Is it worthwhile to use a wiper insert to improve the surface finish
of brass when doing a facing operation.

I have a 3" face mill, and would like to get the best face finish
possible. I am using sharp, positive rake Iscar inserts currently, but
wonder whether adding a single wiper to teh cutter would result in a
better finish.

If the answer is yes, what is the incremental finish quality one can
expect (some experiences would be nice - ie Ra finish before and
after)

"Robert Salasidis" wrote in message
...
Is it worthwhile to use a wiper insert to improve the surface finish
of brass when doing a facing operation.

I have a 3" face mill, and would like to get the best face finish
possible. I am using sharp, positive rake Iscar inserts currently, but
wonder whether adding a single wiper to teh cutter would result in a
better finish.

If the answer is yes, what is the incremental finish quality one can
expect (some experiences would be nice - ie Ra finish before and
after)

I guess you already tried taking half the inserts out....
Isn't brass better suited for a negative rake and a real sharp edge?

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 23:28:00 -0500, "Kathy"
wrote:

My understanding is that all ferrous metals are better with sharp
inserts, and positive rake (which I am doing)

Howeever I would like to improve the surface finish further, and
that's why I would like to know if a wiper inserty will help, or in
the case of brass would amke no difference I have not tried is as the
cutter I am using uses APCR1003 inserts, and no wiper is available for
that cutter body - so I would need to get a different cutter, new
sharp inserts and 10 wiper inserts (sold only in that quantity) - all
rather expensive - so that is why I am looking for anybody that has
been down this road before.

Thanks again


"Robert Salasidis" wrote in message
.. .
Is it worthwhile to use a wiper insert to improve the surface finish
of brass when doing a facing operation.

I have a 3" face mill, and would like to get the best face finish
possible. I am using sharp, positive rake Iscar inserts currently, but
wonder whether adding a single wiper to teh cutter would result in a
better finish.

If the answer is yes, what is the incremental finish quality one can
expect (some experiences would be nice - ie Ra finish before and
after)

I guess you already tried taking half the inserts out....
Isn't brass better suited for a negative rake and a real sharp edge?

"Robert Salasidis" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 23:28:00 -0500, "Kathy"
wrote:

My understanding is that all ferrous metals are better with sharp
inserts, and positive rake (which I am doing)

Howeever I would like to improve the surface finish further, and
that's why I would like to know if a wiper inserty will help, or in
the case of brass would amke no difference I have not tried is as the
cutter I am using uses APCR1003 inserts, and no wiper is available for
that cutter body - so I would need to get a different cutter, new
sharp inserts and 10 wiper inserts (sold only in that quantity) - all
rather expensive - so that is why I am looking for anybody that has
been down this road before.

Thanks again


"Robert Salasidis" wrote in message
.. .
Is it worthwhile to use a wiper insert to improve the surface finish
of brass when doing a facing operation.

I have a 3" face mill, and would like to get the best face finish
possible. I am using sharp, positive rake Iscar inserts currently, but
wonder whether adding a single wiper to teh cutter would result in a
better finish.

If the answer is yes, what is the incremental finish quality one can
expect (some experiences would be nice - ie Ra finish before and
after)

I guess you already tried taking half the inserts out....
Isn't brass better suited for a negative rake and a real sharp edge?



http://www.dapra.com/promos/closeouts/45shell.htm

--

SVL

Robert Salasidis wrote:

Is it worthwhile to use a wiper insert to improve the surface finish
of brass when doing a facing operation.

I have a 3" face mill, and would like to get the best face finish
possible. I am using sharp, positive rake Iscar inserts currently, but
wonder whether adding a single wiper to teh cutter would result in a
better finish.

If the answer is yes, what is the incremental finish quality one can
expect (some experiences would be nice - ie Ra finish before and
after)

What kind of finish, are you getting now? How are you measuring it now,
and what type of finish are you trying to achieve, reallisticly?
--
Regards,
Steve Saling
aka The Garlic Dude ©
Gilroy, CA
The Garlic Capital of The World
http://www.pulsareng.com/

Robert Salasidis wrote:
SNIPPED

- all
rather expensive - so that is why I am looking for anybody that has
been down this road before.

Thanks again



Get your local, pick a major brand rep, to come out and demo before you
buy. Most good ones will do that if your serious.

