On 09/20/2010 03:03 AM, Ignoramus14147 wrote:
On 2010-09-20, Karl wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 21:16:11 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

I set up my Bridgeport so that, finally, casters are in the air and
the mill is supported, on all four corners, by pieces of 2x4s. I
wonder if this would be considered adequate or is the foundation
stressed a bit too much. Maybe I should add more extra pieces on the
sides or some such. Any ideas from the more knowledgeable netizens.

I am reluctant to just lower the mill to the floor, getting it off the
floor in the future will be very challenging.

i

Set it on the floor. that's how it was designed to run. get yourself a
crow bar, it only takes a minute to raise back up.

Actually a crow bar does not work on it. Too heavy.

A Johnson bar will do it. They have about 50:1 leverage.

BobH

I set up my Bridgeport so that, finally, casters are in the air and
the mill is supported, on all four corners, by pieces of 2x4s. I
wonder if this would be considered adequate or is the foundation
stressed a bit too much. Maybe I should add more extra pieces on the
sides or some such. Any ideas from the more knowledgeable netizens.

I am reluctant to just lower the mill to the floor, getting it off the
floor in the future will be very challenging.

i

Ignoramus14147 wrote:
I set up my Bridgeport so that, finally, casters are in the air and
the mill is supported, on all four corners, by pieces of 2x4s. I
wonder if this would be considered adequate or is the foundation
stressed a bit too much. Maybe I should add more extra pieces on the
sides or some such. Any ideas from the more knowledgeable netizens.

I am reluctant to just lower the mill to the floor, getting it off the
floor in the future will be very challenging.

i

Half inch steel plates . For that matter , make one that matches the
footprint outline (make it like a band an inch or two wide) with a spot or
two on each side that's notched out so you can get a pry under the base . Or
a toe jack ... Hmmm , make that base plate in sections so you can get it out
after you lift the machine .
--
Snag
Wannabe Machinist

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 21:16:11 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

I set up my Bridgeport so that, finally, casters are in the air and
the mill is supported, on all four corners, by pieces of 2x4s. I
wonder if this would be considered adequate or is the foundation
stressed a bit too much. Maybe I should add more extra pieces on the
sides or some such. Any ideas from the more knowledgeable netizens.

I am reluctant to just lower the mill to the floor, getting it off the
floor in the future will be very challenging.

i

Set it on the floor. that's how it was designed to run. get yourself a
crow bar, it only takes a minute to raise back up.

Karl

On 2010-09-20, Karl Townsend wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 21:16:11 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

I set up my Bridgeport so that, finally, casters are in the air and
the mill is supported, on all four corners, by pieces of 2x4s. I
wonder if this would be considered adequate or is the foundation
stressed a bit too much. Maybe I should add more extra pieces on the
sides or some such. Any ideas from the more knowledgeable netizens.

I am reluctant to just lower the mill to the floor, getting it off the
floor in the future will be very challenging.

i

Set it on the floor. that's how it was designed to run. get yourself a
crow bar, it only takes a minute to raise back up.

Actually a crow bar does not work on it. Too heavy.

i

On 2010-09-19, BobH wrote:
On 09/20/2010 03:03 AM, Ignoramus14147 wrote:
On 2010-09-20, Karl wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 21:16:11 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

I set up my Bridgeport so that, finally, casters are in the air and
the mill is supported, on all four corners, by pieces of 2x4s. I
wonder if this would be considered adequate or is the foundation
stressed a bit too much. Maybe I should add more extra pieces on the
sides or some such. Any ideas from the more knowledgeable netizens.

I am reluctant to just lower the mill to the floor, getting it off the
floor in the future will be very challenging.

i

Set it on the floor. that's how it was designed to run. get yourself a
crow bar, it only takes a minute to raise back up.

Actually a crow bar does not work on it. Too heavy.

A Johnson bar will do it. They have about 50:1 leverage.

I have a Johnson bar, I do not think that it is 50:1.

Anyway, is it important that this mill be level?

i

Ignoramus14147 wrote:
I set up my Bridgeport so that, finally, casters are in the air and
the mill is supported, on all four corners, by pieces of 2x4s. I
wonder if this would be considered adequate or is the foundation
stressed a bit too much. Maybe I should add more extra pieces on the
sides or some such. Any ideas from the more knowledgeable netizens.


I've had my somewhat lighter Bridgeport on a normal home basement slab for
20+ years. I actually have it on rubber leveling feet, so it is
supported by only
4 3" diameter pads.

I also have my 3500 Lb. Sheldon lathe just sitting on its own leveling
feet, which
are little more than bolts sitting on the floor. Again, no problem.
I am reluctant to just lower the mill to the floor, getting it off the
floor in the future will be very challenging.

Most of these bases have some relieved area between the corners, for getting
a pry bar under it.

Jon

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 21:16:11 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

I set up my Bridgeport so that, finally, casters are in the air and
the mill is supported, on all four corners, by pieces of 2x4s. I
wonder if this would be considered adequate or is the foundation
stressed a bit too much. Maybe I should add more extra pieces on the
sides or some such. Any ideas from the more knowledgeable netizens.

I am reluctant to just lower the mill to the floor, getting it off the
floor in the future will be very challenging.

i

Each of my machines in my shop are supported fully or in part by 4x4s or
2x4s

Doesnt hurt a thing.

It does however mean that there are now hidey holes for stuff to bounce
into until the swarf builds up and closes off the gaps.


Gunner


I am the Sword of my Family
and the Shield of my Nation.
If sent, I will crush everything you have built,
burn everything you love,
and kill every one of you.
(Hebrew quote)

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:03:31 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

On 2010-09-20, Karl Townsend wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 21:16:11 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

I set up my Bridgeport so that, finally, casters are in the air and
the mill is supported, on all four corners, by pieces of 2x4s. I
wonder if this would be considered adequate or is the foundation
stressed a bit too much. Maybe I should add more extra pieces on the
sides or some such. Any ideas from the more knowledgeable netizens.

