I disagree with camminc!
HSM is a blending of multiple technologies, not just one that is claims to be the cure all.
Maximized, yes. Motion control begins in the brain of a CNC machine. G-code is an input to the machining center, motion is the output. The best inputs cannot produce good output if the CPU is crap. If we improve the central nervous system of a CNC machine by installing an Active Dynamic Feed Compensation system and ignore the brain or CPU, then we have spent money on the wrong technology 1st.
Active Dynamic Feed Compensation (ADFC) is good technology for a CNC with good performance motion control. Also, ADFC is limited to processes that can be detected by vibration and acoustic measurement. Mold machining where HSM benefits are the greatest, ADFC benefits are marginal because during finishing, the vibration and acoustic methods of monitoring are not sensitive enough yet, or the performance signature cannot be identified cost effectively . Unless I am misinformed, the vibration or acoustic signature must be taught to the system before compensation dynamics can offer benefit. Molds are never production items where a process can be monitored and tuned to optimum performance. Who has time for this? In a production run, that’s a different story…
I maintain that in order to take advantage of maximized productivity in CNC machining, you have to systematically address the issues. Make a list of the contributing factors, depending on your CNC, at the top of your list of variables will be the most significant factor. Our’s is the Fadal control, contributing by far the most, in poor performance.
Camminc:
“The answer is - HSM has nothing to do with lighter cuts and higher feed rates that a machine might offer, special cutters, controllers, etc”
HSM cannot succeed without these “factors” that camminc said: “The answer is - HSM has nothing to do with”…
Let’s not replace one myth, with another…
__________________
Scott_bob |