--
Regards,
Steve Saling
aka The Garlic Dude ©
Gilroy, CA
The Garlic Capital of The World
http://www.pulsareng.com/

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:10:23 -0500, Robert Salasidis
wrote:

My understanding is that all ferrous metals are better with sharp
inserts, and positive rake (which I am doing)

Why would you think this?
You are in error.

BTW, Cast Iron is a ferrous metal.
You asked about Brass (did you mention the alloy?)
though, which is non-ferrous.

"Sharp" is not positive rake alone and there's probably
some question as to which edge treatments, like honing,
are sharp.

You can calculate your expected RMS surface finish from
your insert nose radius and feedrate in some cases .... and
a wiper is sometimes limited to a specific feedrate range ...
more may depend on the angle at which your inserts sit
in the cutter body (in this case) and how well you have
matched them all to the same Z plane. IF one is a bit "higher"
than the others ...
Wipers may require specific (special?) cutter bodies too ..
--
Cliff

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:46:36 -0800, Garlicdude
wrote:

Get your local, pick a major brand rep, to come out and demo before you
buy. Most good ones will do that if your serious.

Why would they do that for a *possible* US$ 5 sale?
Are they all nuts?
--
Cliff

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 08:10:02 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:10:23 -0500, Robert Salasidis
wrote:

My understanding is that all ferrous metals are better with sharp
inserts, and positive rake (which I am doing)

Why would you think this?
You are in error.

Sorry it was a type - as I was discussing brass, I should have said
NON-ferrous metals

So the wiper insert - does it do anything for quality of finish (or
does it just allow faster feed rates - at the same level of quality)


BTW, Cast Iron is a ferrous metal.
You asked about Brass (did you mention the alloy?)
though, which is non-ferrous.

"Sharp" is not positive rake alone and there's probably
some question as to which edge treatments, like honing,
are sharp.

You can calculate your expected RMS surface finish from
your insert nose radius and feedrate in some cases .... and
a wiper is sometimes limited to a specific feedrate range ...
more may depend on the angle at which your inserts sit
in the cutter body (in this case) and how well you have
matched them all to the same Z plane. IF one is a bit "higher"
than the others ...
Wipers may require specific (special?) cutter bodies too ..

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:44:09 -0800, Garlicdude
wrote:

Robert Salasidis wrote:

Is it worthwhile to use a wiper insert to improve the surface finish
of brass when doing a facing operation.

I have a 3" face mill, and would like to get the best face finish
possible. I am using sharp, positive rake Iscar inserts currently, but
wonder whether adding a single wiper to teh cutter would result in a
better finish.

If the answer is yes, what is the incremental finish quality one can
expect (some experiences would be nice - ie Ra finish before and
after)

What kind of finish, are you getting now? How are you measuring it now,
and what type of finish are you trying to achieve, reallisticly?

I wish I had a profilometer, but I am just using the feeler type
gages, and can estimate I am getting about 0.4 um (about 16 u in).

I would like to double that if possible.

"Robert Salasidis" wrote in message
...

So the wiper insert - does it do anything for quality of finish (or
does it just allow faster feed rates - at the same level of quality)


Improved finish at same rates....

Chipload per tooth being pretty much the same, difference being that one
"wiper insert" has a "flat" bottom.......

--

SVL

My understanding is that all ferrous metals are better with sharp
inserts, and positive rake (which I am doing)


ummmm....brass is non ferrous

sorry...already done

In article ,
Robert Salasidis wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 08:10:02 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:10:23 -0500, Robert Salasidis
wrote:

My understanding is that all ferrous metals are better with sharp
inserts, and positive rake (which I am doing)

Why would you think this?
You are in error.

Sorry it was a type - as I was discussing brass, I should have said
NON-ferrous metals

Brass is better with zero or even negative rake, not positive,
which tends to dig in too much, unless the machine is *really* rigid.

So the wiper insert - does it do anything for quality of finish (or
does it just allow faster feed rates - at the same level of quality)

I've got no experience with wiper inserts, but I suspect that
they might prevent dig-in just as zero rake does.

Good Luck,
DoN.

--
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 ---

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:03:22 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:


"Robert Salasidis" wrote in message
.. .

So the wiper insert - does it do anything for quality of finish (or
does it just allow faster feed rates - at the same level of quality)


Improved finish at same rates....

Chipload per tooth being pretty much the same, difference being that one
"wiper insert" has a "flat" bottom.......