I am reluctant to just lower the mill to the floor, getting it off the
floor in the future will be very challenging.

i

Set it on the floor. that's how it was designed to run. get yourself a
crow bar, it only takes a minute to raise back up.

Actually a crow bar does not work on it. Too heavy.

i

It does if the crow bar is 6' long and is 1.5" in diameter

Those jacks I showed you the links too work even better.

Gunner who moves machinery regularly for clients

I am the Sword of my Family
and the Shield of my Nation.
If sent, I will crush everything you have built,
burn everything you love,
and kill every one of you.
(Hebrew quote)

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:03:31 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

On 2010-09-20, Karl Townsend wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 21:16:11 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

I set up my Bridgeport so that, finally, casters are in the air and
the mill is supported, on all four corners, by pieces of 2x4s. I
wonder if this would be considered adequate or is the foundation
stressed a bit too much. Maybe I should add more extra pieces on the
sides or some such. Any ideas from the more knowledgeable netizens.

I am reluctant to just lower the mill to the floor, getting it off the
floor in the future will be very challenging.

i

Set it on the floor. that's how it was designed to run. get yourself a
crow bar, it only takes a minute to raise back up.

Actually a crow bar does not work on it. Too heavy.

I have a bar about 6 feet long and 1" dia, becoming about 1.5 square
for a foot or so on one end and then terminating in a tapered bend.

That bar lifts my B'Port with surprisingly little effort. The
millwrights at a place I worked used bars exactly like this one to
lift machinery exactly like a B'Port.

I stick- welded up a side-reinforced Z hook that fits into the
recessed areas on the base of the mill, with a small bottle jack
pushing up on the top leg of the Z. That works even better than the
bar because one man can easily and safely lift the mill several
inches, easily enough to get caster dollies in place.

You should be able to make something like this in an hour or two.

On 2010-09-20, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:03:31 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

On 2010-09-20, Karl Townsend wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 21:16:11 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

I set up my Bridgeport so that, finally, casters are in the air and
the mill is supported, on all four corners, by pieces of 2x4s. I
wonder if this would be considered adequate or is the foundation
stressed a bit too much. Maybe I should add more extra pieces on the
sides or some such. Any ideas from the more knowledgeable netizens.

I am reluctant to just lower the mill to the floor, getting it off the
floor in the future will be very challenging.

i

Set it on the floor. that's how it was designed to run. get yourself a
crow bar, it only takes a minute to raise back up.

Actually a crow bar does not work on it. Too heavy.

i

It does if the crow bar is 6' long and is 1.5" in diameter

This is what I have

Those jacks I showed you the links too work even better.

Gunner who moves machinery regularly for clients

I am the Sword of my Family
and the Shield of my Nation.
If sent, I will crush everything you have built,
burn everything you love,
and kill every one of you.
(Hebrew quote)

On 2010-09-20, Don Foreman wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:03:31 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

On 2010-09-20, Karl Townsend wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 21:16:11 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

I set up my Bridgeport so that, finally, casters are in the air and
the mill is supported, on all four corners, by pieces of 2x4s. I
wonder if this would be considered adequate or is the foundation
stressed a bit too much. Maybe I should add more extra pieces on the
sides or some such. Any ideas from the more knowledgeable netizens.

I am reluctant to just lower the mill to the floor, getting it off the
floor in the future will be very challenging.

i

Set it on the floor. that's how it was designed to run. get yourself a
crow bar, it only takes a minute to raise back up.

Actually a crow bar does not work on it. Too heavy.

I have a bar about 6 feet long and 1" dia, becoming about 1.5 square
for a foot or so on one end and then terminating in a tapered bend.

That bar lifts my B'Port with surprisingly little effort. The
millwrights at a place I worked used bars exactly like this one to
lift machinery exactly like a B'Port.

May I hazard to guess, your Bridgeport is 2,200 lbs. As was my old
trusty one.

My Bridgeport Interact 2 is 5,500 lbs (if I believe some online
sources, which I now do), is much taller, wider and thicker built.

I stick- welded up a side-reinforced Z hook that fits into the
recessed areas on the base of the mill, with a small bottle jack
pushing up on the top leg of the Z. That works even better than the
bar because one man can easily and safely lift the mill several
inches, easily enough to get caster dollies in place.

You should be able to make something like this in an hour or two.

Well, I made something that worked well, a couple of steel bars welded
together that I insert into pieces that hold casters. Now I can lift
every corner effortlessly with a harbor freight 4 ton jack (which is
really more like 2 ton, but does the job).

On 2010-09-20, Ignoramus14147 wrote:
On 2010-09-19, BobH wrote:

[ ... ]

A Johnson bar will do it. They have about 50:1 leverage.

I have a Johnson bar, I do not think that it is 50:1.

Anyway, is it important that this mill be level?

If you are using flood coolant -- yes -- especially side to
side. Otherwise, the coolant will get deeper than the trough on one
side or the other and spill.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Iggy,
Every machine should be level. Otherwise you are stressing the machine out of square and in time, it may become permanent.. The
heavier they are, the bigger the problem. It probably isn't so important on your mill as it would be on a large lathe, but you
have a machinist level, why not? It only takes a couple of hours and then you have a built in reference.
Steve

"Ignoramus14147" wrote in message ...
On 2010-09-19, BobH wrote:
On 09/20/2010 03:03 AM, Ignoramus14147 wrote:
On 2010-09-20, Karl wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 21:16:11 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

I set up my Bridgeport so that, finally, casters are in the air and
the mill is supported, on all four corners, by pieces of 2x4s. I
wonder if this would be considered adequate or is the foundation
stressed a bit too much. Maybe I should add more extra pieces on the
sides or some such. Any ideas from the more knowledgeable netizens.

I am reluctant to just lower the mill to the floor, getting it off the
floor in the future will be very challenging.

i

Set it on the floor. that's how it was designed to run. get yourself a
crow bar, it only takes a minute to raise back up.

