Dave Ault Calls Banquers BS & Runs Him Off With Tail Between Legs
in [SolidWorks]
|
Prev: History Based Modeling (SolidWorks) Dumped And Replaced With Direct Modeling (CoCreate)
Next: Drawing speed
From: Cliff on 19 Jul 2010 13:19 On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 10:02:23 -0700 (PDT), noneya <CliffBandqueer(a)aol.com> wrote: >On Jul 18, 8:06�am, Cliff > >> � Dan missed the point as did you. > >Well lets see: > >1) It was stated your method was unnecessary difficult which requires >more calculations and input from personnel on the shop floor thus >increasing opportunities for error to creep into the process, all of >which are true. But as demonstrated your method does not work in all cases AND you claimed to use it in all. In addition you have just as much alteration of the numbers in the code from the part geometry numbers. And WHY should the machine operators be altering your code in the first place ??? How many times per day? >2) You posted a sample of your method and the G-Code you generated >using it. The G-Code contained MULTIPLE errors for simple radius, a >simple radius any beginner could get correct. Source problem had 2 diameters & I switched IIRC. Plus I like radial, not diameter. >3) Had you posted error free code the tool would follow the EXACT same >path as the code Dan and Tom posted. The only difference being at the >machine setup, amount of time, calculations and inputs required at >setup, all are increased using your method. Was very simple part. Use a method thet works for all & avoid confused people & scrap <G>. >4) You said Dan and Tom can't program a profile using their method >that you can using yours. After repeated requestes to do so you refuse >to provide a detailed description, sketch or drawing of this profile >(because it doesn't exist). Found easier proof of point. >> � What do you guys do for a living, anyway? > >Dan is a respected member of the manufacturing and machining industry >who is a published author in manufacturing magizines and elseware. Dan >is a machine tool manufacturers applications and process engineer who >also trains students/customers how to successfully program, setup, >operate CNC's. > >As for me 30+ years CNC machining, includes management, supervising, >design, process engineering, programming, set up, operate, inspection >and training. Manual MDI programmers ... -- Cliff
From: noneya on 19 Jul 2010 15:05 On Jul 19, 10:19 am, Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...(a)aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 10:02:23 -0700 (PDT), noneya <CliffBandqu...(a)aol.com> wrote: > >On Jul 18, 8:06 am, Cliff > > >> Dan missed the point as did you. > > >Well lets see: > > >1) It was stated your method was unnecessary difficult which requires > >more calculations and input from personnel on the shop floor thus > >increasing opportunities for error to creep into the process, all of > >which are true. > > But as demonstrated your method does not work in all cases > AND you claimed to use it in all. All I see reading through the old threads is you trying to move the target and cover up your mistakes. As demonstrated by whom, where? > In addition you have just as much alteration of the numbers > in the code from the part geometry numbers. > And WHY should the machine operators be altering your code > in the first place ??? How many times per day? > > >2) You posted a sample of your method and the G-Code you generated > >using it. The G-Code contained MULTIPLE errors for simple radius, a > >simple radius any beginner could get correct. > > Source problem had 2 diameters & I switched IIRC. Then you don't remember correctly. You said you programmed to the "alternate" diameter where an alternate was not given. However even for the diameter you said you programmed for your code was still error filled. >Plus I like > radial, not diameter. Nowhere was it specified you couldn't use radial. > >3) Had you posted error free code the tool would follow the EXACT same > >path as the code Dan and Tom posted. The only difference being at the > >machine setup, amount of time, calculations and inputs required at > >setup, all are increased using your method. > > Was very simple part. Use a method thet works for all As demonstrated by your error riddled code? The code posted by Tom and Dan does work on all lathes. >& avoid > confused people & scrap <G>. Your method is more confusing as well as machine setup takes longer, requires more operator calculations and data inputs which provides more opportunities for error to creep into your process which = increased scrap & rework. > >4) You said Dan and Tom can't program a profile using their method > >that you can using yours. After repeated requestes to do so you refuse > >to provide a detailed description, sketch or drawing of this profile > >(because it doesn't exist). > > Found easier proof of point. Bullshit, you and Jon refuse to provide examples to prove your points. In his case a model, in your case a profile and you both refuse to provide them for the same reason, because you both are caught in a lie. > >> What do you guys do for a living, anyway? > > >Dan is a respected member of the manufacturing and machining industry > >who is a published author in manufacturing magizines and elseware. Dan > >is a machine tool manufacturers applications and process engineer who > >also trains students/customers how to successfully program, setup, > >operate CNC's. > > >As for me 30+ years CNC machining, includes management, supervising, > >design, process engineering, programming, set up, operate, inspection > >and training. > > Manual MDI programmers ... Is this supposed to be an insult? Sure can do it with pencil and paper, with or without a calculator. I can also use a computer, CAM, CAD/CAM or spreadsheet. I can input data into the machine numerous ways including type it in by hand. However by any method or means the program would still be the same error free code. If by MDI you mean MDI edits at the control then yes, YOUR code would need to be edited at the control or replaced with an error free one.
From: noneya on 19 Jul 2010 15:34 On Jul 19, 10:19 am, Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...(a)aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote: > In addition you have just as much alteration of the numbers > in the code from the part geometry numbers. Then why use your method which makes machine setups longer and harder for shop personnel requiring them do do more calculations and data input meaning increased opportunities for errors? > And WHY should the machine operators be altering your code > in the first place ??? How many times per day? Doesn't happen. However in your case, viewing your programming skill and error riddled code I can see where it's needed.i
From: noneya on 20 Jul 2010 00:13 On Jul 19, 10:11 am, Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...(a)aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote: > On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 09:57:24 -0700 (PDT), noneya <CliffBandqu...(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> No posted IGES files needed. > > >By the way, no one specified file format. > > Not a binary group. > > HTH So you're saying you can't figure out a way to describe the profile, share a sketch or drawing of said profile with this group because the www works for everyone else but you? You are as credible on this issue as Jon is in the VX forum doing the same thing you are here.
From: Cliff on 20 Jul 2010 06:51
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 12:05:22 -0700 (PDT), noneya <CliffBandqueer(a)aol.com> wrote: >As demonstrated by whom, where? Once again: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.machines.cnc/msg/ba51433b8d2b0153 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.machines.cnc/msg/04c17508ce042c50 <Drumroll> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.machines.cnc/msg/7ae8169f8fe3b807 "I use the same programming method for all lathes." - Tom B. HTH -- Cliff |