That "bottom" needs to stick "up" out of the cutter body at least
as high as the high spots on the radiuses of the other inserts. But
not much higher.
Feedrate in IPR is good *almost* to one flat's worth of width per
Rev. assuming nothing else fails (and only one wiper insert in the
cutter body, the other inserts being standard types).

Anyone have a link to the formula for surface finish vs. IPT
vs. insert nose radius? It's also in Machinery's Handbook someplace
IIRC.
--
Cliff

"Cliff" wrote in message
...

Anyone have a link to the formula for surface finish vs. IPT
vs. insert nose radius? It's also in Machinery's Handbook someplace
IIRC.


I have most of that info in the form Kennametal literature--rarely needed
here though.

A fairly simple explanation ( though not entirely complete--DOC and nose
radius comes into the picture too ) is that your IPT times your number of
teeth cannot be greater than the width of the "flat" on your "wiper tooth".

--

SVL

Robert Salasidis wrote:

What kind of finish, are you getting now? How are you measuring it now,
and what type of finish are you trying to achieve, reallisticly?

I wish I had a profilometer, but I am just using the feeler type
gages, and can estimate I am getting about 0.4 um (about 16 u in).

I would like to double that if possible.


Robert, I checked my Machinery's Handbook, Surface Roughness Produced by
Common Production Methods, and IF your presently achieving a 16 finish
by milling your doing pretty well. I think to get a MEASURABLE 8 finish
would require a good machine, especially the spindle, and a solid
setup. Having said that wiper inserts, button style cutter, or a larger
radius on your present cutter insert will all help to give you a better
finish.


--
Regards,
Steve Saling
aka The Garlic Dude ©
Gilroy, CA
The Garlic Capital of The World
http://www.pulsareng.com/

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 09:07:45 -0800, Garlicdude
wrote:

Robert Salasidis wrote:

What kind of finish, are you getting now? How are you measuring it now,
and what type of finish are you trying to achieve, reallisticly?

I wish I had a profilometer, but I am just using the feeler type
gages, and can estimate I am getting about 0.4 um (about 16 u in).

I would like to double that if possible.


Robert, I checked my Machinery's Handbook, Surface Roughness Produced by
Common Production Methods, and IF your presently achieving a 16 finish
by milling your doing pretty well. I think to get a MEASURABLE 8 finish
would require a good machine, especially the spindle, and a solid
setup. Having said that wiper inserts, button style cutter, or a larger
radius on your present cutter insert will all help to give you a better
finish.

I'm a bit curious how he's using feeler gages to estimate surface
finish.
Perhaps he could post his feeds (in IPR), number of inserts, insert
nose radius, .......
--
Cliff

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:18:40 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 09:07:45 -0800, Garlicdude
wrote:

Robert Salasidis wrote:

What kind of finish, are you getting now? How are you measuring it now,
and what type of finish are you trying to achieve, reallisticly?

I wish I had a profilometer, but I am just using the feeler type
gages, and can estimate I am getting about 0.4 um (about 16 u in).

I would like to double that if possible.


Robert, I checked my Machinery's Handbook, Surface Roughness Produced by
Common Production Methods, and IF your presently achieving a 16 finish
by milling your doing pretty well. I think to get a MEASURABLE 8 finish
would require a good machine, especially the spindle, and a solid
setup. Having said that wiper inserts, button style cutter, or a larger
radius on your present cutter insert will all help to give you a better
finish.

I'm a bit curious how he's using feeler gages to estimate surface
finish.
Perhaps he could post his feeds (in IPR), number of inserts, insert
nose radius, .......

One buys the 70$ surface roughness "feel" gages and compares -
strictly a qualitative measurement.

The exact details of my cut are

I am using an ISCAR HM90 F90AP 3" cutter with APCR1003 inserts

There are 11 insert position on the cutter, with a nose radious of
0.02"

I am cutting at a depth of 0.01", 1300 RPM at an 8"/min feed rate
(very slow to minimize the ipt)

When I speed up the feed rate, I get a worse surface finish.

My machine has a BT30 spindle, so a 3" cutter is tha largest that I
can use.

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 17:10:44 -0500, Robert Salasidis
wrote:

I'm a bit curious how he's using feeler gages to estimate surface
finish.

One buys the 70$ surface roughness "feel" gages and compares -
strictly a qualitative measurement.