Actually a crow bar does not work on it. Too heavy.

A Johnson bar will do it. They have about 50:1 leverage.

I have a Johnson bar, I do not think that it is 50:1.

Anyway, is it important that this mill be level?

i

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:52:15 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

On 2010-09-19, BobH wrote:
On 09/20/2010 03:03 AM, Ignoramus14147 wrote:
On 2010-09-20, Karl wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 21:16:11 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

I set up my Bridgeport so that, finally, casters are in the air and
the mill is supported, on all four corners, by pieces of 2x4s. I
wonder if this would be considered adequate or is the foundation
stressed a bit too much. Maybe I should add more extra pieces on the
sides or some such. Any ideas from the more knowledgeable netizens.

I am reluctant to just lower the mill to the floor, getting it off the
floor in the future will be very challenging.

i

Set it on the floor. that's how it was designed to run. get yourself a
crow bar, it only takes a minute to raise back up.

Actually a crow bar does not work on it. Too heavy.

A Johnson bar will do it. They have about 50:1 leverage.

I have a Johnson bar, I do not think that it is 50:1.

Anyway, is it important that this mill be level?

i

The mill should not rock. And having it "level" allows you to use a
bubble level at a later date for doing some setups...but no....other
than to keep the coolant in the tank...it doesnt HAVE to be level.

Just make sure it doesnt rock

Gunner


I am the Sword of my Family
and the Shield of my Nation.
If sent, I will crush everything you have built,
burn everything you love,
and kill every one of you.
(Hebrew quote)

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:03:31 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

On 2010-09-20, Karl Townsend wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 21:16:11 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

I set up my Bridgeport so that, finally, casters are in the air and
the mill is supported, on all four corners, by pieces of 2x4s. I
wonder if this would be considered adequate or is the foundation
stressed a bit too much. Maybe I should add more extra pieces on the
sides or some such. Any ideas from the more knowledgeable netizens.

I am reluctant to just lower the mill to the floor, getting it off the
floor in the future will be very challenging.

i

Set it on the floor. that's how it was designed to run. get yourself a
crow bar, it only takes a minute to raise back up.

Actually a crow bar does not work on it. Too heavy.

i
The correct tool is a "pry bar", about 6 feet long, or longer, say the
same length as you'd use to move a loaded freight car.

Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 23:42:32 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

On 2010-09-20, Don Foreman wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:03:31 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

On 2010-09-20, Karl Townsend wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 21:16:11 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

I set up my Bridgeport so that, finally, casters are in the air and
the mill is supported, on all four corners, by pieces of 2x4s. I
wonder if this would be considered adequate or is the foundation
stressed a bit too much. Maybe I should add more extra pieces on the
sides or some such. Any ideas from the more knowledgeable netizens.

I am reluctant to just lower the mill to the floor, getting it off the
floor in the future will be very challenging.

i

Set it on the floor. that's how it was designed to run. get yourself a
crow bar, it only takes a minute to raise back up.

Actually a crow bar does not work on it. Too heavy.

I have a bar about 6 feet long and 1" dia, becoming about 1.5 square
for a foot or so on one end and then terminating in a tapered bend.

That bar lifts my B'Port with surprisingly little effort. The
millwrights at a place I worked used bars exactly like this one to
lift machinery exactly like a B'Port.

May I hazard to guess, your Bridgeport is 2,200 lbs. As was my old
trusty one.

My Bridgeport Interact 2 is 5,500 lbs (if I believe some online
sources, which I now do), is much taller, wider and thicker built.

I stick- welded up a side-reinforced Z hook that fits into the
recessed areas on the base of the mill, with a small bottle jack
pushing up on the top leg of the Z. That works even better than the
bar because one man can easily and safely lift the mill several
inches, easily enough to get caster dollies in place.

You should be able to make something like this in an hour or two.

Well, I made something that worked well, a couple of steel bars welded
together that I insert into pieces that hold casters. Now I can lift
every corner effortlessly with a harbor freight 4 ton jack (which is
really more like 2 ton, but does the job).

I can't comment on your Bridgeport but everywhere I've worked the
machinery was bolted in place with leveling bolts working against a
steel foot plate and hold-down bolts to keep it in place. Machinery
that generated large reciprocating forces - Planer, Shaper, Surface
Grinder, etc. had in addition, stops to ensure that it didn't move.
Large machinery was leveled and then grouted in place.

If you are debating about the quality of the foundation just put a
precision level (at least 0.001" per foot, or finer) on the table. Run
the table all the way to the end, read the level, and then all the way
in the other and read the level again.. Then check the level in the
other direction. Then check it again after running it for a week or
so.

I can't argue whether this is absolutely necessary but I have seen
machinery that developed a permanently warped base and the only reason
I can think of was that it had been sitting out of line for some time.

Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)

On 2010-09-20, DoN. Nichols wrote:
On 2010-09-20, Ignoramus14147 wrote:
On 2010-09-19, BobH wrote:

[ ... ]

A Johnson bar will do it. They have about 50:1 leverage.

I have a Johnson bar, I do not think that it is 50:1.

Anyway, is it important that this mill be level?

If you are using flood coolant -- yes -- especially side to
side. Otherwise, the coolant will get deeper than the trough on one
side or the other and spill.

I have coolant drains on both sides, so I cannot see how this is an
issue.

i

On 2010-09-20, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:52:15 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

On 2010-09-19, BobH wrote:
On 09/20/2010 03:03 AM, Ignoramus14147 wrote:
On 2010-09-20, Karl wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 21:16:11 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

I set up my Bridgeport so that, finally, casters are in the air and
the mill is supported, on all four corners, by pieces of 2x4s. I
wonder if this would be considered adequate or is the foundation
stressed a bit too much. Maybe I should add more extra pieces on the
sides or some such. Any ideas from the more knowledgeable netizens.

