which is how I set things up around here.

The circular pierce is done with G2s, full circle, with the nozzle size as the circumference - typically 0.030 or 0.040. We timed the cycle time of 100 circles @ 30IPM to get them a time per revolution, then from that the post looks at a tec table and figures out how many times it needs to circle to get the correct circular pierce time. So it just repeats G2s until you pierced through, then it moves to a lead in.

mandrel-bends · « **Reply #137 on:** December 21, 2012, 03:51:17 AM »

I would love to hear more about the custom macro's though - I dont know anything about the them. We bought a Takisawa TS-40 big bore, super heavy bastard of an older CNC lathe, which runs an archaic but fully functional Fanuc 6T. It's extremely painful to program as it has a 10k memory limit, no G53/G54 coordinate offsets and you specify your tool coordinates at G28 U0W0 with your G50 (G50 X12.5 Z14.2 S1024, etc).

So when we are running all of our vband products we basically have to copy the code multiple times and modify the G50 values incrementally for the tools for each part. It's really a piss poor way to do it. Makes beautiful parts sure - but we have to load 3 programs to do a full 12" bar. I just ordered a memex board for it to go 512k and it cant get here soon enough.

Passenger · « **Reply #138 on:** December 21, 2012, 12:54:27 PM »

If you are doing V bands I would write one Macro that would do all the different sizes you do. Then the operator just needs to fill out the appropriate variables to specify what size of V band it is and bam, the macro does the rest. So you can keep just one program in the nc and when you want to go from a 3" v band to a 4" the operator just changes the variable and hit the go button.

But for something as simple as a V band I probably wouldn't bother, you could program all the different sizes by hand before you could write the macro. And the file size would be small anyways.

Instead of incremental shifts and all that gay shit, why not use a bar puller? Then you can either do a M30 at the end of the program (if you have an operator picking the part) or if you want to just drop the parts in a catcher or the chip conveyor just run a M99 loop. It would be less code then this post.

mandrel-bends · « **Reply #139 on:** January 08, 2013, 07:56:43 PM »

For 2013, we are buying the building across the street. It was our old newspaper in town is which moving/shutting down, we close end of february on the building. It's a 5000sqft concrete block building. Needs some updating, but enables me to keep an eye on the guys across the street as well. In March they are going to be installing 800 amps of 480V for the machine shop side and remodeling the offices. It will be for the first time in 10 years, that I have an office that is bigger then a shoe box that people don't directly walk into off the street.

This building is being setup to manufacture pipe fittings. I've purchased a pipe specific forge bending machine that is being tooled for 1.25", 1.5", 2.0" sch10/40 long and short radius bends. It's also getting various support equipment for pipe trimming, beveling and laser etching. I'm intending on manufacturing a quarter million pipe fittings this year. We will see how this goes. I have 40,000 feet of pipe being manufactured right now in anticipation of this machine.

92CXyD · « **Reply #140 on:** January 08, 2013, 08:48:41 PM »

Good to here that a nog on here is very well in business.

PhilStubbs · « **Reply #141 on:** January 08, 2013, 09:33:35 PM »

Sounds awesome. I'm thinking about going forward facing manifold late this year.

Passenger · « **Reply #142 on:** January 09, 2013, 08:03:01 PM »

Congrats, that is great news and it sounds like a ton of fun!

mandrel-bends · « **Reply #143 on:** January 10, 2013, 03:57:18 PM »

Thanks guys. I'm most excited about the office. Everyone that's been down here to our original building (purchased in 2004), has seen how I've dedicated almost every square inch of this place to manufacturing space. It will be nice to answer phones without waterjet pumps, benders and grinders ringing in my ears.

PhilStubbs · « **Reply #144 on:** January 10, 2013, 05:43:07 PM »

I know that feeling. I have to answer a phone in an open hanger about 500' from the active runway. Most single engine planes don't cause much trouble, but the jets and turbo props make hearing impossible. We have a Northrop Grumman facility here that refurbishes jets. It's pretty common to hear them.

PhilStubbs · « **Reply #145 on:** February 07, 2013, 11:22:10 PM »

Do you do small runs of mandrel bent parts? Might need some intakes made from one piece rather than multiple pieces welded together.

mandrel-bends · « **Reply #146 on:** February 08, 2013, 03:24:23 AM »

You can send me an email and I can take a look. Really depends on a lot of factors.

PhilStubbs · « **Reply #147 on:** February 08, 2013, 07:52:58 AM »

Ill do that when I have some pics. Thanks

mandrel-bends · « **Reply #148 on:** February 28, 2013, 09:12:01 PM »

We got keys to our new building today that I bought. 5000 sq feet. 1500 sq feet office. 3500 sq feet dedicated to cnc turning, milling and pipe product production. I will post pictures as we do our remodel.

rsmith2786 · « **Reply #149 on:** February 28, 2013, 09:27:02 PM »

Congrats!

News:

Author Topic: Our cutting shop - starting to take shape (Read 81288 times)