Sorry, I thought you said "feeler gages".
I was about to offer you my surface thingie gratis (if I
still have it & can find it) but it sounds like you already
have one. Electroformed bit, right?
Up to US$ 70 are they whoosh?
--
Cliff

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 04:02:38 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 17:10:44 -0500, Robert Salasidis
wrote:

I'm a bit curious how he's using feeler gages to estimate surface
finish.

One buys the 70$ surface roughness "feel" gages and compares -
strictly a qualitative measurement.

Sorry, I thought you said "feeler gages".
I was about to offer you my surface thingie gratis (if I
still have it & can find it) but it sounds like you already
have one. Electroformed bit, right?
Up to US$ 70 are they whoosh?

Mine was a free sample from a machine tool manufacturer - but if you
were to buy one they do run up to 70$.

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:03:22 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:


"Robert Salasidis" wrote in message
.. .

So the wiper insert - does it do anything for quality of finish (or
does it just allow faster feed rates - at the same level of quality)


Improved finish at same rates....

Chipload per tooth being pretty much the same, difference being that one
"wiper insert" has a "flat" bottom.......

That "bottom" needs to stick "up" out of the cutter body at least
as high as the high spots on the radiuses of the other inserts. But
not much higher.
Feedrate in IPR is good *almost* to one flat's worth of width per
Rev. assuming nothing else fails (and only one wiper insert in the
cutter body, the other inserts being standard types).

Anyone have a link to the formula for surface finish vs. IPT
vs. insert nose radius? It's also in Machinery's Handbook someplace
IIRC.
--
Cliff



Right out of Bill's calculator, copied from Sandvik technical help:

F = finish requirement represented as non decimal integer i.e. 32 or 63.
R = tool nose radius.

SQR((F*(8*R))/(10(sixth))

Can also be used for calculating step over amount when kellering with a ball
end mill.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 14:39:28 GMT, "Bill Roberto"
wrote:

Right out of Bill's calculator, copied from Sandvik technical help:

F = finish requirement represented as non decimal integer i.e. 32 or 63.
R = tool nose radius.

SQR((F*(8*R))/(10(sixth))

So, with the tooling & inserts & feeds he said he's using
what's the best surface finish he can expect (no wipers)
if making only one finish pass? Did he mention how much
stock he had left for a finish pass (DOC)?

Next question: What if he makes multiple finishing cuts
at the same Z? What if he steps them over?

G
--
Cliff

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 16:11:12 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 14:39:28 GMT, "Bill Roberto"
wrote:

Right out of Bill's calculator, copied from Sandvik technical help:

F = finish requirement represented as non decimal integer i.e. 32 or 63.
R = tool nose radius.

SQR((F*(8*R))/(10(sixth))

So, with the tooling & inserts & feeds he said he's using
what's the best surface finish he can expect (no wipers)
if making only one finish pass? Did he mention how much
stock he had left for a finish pass (DOC)?

0.01" - iscar told me to try a DOC that is at least the nose radius
(0.02") deep, so I will try that


Next question: What if he makes multiple finishing cuts
at the same Z? What if he steps them over?

The iscar tools have a nose radius, but also have a short flat area
(0.047"). Therefore the classic formula for ball cutters and scallop
height would not apply.


G

My main reason for thinking a wiper would give better finish, is taht
it would eliminate the small diferences in insert size/mismatch, and
seating mismatch within the cutter body.

Having a single wiper would eliminate all differences between the
inserts, and then the main problems would be rigiditiy of setup, as
well as the "flatness" of the flat area on the wiper.

Howeever, I don't really want to buy 10 of them to see if it will
work.

Cliff wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 14:39:28 GMT, "Bill Roberto"
wrote:


Right out of Bill's calculator, copied from Sandvik technical help:

F = finish requirement represented as non decimal integer i.e. 32 or 63.
R = tool nose radius.

SQR((F*(8*R))/(10(sixth))


So, with the tooling & inserts & feeds he said he's using
what's the best surface finish he can expect (no wipers)
if making only one finish pass? Did he mention how much
stock he had left for a finish pass (DOC)?

Next question: What if he makes multiple finishing cuts
at the same Z? What if he steps them over?

G


The formula calculates the theoretical scallop height for any particular
tool nose radius. The keyword is theoretical. If I have a .03125 radius
on the tool nose and I want a 32 finish my feedrate would be .0028. If I
applied the same formula for an 8 finish my feedrate would be .0014.
Unless the machines spindle bearings runout is less than 80 millionths
of an inch, and the resolver feed back can keep track more accurately
than 40 millionths that 8 finish ain't gonna happen. As GarlicDude
mentioned, achieving a finish better than a 32 on a lathe is dependent
on many other factors than just a scallop calculation.