I am reluctant to just lower the mill to the floor, getting it off the
floor in the future will be very challenging.

i

Set it on the floor. that's how it was designed to run. get yourself a
crow bar, it only takes a minute to raise back up.

Actually a crow bar does not work on it. Too heavy.

A Johnson bar will do it. They have about 50:1 leverage.

I have a Johnson bar, I do not think that it is 50:1.

Anyway, is it important that this mill be level?

i

The mill should not rock. And having it "level" allows you to use a
bubble level at a later date for doing some setups...but no....other
than to keep the coolant in the tank...it doesnt HAVE to be level.

Just make sure it doesnt rock


It does not rock any more. I have a G code that is intended to provide
maximum accelerations and to shake the mill, it seems pretty stable
now.

i

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:52:15 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

On 2010-09-19, BobH wrote:
On 09/20/2010 03:03 AM, Ignoramus14147 wrote:
On 2010-09-20, Karl wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 21:16:11 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

I set up my Bridgeport so that, finally, casters are in the air and
the mill is supported, on all four corners, by pieces of 2x4s. I
wonder if this would be considered adequate or is the foundation
stressed a bit too much. Maybe I should add more extra pieces on the
sides or some such. Any ideas from the more knowledgeable netizens.

I am reluctant to just lower the mill to the floor, getting it off the
floor in the future will be very challenging.

i

Set it on the floor. that's how it was designed to run. get yourself a
crow bar, it only takes a minute to raise back up.

Actually a crow bar does not work on it. Too heavy.

A Johnson bar will do it. They have about 50:1 leverage.

I have a Johnson bar, I do not think that it is 50:1.

Measure it. Is the handle 50x the length of the lifting tongue on the
other side of the fulcrum point? Let us curious types know.


Anyway, is it important that this mill be level?

You'll be running coolant. You tell us.


--
Some people hear voices. Some see invisible people.
Others have no imagination whatsoever.

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 07:51:57 -0500, Ignoramus32604
wrote:

On 2010-09-20, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:52:15 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

On 2010-09-19, BobH wrote:
On 09/20/2010 03:03 AM, Ignoramus14147 wrote:
On 2010-09-20, Karl wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 21:16:11 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

I set up my Bridgeport so that, finally, casters are in the air and
the mill is supported, on all four corners, by pieces of 2x4s. I
wonder if this would be considered adequate or is the foundation
stressed a bit too much. Maybe I should add more extra pieces on the
sides or some such. Any ideas from the more knowledgeable netizens.

I am reluctant to just lower the mill to the floor, getting it off the
floor in the future will be very challenging.

i

Set it on the floor. that's how it was designed to run. get yourself a
crow bar, it only takes a minute to raise back up.

Actually a crow bar does not work on it. Too heavy.

A Johnson bar will do it. They have about 50:1 leverage.

I have a Johnson bar, I do not think that it is 50:1.

Anyway, is it important that this mill be level?

i

The mill should not rock. And having it "level" allows you to use a
bubble level at a later date for doing some setups...but no....other
than to keep the coolant in the tank...it doesnt HAVE to be level.

Just make sure it doesnt rock


It does not rock any more. I have a G code that is intended to provide
maximum accelerations and to shake the mill, it seems pretty stable
now.

i

Then Id say your particular machine is golden.

Gunner


I am the Sword of my Family
and the Shield of my Nation.
If sent, I will crush everything you have built,
burn everything you love,
and kill every one of you.
(Hebrew quote)

On 2010-09-20, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 07:51:57 -0500, Ignoramus32604
wrote:

On 2010-09-20, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:52:15 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

On 2010-09-19, BobH wrote:
On 09/20/2010 03:03 AM, Ignoramus14147 wrote:
On 2010-09-20, Karl wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 21:16:11 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

I set up my Bridgeport so that, finally, casters are in the air and
the mill is supported, on all four corners, by pieces of 2x4s. I
wonder if this would be considered adequate or is the foundation
stressed a bit too much. Maybe I should add more extra pieces on the
sides or some such. Any ideas from the more knowledgeable netizens.

I am reluctant to just lower the mill to the floor, getting it off the
floor in the future will be very challenging.

i

Set it on the floor. that's how it was designed to run. get yourself a
crow bar, it only takes a minute to raise back up.

Actually a crow bar does not work on it. Too heavy.

A Johnson bar will do it. They have about 50:1 leverage.

I have a Johnson bar, I do not think that it is 50:1.

Anyway, is it important that this mill be level?

i

The mill should not rock. And having it "level" allows you to use a
bubble level at a later date for doing some setups...but no....other
than to keep the coolant in the tank...it doesnt HAVE to be level.

Just make sure it doesnt rock


It does not rock any more. I have a G code that is intended to provide
maximum accelerations and to shake the mill, it seems pretty stable
now.

i

Then Id say your particular machine is golden.


Thanks. Here's the script.

g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0
g4 p0 g0 x1 y1 z-1
g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0
g4 p0 g0 x1 y1 z-1
g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0
g4 p0 g0 x1 y1 z-1
g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0
g4 p0 g0 x1
g4 p0 g0 y1
g4 p0 g0 z-1
g4 p0 g0 x0
g4 p0 g0 y0
g4 p0 g0 z0

g4 p0 g0 y2
g4 p0 g0 y0
g4 p0 g0 y2
g4 p0 g0 y0
g4 p0 g0 y2
g4 p0 g0 y0

g2 x2 r1 f100
g2 x0 r1 f100

#i = 0
Owhile while [ #i LT 10 ]

g2 x0.5 r0.25 f100
g2 x0 r0.25 f100

#i = [#i + 1]
Owhile endwhile

g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0

#i = 0
Owhile1 while [ #i LT 10 ]

g2 x0.1 r0.05 f100
g2 x0 r0.05 f100

#i = [#i + 1]
Owhile1 endwhile

g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0

M2

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:07:16 -0500, Ignoramus32604
wrote:

On 2010-09-20, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 07:51:57 -0500, Ignoramus32604
wrote:

On 2010-09-20, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:52:15 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

On 2010-09-19, BobH wrote:
On 09/20/2010 03:03 AM, Ignoramus14147 wrote:
On 2010-09-20, Karl wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 21:16:11 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

I set up my Bridgeport so that, finally, casters are in the air and
the mill is supported, on all four corners, by pieces of 2x4s. I
wonder if this would be considered adequate or is the foundation
stressed a bit too much. Maybe I should add more extra pieces on the
sides or some such. Any ideas from the more knowledgeable netizens.

I am reluctant to just lower the mill to the floor, getting it off the
floor in the future will be very challenging.

i

Set it on the floor. that's how it was designed to run. get yourself a
crow bar, it only takes a minute to raise back up.

Actually a crow bar does not work on it. Too heavy.

A Johnson bar will do it. They have about 50:1 leverage.

I have a Johnson bar, I do not think that it is 50:1.

Anyway, is it important that this mill be level?

i

The mill should not rock. And having it "level" allows you to use a
bubble level at a later date for doing some setups...but no....other
than to keep the coolant in the tank...it doesnt HAVE to be level.

Just make sure it doesnt rock


It does not rock any more. I have a G code that is intended to provide
maximum accelerations and to shake the mill, it seems pretty stable
now.

i

Then Id say your particular machine is golden.


Thanks. Here's the script.

g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0
g4 p0 g0 x1 y1 z-1
g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0
g4 p0 g0 x1 y1 z-1
g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0
g4 p0 g0 x1 y1 z-1
g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0
g4 p0 g0 x1
g4 p0 g0 y1
g4 p0 g0 z-1
g4 p0 g0 x0
g4 p0 g0 y0
g4 p0 g0 z0

g4 p0 g0 y2
g4 p0 g0 y0
g4 p0 g0 y2
g4 p0 g0 y0
g4 p0 g0 y2
g4 p0 g0 y0

g2 x2 r1 f100
g2 x0 r1 f100

#i = 0
Owhile while [ #i LT 10 ]

g2 x0.5 r0.25 f100
g2 x0 r0.25 f100

#i = [#i + 1]
Owhile endwhile

g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0

#i = 0
Owhile1 while [ #i LT 10 ]

g2 x0.1 r0.05 f100
g2 x0 r0.05 f100

#i = [#i + 1]
Owhile1 endwhile

g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0

M2


Whats your maximum possible feed rate? 100 or higher?
And whats your maxium inches per revolution so you can calculate proper
chip load?

Gunner


I am the Sword of my Family
and the Shield of my Nation.
If sent, I will crush everything you have built,
burn everything you love,
and kill every one of you.
(Hebrew quote)

On 2010-09-20, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:07:16 -0500, Ignoramus32604
wrote:

On 2010-09-20, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 07:51:57 -0500, Ignoramus32604
wrote:

On 2010-09-20, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:52:15 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

On 2010-09-19, BobH wrote:
On 09/20/2010 03:03 AM, Ignoramus14147 wrote:
On 2010-09-20, Karl wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 21:16:11 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

I set up my Bridgeport so that, finally, casters are in the air and
the mill is supported, on all four corners, by pieces of 2x4s. I
wonder if this would be considered adequate or is the foundation
stressed a bit too much. Maybe I should add more extra pieces on the
sides or some such. Any ideas from the more knowledgeable netizens.

I am reluctant to just lower the mill to the floor, getting it off the
floor in the future will be very challenging.

i

Set it on the floor. that's how it was designed to run. get yourself a
crow bar, it only takes a minute to raise back up.

Actually a crow bar does not work on it. Too heavy.

A Johnson bar will do it. They have about 50:1 leverage.

I have a Johnson bar, I do not think that it is 50:1.

Anyway, is it important that this mill be level?

i

The mill should not rock. And having it "level" allows you to use a
bubble level at a later date for doing some setups...but no....other
than to keep the coolant in the tank...it doesnt HAVE to be level.

Just make sure it doesnt rock


It does not rock any more. I have a G code that is intended to provide
maximum accelerations and to shake the mill, it seems pretty stable
now.

i

Then Id say your particular machine is golden.


Thanks. Here's the script.

g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0
g4 p0 g0 x1 y1 z-1
g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0
g4 p0 g0 x1 y1 z-1
g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0
g4 p0 g0 x1 y1 z-1
g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0
g4 p0 g0 x1
g4 p0 g0 y1
g4 p0 g0 z-1
g4 p0 g0 x0
g4 p0 g0 y0
g4 p0 g0 z0

g4 p0 g0 y2
g4 p0 g0 y0
g4 p0 g0 y2
g4 p0 g0 y0
g4 p0 g0 y2
g4 p0 g0 y0

g2 x2 r1 f100
g2 x0 r1 f100

#i = 0
Owhile while [ #i LT 10 ]

g2 x0.5 r0.25 f100
g2 x0 r0.25 f100

#i = [#i + 1]
Owhile endwhile

g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0

#i = 0
Owhile1 while [ #i LT 10 ]

g2 x0.1 r0.05 f100
g2 x0 r0.05 f100

#i = [#i + 1]
Owhile1 endwhile

g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0

M2


Whats your maximum possible feed rate? 100 or higher?
And whats your maxium inches per revolution so you can calculate proper
chip load?

This runs dry, no chip load. The purpose is just to try to shake the
mill. My max feedrate is 90*sqrt(3) IPM, if moving along three axes
simultaneously. 90 IPM limit on X and Y and 60 IPM limit on Z (for
safety).