Howeever, I don't really want to buy 10 of them to see if it will
work.


See if you can convince your rep to give you one as a try-out, promise to
buy 10 if it works.
--
Cheers,

--Mitch

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:08:00 -0500, Robert Salasidis
wrote:

The iscar tools have a nose radius, but also have a short flat area
(0.047"). Therefore the classic formula for ball cutters and scallop
height would not apply.

That sounds like you may already have wiper inserts, as long
ast your feed does not exceed .047 IPT. And that would be a high
feed indeed I think. Misplaced a decimal?

G

My main reason for thinking a wiper would give better finish, is taht
it would eliminate the small diferences in insert size/mismatch, and
seating mismatch within the cutter body.

Use a tenth's indicator and indicate the inserts in or use
matched inserts. What's the tolerance on the inserts? Stated
and checked on your real ones?

Have them in the correct cutter body for that flat to work?
--
Cliff

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 23:16:07 GMT, Bill Roberto
wrote:

As GarlicDude
mentioned, achieving a finish better than a 32 on a lathe is dependent
on many other factors than just a scallop calculation.

"Face milling Brass".

BTW, IIRC On some materials you can get a better finish than
you would expect, under certain conditions. "Better" in that it
*looks* better, not is better (probably it's actually far worse).
Some materials smear ..... g.
--
Cliff

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 06:13:47 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:08:00 -0500, Robert Salasidis
wrote:

The iscar tools have a nose radius, but also have a short flat area
(0.047"). Therefore the classic formula for ball cutters and scallop
height would not apply.

That sounds like you may already have wiper inserts, as long
ast your feed does not exceed .047 IPT. And that would be a high
feed indeed I think. Misplaced a decimal?

Here is the link to the actual insert

http://www.iscar.com/ecat/familyhdr.... ng=EN&type=1


G

My main reason for thinking a wiper would give better finish, is taht
it would eliminate the small diferences in insert size/mismatch, and
seating mismatch within the cutter body.

Use a tenth's indicator and indicate the inserts in or use
matched inserts. What's the tolerance on the inserts? Stated
and checked on your real ones?

Have them in the correct cutter body for that flat to work?

I have an indicator that is able to indicate at 1/20 of a thou - I
will try seeing what the mismatch between teh inserts in the cutter is

(I know my spindle runout is about 2/10 ths)

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:00:05 -0500, Robert Salasidis
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 06:13:47 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:08:00 -0500, Robert Salasidis
wrote:

The iscar tools have a nose radius, but also have a short flat area
(0.047"). Therefore the classic formula for ball cutters and scallop
height would not apply.

That sounds like you may already have wiper inserts, as long
ast your feed does not exceed .047 IPT. And that would be a high
feed indeed I think. Misplaced a decimal?

Here is the link to the actual insert

http://www.iscar.com/ecat/familyhdr.... ng=EN&type=1


G

My main reason for thinking a wiper would give better finish, is taht
it would eliminate the small diferences in insert size/mismatch, and
seating mismatch within the cutter body.

Use a tenth's indicator and indicate the inserts in or use
matched inserts. What's the tolerance on the inserts? Stated
and checked on your real ones?

Have them in the correct cutter body for that flat to work?

I have an indicator that is able to indicate at 1/20 of a thou - I
will try seeing what the mismatch between teh inserts in the cutter is

(I know my spindle runout is about 2/10 ths)

Tried the indicator on the 11 teeth of the cutter.

I have 2 teeth that are about 4/10ths longer than the rest, one that
is about 0.001" shorter, and the rest are the same within about 1/10
th of a thou.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:00:05 -0500, Robert Salasidis
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 06:13:47 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:08:00 -0500, Robert Salasidis
wrote:

The iscar tools have a nose radius, but also have a short flat area
(0.047"). Therefore the classic formula for ball cutters and scallop
height would not apply.

That sounds like you may already have wiper inserts, as long
ast your feed does not exceed .047 IPT. And that would be a high
feed indeed I think. Misplaced a decimal?

Here is the link to the actual insert

http://www.iscar.com/ecat/familyhdr.... ng=EN&type=1

"Super positiv and polished for machining aluminum."

What does that 25 degrees come out to at that TNR?