Originally the mill was capable of 200 IPM rapids, but my drives and
power supplies are over twice less voltage. I do not particularly
care.

i

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:47:21 -0500, Ignoramus32604
wrote:

On 2010-09-20, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:07:16 -0500, Ignoramus32604
wrote:

On 2010-09-20, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 07:51:57 -0500, Ignoramus32604
wrote:

On 2010-09-20, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:52:15 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

On 2010-09-19, BobH wrote:
On 09/20/2010 03:03 AM, Ignoramus14147 wrote:
On 2010-09-20, Karl wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 21:16:11 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

I set up my Bridgeport so that, finally, casters are in the air and
the mill is supported, on all four corners, by pieces of 2x4s. I
wonder if this would be considered adequate or is the foundation
stressed a bit too much. Maybe I should add more extra pieces on the
sides or some such. Any ideas from the more knowledgeable netizens.

I am reluctant to just lower the mill to the floor, getting it off the
floor in the future will be very challenging.

i

Set it on the floor. that's how it was designed to run. get yourself a
crow bar, it only takes a minute to raise back up.

Actually a crow bar does not work on it. Too heavy.

A Johnson bar will do it. They have about 50:1 leverage.

I have a Johnson bar, I do not think that it is 50:1.

Anyway, is it important that this mill be level?

i

The mill should not rock. And having it "level" allows you to use a
bubble level at a later date for doing some setups...but no....other
than to keep the coolant in the tank...it doesnt HAVE to be level.

Just make sure it doesnt rock


It does not rock any more. I have a G code that is intended to provide
maximum accelerations and to shake the mill, it seems pretty stable
now.

i

Then Id say your particular machine is golden.


Thanks. Here's the script.

g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0
g4 p0 g0 x1 y1 z-1
g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0
g4 p0 g0 x1 y1 z-1
g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0
g4 p0 g0 x1 y1 z-1
g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0
g4 p0 g0 x1
g4 p0 g0 y1
g4 p0 g0 z-1
g4 p0 g0 x0
g4 p0 g0 y0
g4 p0 g0 z0

g4 p0 g0 y2
g4 p0 g0 y0
g4 p0 g0 y2
g4 p0 g0 y0
g4 p0 g0 y2
g4 p0 g0 y0

g2 x2 r1 f100
g2 x0 r1 f100

#i = 0
Owhile while [ #i LT 10 ]

g2 x0.5 r0.25 f100
g2 x0 r0.25 f100

#i = [#i + 1]
Owhile endwhile

g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0

#i = 0
Owhile1 while [ #i LT 10 ]

g2 x0.1 r0.05 f100
g2 x0 r0.05 f100

#i = [#i + 1]
Owhile1 endwhile

g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0

M2


Whats your maximum possible feed rate? 100 or higher?
And whats your maxium inches per revolution so you can calculate proper
chip load?

This runs dry, no chip load. The purpose is just to try to shake the
mill. My max feedrate is 90*sqrt(3) IPM, if moving along three axes
simultaneously. 90 IPM limit on X and Y and 60 IPM limit on Z (for
safety).

Originally the mill was capable of 200 IPM rapids, but my drives and
power supplies are over twice less voltage. I do not particularly
care.

i

You lost me on the last bit..."over twice less voltage"?

Why not run it at 200 ipm rapids since its simply a test run?

Gunner


I am the Sword of my Family
and the Shield of my Nation.
If sent, I will crush everything you have built,
burn everything you love,
and kill every one of you.
(Hebrew quote)

Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:52:15 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

On 2010-09-19, BobH wrote:
On 09/20/2010 03:03 AM, Ignoramus14147 wrote:
On 2010-09-20, Karl wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 21:16:11 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

I set up my Bridgeport so that, finally, casters are in the air and
the mill is supported, on all four corners, by pieces of 2x4s. I
wonder if this would be considered adequate or is the foundation
stressed a bit too much. Maybe I should add more extra pieces on the
sides or some such. Any ideas from the more knowledgeable netizens.

I am reluctant to just lower the mill to the floor, getting it off the
floor in the future will be very challenging.

i

Set it on the floor. that's how it was designed to run. get yourself a
crow bar, it only takes a minute to raise back up.

Actually a crow bar does not work on it. Too heavy.

A Johnson bar will do it. They have about 50:1 leverage.

I have a Johnson bar, I do not think that it is 50:1.

Anyway, is it important that this mill be level?

i

The mill should not rock. And having it "level" allows you to use a
bubble level at a later date for doing some setups...but no....other
than to keep the coolant in the tank...it doesnt HAVE to be level.

Just make sure it doesnt rock

Yes, the issue isn't so much with being level, as it is with being
evenly supported so there isn't any twisting force applied to the
machine frame.

On 2010-09-20, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:47:21 -0500, Ignoramus32604
wrote:

On 2010-09-20, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:07:16 -0500, Ignoramus32604
wrote:

On 2010-09-20, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 07:51:57 -0500, Ignoramus32604
wrote:

On 2010-09-20, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:52:15 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

On 2010-09-19, BobH wrote:
On 09/20/2010 03:03 AM, Ignoramus14147 wrote:
On 2010-09-20, Karl wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 21:16:11 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

I set up my Bridgeport so that, finally, casters are in the air and
the mill is supported, on all four corners, by pieces of 2x4s. I
wonder if this would be considered adequate or is the foundation
stressed a bit too much. Maybe I should add more extra pieces on the
sides or some such. Any ideas from the more knowledgeable netizens.

I am reluctant to just lower the mill to the floor, getting it off the
floor in the future will be very challenging.

i

Set it on the floor. that's how it was designed to run. get yourself a
crow bar, it only takes a minute to raise back up.

Actually a crow bar does not work on it. Too heavy.

A Johnson bar will do it. They have about 50:1 leverage.

I have a Johnson bar, I do not think that it is 50:1.

Anyway, is it important that this mill be level?

i

The mill should not rock. And having it "level" allows you to use a
bubble level at a later date for doing some setups...but no....other
than to keep the coolant in the tank...it doesnt HAVE to be level.

Just make sure it doesnt rock


It does not rock any more. I have a G code that is intended to provide
maximum accelerations and to shake the mill, it seems pretty stable
now.

i

Then Id say your particular machine is golden.


Thanks. Here's the script.

g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0
g4 p0 g0 x1 y1 z-1
g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0
g4 p0 g0 x1 y1 z-1
g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0
g4 p0 g0 x1 y1 z-1
g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0
g4 p0 g0 x1
g4 p0 g0 y1
g4 p0 g0 z-1
g4 p0 g0 x0
g4 p0 g0 y0
g4 p0 g0 z0

g4 p0 g0 y2
g4 p0 g0 y0
g4 p0 g0 y2
g4 p0 g0 y0
g4 p0 g0 y2
g4 p0 g0 y0

g2 x2 r1 f100
g2 x0 r1 f100

#i = 0
Owhile while [ #i LT 10 ]

g2 x0.5 r0.25 f100
g2 x0 r0.25 f100

#i = [#i + 1]
Owhile endwhile

g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0

#i = 0
Owhile1 while [ #i LT 10 ]

g2 x0.1 r0.05 f100
g2 x0 r0.05 f100

#i = [#i + 1]
Owhile1 endwhile

g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0

M2


Whats your maximum possible feed rate? 100 or higher?
And whats your maxium inches per revolution so you can calculate proper
chip load?

This runs dry, no chip load. The purpose is just to try to shake the
mill. My max feedrate is 90*sqrt(3) IPM, if moving along three axes
simultaneously. 90 IPM limit on X and Y and 60 IPM limit on Z (for
safety).

Originally the mill was capable of 200 IPM rapids, but my drives and
power supplies are over twice less voltage. I do not particularly
care.

i

You lost me on the last bit..."over twice less voltage"?

Why not run it at 200 ipm rapids since its simply a test run?

The servos are 145v DC. The original Bosch drives were 145 volts DC.

My current AMC drives supply only 70v DC, resulting is lower speed.

i

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:24:28 -0500, Ignoramus32604
wrote:

On 2010-09-20, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:47:21 -0500, Ignoramus32604
wrote:

On 2010-09-20, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:07:16 -0500, Ignoramus32604
wrote:

On 2010-09-20, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 07:51:57 -0500, Ignoramus32604
wrote:

On 2010-09-20, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:52:15 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

On 2010-09-19, BobH wrote:
On 09/20/2010 03:03 AM, Ignoramus14147 wrote:
On 2010-09-20, Karl wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 21:16:11 -0500, Ignoramus14147
wrote:

I set up my Bridgeport so that, finally, casters are in the air and
the mill is supported, on all four corners, by pieces of 2x4s. I
wonder if this would be considered adequate or is the foundation
stressed a bit too much. Maybe I should add more extra pieces on the
sides or some such. Any ideas from the more knowledgeable netizens.

I am reluctant to just lower the mill to the floor, getting it off the
floor in the future will be very challenging.

i

Set it on the floor. that's how it was designed to run. get yourself a
crow bar, it only takes a minute to raise back up.

Actually a crow bar does not work on it. Too heavy.

A Johnson bar will do it. They have about 50:1 leverage.

I have a Johnson bar, I do not think that it is 50:1.

Anyway, is it important that this mill be level?

i

The mill should not rock. And having it "level" allows you to use a
bubble level at a later date for doing some setups...but no....other
than to keep the coolant in the tank...it doesnt HAVE to be level.

Just make sure it doesnt rock


It does not rock any more. I have a G code that is intended to provide
maximum accelerations and to shake the mill, it seems pretty stable
now.

i

Then Id say your particular machine is golden.


Thanks. Here's the script.

g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0
g4 p0 g0 x1 y1 z-1
g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0
g4 p0 g0 x1 y1 z-1
g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0
g4 p0 g0 x1 y1 z-1
g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0
g4 p0 g0 x1
g4 p0 g0 y1
g4 p0 g0 z-1
g4 p0 g0 x0
g4 p0 g0 y0
g4 p0 g0 z0

g4 p0 g0 y2
g4 p0 g0 y0
g4 p0 g0 y2
g4 p0 g0 y0
g4 p0 g0 y2
g4 p0 g0 y0

g2 x2 r1 f100
g2 x0 r1 f100

#i = 0
Owhile while [ #i LT 10 ]

g2 x0.5 r0.25 f100
g2 x0 r0.25 f100

#i = [#i + 1]
Owhile endwhile

g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0

#i = 0
Owhile1 while [ #i LT 10 ]

g2 x0.1 r0.05 f100
g2 x0 r0.05 f100

#i = [#i + 1]
Owhile1 endwhile

g4 p0 g0 x0 y0 z0

M2


Whats your maximum possible feed rate? 100 or higher?
And whats your maxium inches per revolution so you can calculate proper
chip load?

This runs dry, no chip load. The purpose is just to try to shake the
mill. My max feedrate is 90*sqrt(3) IPM, if moving along three axes
simultaneously. 90 IPM limit on X and Y and 60 IPM limit on Z (for
safety).

Originally the mill was capable of 200 IPM rapids, but my drives and
power supplies are over twice less voltage. I do not particularly
care.

i

You lost me on the last bit..."over twice less voltage"?

Why not run it at 200 ipm rapids since its simply a test run?

The servos are 145v DC. The original Bosch drives were 145 volts DC.

My current AMC drives supply only 70v DC, resulting is lower speed.

i

Yes and?

Odd then that the OmniTurn cnc lathes use the same AMC drives at 70
volts and get 300 IPM rapids using .5 ballscrews.


oh...the servos are rated at 145vdc. Ah! The OmniTurn servos are rated
at 90 volts

So have you given them max feed rates and what happens?

You are simply running "unloaded" with simply the table as a load,
correct?

Gunner


I am the Sword of my Family
and the Shield of my Nation.
If sent, I will crush everything you have built,
burn everything you love,
and kill every one of you.
(Hebrew quote)

On 2010-09-20, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:24:28 -0500, Ignoramus32604
wrote:
Why not run it at 200 ipm rapids since its simply a test run?

The servos are 145v DC. The original Bosch drives were 145 volts DC.