My main reason for thinking a wiper would give better finish, is taht
it would eliminate the small diferences in insert size/mismatch, and
seating mismatch within the cutter body.

Use a tenth's indicator and indicate the inserts in or use
matched inserts. What's the tolerance on the inserts? Stated
and checked on your real ones?

Have them in the correct cutter body for that flat to work?

I have an indicator that is able to indicate at 1/20 of a thou - I
will try seeing what the mismatch between teh inserts in the cutter is

(I know my spindle runout is about 2/10 ths)

You need to test it in the spindle, as it would run.
--
Cliff

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:04:58 -0500, Robert Salasidis
wrote:

My main reason for thinking a wiper would give better finish, is taht
it would eliminate the small diferences in insert size/mismatch, and
seating mismatch within the cutter body.

Use a tenth's indicator and indicate the inserts in or use
matched inserts. What's the tolerance on the inserts? Stated
and checked on your real ones?

Have them in the correct cutter body for that flat to work?

I have an indicator that is able to indicate at 1/20 of a thou - I
will try seeing what the mismatch between teh inserts in the cutter is

(I know my spindle runout is about 2/10 ths)

Tried the indicator on the 11 teeth of the cutter.

I have 2 teeth that are about 4/10ths longer than the rest, one that
is about 0.001" shorter, and the rest are the same within about 1/10
th of a thou.

Swap them about & see if it's the insert or the
pocket in the cutter body or the operator G.
Have more inserts?
Try for the best possible ..... large inserts
in "large" insert pockets, etc., once you know
what is what.

Check your overall process (toolholder
in spindle, insert in pocket, etc.) repeatability
as well.
--
Cliff

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:04:58 -0500, Robert Salasidis
wrote:


Tried the indicator on the 11 teeth of the cutter.

I have 2 teeth that are about 4/10ths longer than the rest, one that
is about 0.001" shorter, and the rest are the same within about 1/10
th of a thou.

Would it be possible to lap the inserts in situ?

Mark Rand
RTFM

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:33:04 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:04:58 -0500, Robert Salasidis
wrote:

My main reason for thinking a wiper would give better finish, is taht
it would eliminate the small diferences in insert size/mismatch, and
seating mismatch within the cutter body.

Use a tenth's indicator and indicate the inserts in or use
matched inserts. What's the tolerance on the inserts? Stated
and checked on your real ones?

Have them in the correct cutter body for that flat to work?

I have an indicator that is able to indicate at 1/20 of a thou - I
will try seeing what the mismatch between teh inserts in the cutter is

(I know my spindle runout is about 2/10 ths)

Tried the indicator on the 11 teeth of the cutter.

I have 2 teeth that are about 4/10ths longer than the rest, one that
is about 0.001" shorter, and the rest are the same within about 1/10
th of a thou.

Swap them about & see if it's the insert or the
pocket in the cutter body or the operator G.
Have more inserts?
Try for the best possible ..... large inserts
in "large" insert pockets, etc., once you know
what is what.

Check your overall process (toolholder
in spindle, insert in pocket, etc.) repeatability
as well.

I bought some inserts from MaxProTools (they were cheaper than the
Iscar ones) - I have 22 of those - so I will try them out

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:25:20 -0500, Robert Salasidis
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:33:04 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:04:58 -0500, Robert Salasidis
wrote:

My main reason for thinking a wiper would give better finish, is taht
it would eliminate the small diferences in insert size/mismatch, and
seating mismatch within the cutter body.

Use a tenth's indicator and indicate the inserts in or use
matched inserts. What's the tolerance on the inserts? Stated
and checked on your real ones?

Have them in the correct cutter body for that flat to work?

I have an indicator that is able to indicate at 1/20 of a thou - I
will try seeing what the mismatch between teh inserts in the cutter is

(I know my spindle runout is about 2/10 ths)

Tried the indicator on the 11 teeth of the cutter.

I have 2 teeth that are about 4/10ths longer than the rest, one that
is about 0.001" shorter, and the rest are the same within about 1/10
th of a thou.

Swap them about & see if it's the insert or the
pocket in the cutter body or the operator G.
Have more inserts?
Try for the best possible ..... large inserts
in "large" insert pockets, etc., once you know
what is what.

Check your overall process (toolholder
in spindle, insert in pocket, etc.) repeatability
as well.