My current AMC drives supply only 70v DC, resulting is lower speed.

i

Yes and?

Odd then that the OmniTurn cnc lathes use the same AMC drives at 70
volts and get 300 IPM rapids using .5 ballscrews.


oh...the servos are rated at 145vdc. Ah! The OmniTurn servos are rated
at 90 volts

Yeah, pretty simple

So have you given them max feed rates and what happens?

90 IPM is about max. I tried 120 and got following errors all the
time.

You are simply running "unloaded" with simply the table as a load,
correct?

yes.


I actually found two cool servo drives on ebay that take up to 140 VAC
and give out up to 170 VDC. I can limit output in EMC a a little bit
by adjusting PID_MAX_VEL for every axis, and I would get perfect 200
IPM on every axis having that drive. But I do not really see the
point.

i

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 12:40:12 -0500, Ignoramus32604
wrote:

On 2010-09-20, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:24:28 -0500, Ignoramus32604
wrote:
Why not run it at 200 ipm rapids since its simply a test run?

The servos are 145v DC. The original Bosch drives were 145 volts DC.

My current AMC drives supply only 70v DC, resulting is lower speed.

i

Yes and?

Odd then that the OmniTurn cnc lathes use the same AMC drives at 70
volts and get 300 IPM rapids using .5 ballscrews.


oh...the servos are rated at 145vdc. Ah! The OmniTurn servos are rated
at 90 volts

Yeah, pretty simple

So have you given them max feed rates and what happens?

90 IPM is about max. I tried 120 and got following errors all the
time.

Thats not servo issues, but reading issues.

You are simply running "unloaded" with simply the table as a load,
correct?

yes.


I actually found two cool servo drives on ebay that take up to 140 VAC
and give out up to 170 VDC. I can limit output in EMC a a little bit
by adjusting PID_MAX_VEL for every axis, and I would get perfect 200
IPM on every axis having that drive. But I do not really see the
point.

i
True enough. You are doing very well as it is and since you are not a
"commercial shop", Id say you've got a good handle on it.

Very well done!!

Gunner


I am the Sword of my Family
and the Shield of my Nation.
If sent, I will crush everything you have built,
burn everything you love,
and kill every one of you.
(Hebrew quote)

On 2010-09-20, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 12:40:12 -0500, Ignoramus32604
wrote:

On 2010-09-20, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:24:28 -0500, Ignoramus32604
wrote:
Why not run it at 200 ipm rapids since its simply a test run?

The servos are 145v DC. The original Bosch drives were 145 volts DC.

My current AMC drives supply only 70v DC, resulting is lower speed.

i

Yes and?

Odd then that the OmniTurn cnc lathes use the same AMC drives at 70
volts and get 300 IPM rapids using .5 ballscrews.


oh...the servos are rated at 145vdc. Ah! The OmniTurn servos are rated
at 90 volts

Yeah, pretty simple

So have you given them max feed rates and what happens?

90 IPM is about max. I tried 120 and got following errors all the
time.

Thats not servo issues, but reading issues.

It is servo issues -- the motor cannot move as fast as it is
commanded.


You are simply running "unloaded" with simply the table as a load,
correct?

yes.
I actually found two cool servo drives on ebay that take up to 140 VAC
and give out up to 170 VDC. I can limit output in EMC a a little bit
by adjusting PID_MAX_VEL for every axis, and I would get perfect 200
IPM on every axis having that drive. But I do not really see the
point.


True enough. You are doing very well as it is and since you are not a
"commercial shop", Id say you've got a good handle on it.

Very well done!!

thanks!

i

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:47:21 -0500, Ignoramus32604
wrote:

This runs dry, no chip load. The purpose is just to try to shake the
mill.

Sumbish! That's one expensive paint shaker, mon!

I just had another though on the CNC class: Tell the instructor what
you have just done with that Interact, show him your G-code scripts
and functions, and see if he thinks he can teach you anything. Maybe
he'll suggest another class instead.

--
Some people hear voices. Some see invisible people.
Others have no imagination whatsoever.

On 2010-09-20, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:47:21 -0500, Ignoramus32604
wrote:

This runs dry, no chip load. The purpose is just to try to shake the
mill.

Sumbish! That's one expensive paint shaker, mon!

I just had another though on the CNC class: Tell the instructor what
you have just done with that Interact, show him your G-code scripts
and functions, and see if he thinks he can teach you anything. Maybe
he'll suggest another class instead.


After much thinking, I doubt that the class will really be
useful. First, they will teach on a machine that I do not have,
second, I already know the most basic things, and third, the audience
will probably be not very knowledgeable, and so they will spend all
the time teaching the basics.

i

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:57:30 -0500, Ignoramus32604
wrote:

On 2010-09-20, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:47:21 -0500, Ignoramus32604
wrote:

This runs dry, no chip load. The purpose is just to try to shake the
mill.

Sumbish! That's one expensive paint shaker, mon!

I just had another though on the CNC class: Tell the instructor what
you have just done with that Interact, show him your G-code scripts
and functions, and see if he thinks he can teach you anything. Maybe
he'll suggest another class instead.


After much thinking, I doubt that the class will really be
useful. First, they will teach on a machine that I do not have,
second, I already know the most basic things, and third, the audience
will probably be not very knowledgeable, and so they will spend all
the time teaching the basics.

Right. That's why I buy books and read newsgroups, then play on my
own. Oregon doesn't support their Community Colleges very well, so
the courses here are a couple hundred each. Add administrative and
parking dings to that and you've got a grand invested in 4 short
courses. I liked California's fees better. Total for a Networking
course there was someting like $38, including parking pass, student
card, admin fees, and class fees. Books + Novell hit me for another
$80 or so.

Welding courses here (10 or 12 parter) cost $172, $225, or $450 apiece
plus supplies @ $50-75 a part.

--
Some people hear voices. Some see invisible people.
Others have no imagination whatsoever.