I bought some inserts from MaxProTools (they were cheaper than the
Iscar ones) - I have 22 of those - so I will try them out

I tried these out, and get about 34 uin in Ra (bought a used
PocketSurf to get some quantitative numbers)

When I run the feed real slow (about .0003" per tooth on the 3" face
mill, I get about 10 uin. (presumably, the actual feed is about 11x
that as one insert is always slightly longer than the rest, and
therefore the surface finish is directly related to its cutting)

I will try a run where I will double the RPM, keeping the feed rate
constant - will exceed the max SFM for brass, but hopefully insert
life will not be severely affected.

Robert Salasidis wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:25:20 -0500, Robert Salasidis
wrote:


On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:33:04 -0500, Cliff wrote:


On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:04:58 -0500, Robert Salasidis
wrote:


My main reason for thinking a wiper would give better finish, is taht
it would eliminate the small diferences in insert size/mismatch, and
seating mismatch within the cutter body.

Use a tenth's indicator and indicate the inserts in or use
matched inserts. What's the tolerance on the inserts? Stated
and checked on your real ones?

Have them in the correct cutter body for that flat to work?

I have an indicator that is able to indicate at 1/20 of a thou - I
will try seeing what the mismatch between teh inserts in the cutter is

(I know my spindle runout is about 2/10 ths)

Tried the indicator on the 11 teeth of the cutter.

I have 2 teeth that are about 4/10ths longer than the rest, one that
is about 0.001" shorter, and the rest are the same within about 1/10
th of a thou.

Swap them about & see if it's the insert or the
pocket in the cutter body or the operator G.
Have more inserts?
Try for the best possible ..... large inserts
in "large" insert pockets, etc., once you know
what is what.

Check your overall process (toolholder
in spindle, insert in pocket, etc.) repeatability
as well.

I bought some inserts from MaxProTools (they were cheaper than the
Iscar ones) - I have 22 of those - so I will try them out


I tried these out, and get about 34 uin in Ra (bought a used
PocketSurf to get some quantitative numbers)

When I run the feed real slow (about .0003" per tooth on the 3" face
mill, I get about 10 uin. (presumably, the actual feed is about 11x
that as one insert is always slightly longer than the rest, and
therefore the surface finish is directly related to its cutting)

I will try a run where I will double the RPM, keeping the feed rate
constant - will exceed the max SFM for brass, but hopefully insert
life will not be severely affected.

Flycut it with a b-52

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 03:48:16 -0500, butchfuch
wrote:

Robert Salasidis wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:25:20 -0500, Robert Salasidis
wrote:


On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:33:04 -0500, Cliff wrote:


On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:04:58 -0500, Robert Salasidis
wrote:


My main reason for thinking a wiper would give better finish, is taht
it would eliminate the small diferences in insert size/mismatch, and
seating mismatch within the cutter body.

Use a tenth's indicator and indicate the inserts in or use
matched inserts. What's the tolerance on the inserts? Stated
and checked on your real ones?

Have them in the correct cutter body for that flat to work?

I have an indicator that is able to indicate at 1/20 of a thou - I
will try seeing what the mismatch between teh inserts in the cutter is

(I know my spindle runout is about 2/10 ths)

Tried the indicator on the 11 teeth of the cutter.

I have 2 teeth that are about 4/10ths longer than the rest, one that
is about 0.001" shorter, and the rest are the same within about 1/10
th of a thou.

Swap them about & see if it's the insert or the
pocket in the cutter body or the operator G.
Have more inserts?
Try for the best possible ..... large inserts
in "large" insert pockets, etc., once you know
what is what.

Check your overall process (toolholder
in spindle, insert in pocket, etc.) repeatability
as well.

I bought some inserts from MaxProTools (they were cheaper than the
Iscar ones) - I have 22 of those - so I will try them out


I tried these out, and get about 34 uin in Ra (bought a used
PocketSurf to get some quantitative numbers)

When I run the feed real slow (about .0003" per tooth on the 3" face
mill, I get about 10 uin. (presumably, the actual feed is about 11x
that as one insert is always slightly longer than the rest, and
therefore the surface finish is directly related to its cutting)

I will try a run where I will double the RPM, keeping the feed rate
constant - will exceed the max SFM for brass, but hopefully insert
life will not be severely affected.

Flycut it with a b-52

Would be too slow, but what I will probbaly try next is an Iscar tang
mill with a single wiper (will do the same as the fly cut, only
faster. Unfortunaltely the tool I am using now uses APCR1003 inserts,
and no wiper is available from them (from any second source either -
which I don't really know why)