So far I've seen two automatic tool changers for the X2:

A) The Z-Bot changer, as sold by littlemachineshop.com

B) Dan's hossmachine changer


The Z-Bot mounts to the left side of the table. No tools overhang the table, but it has to have enough space over the workpiece to swing the longest tool into position under the spindle. The tools are mounted in E-clips mounted on a chain drive. The headstock positions itself to the correct Z height for the E-clips to match the slots in the toolholders, and then the table scoots over to snap the E-clip onto the tool. The headstock then rises up off the toolholder and the chain indexes around to the next desired tool.

The Z-Bot is very expensive, but after looking at the manuals on the littlemachineshop.com site, it does a whole lot - there's a whole separate QC controller, a power drawbar is included, Mach3 screens included, and a whole array of interlocks and safety devices. It appears to be a well-engineered system, but $1500 is completely out of my price range.

Dan's hossmachine changer is much simpler. Tools sit in a rack on the left side of the table, occupying part of the table's travel area. The table simply positions itself under the headstock, which then runs up and down to grab the toolholders. You have to provide a power drawbar to operate it; any power drawbar will work; Dan provides plans for those, too. You can build Dan's design for peanuts, but the more rows of tools you mount, the more X workspace you lose. Dan gets around that with his "X2 Freak" mod to increase table travel.


I lust for an ATC, but the Z-Bot isn't in my price range. I could build Dan's design easily enough, but I don't want to lose the table space (or go down the X2 Freak trail; I'd like to get this thing finished someday!).

Over the weekend I've been sketching another method. Basically, it's a carrousel (like one of those rotary CD changer tables) mounted on swinging arm attached to the side of the column. It would require a stepper to rotate the table and an air cylinder to move it from "park" to under the spindle.

Operation:
1) ATC mode runs headstock to top of column
2) air cylinder swings tool carrousel under spindle (indexed to an empty space)
3) power drawbar opens, dropping tool into counterbored slot in carrousel
4) stepper indexes tool carrousel so correct tool is in position
5) headstock lowers onto tool. (The swinging arm holding the carrousel has some compliance via a spring in the hinge)
6) drawbar closes
7) headstock lifts tool out of pocket in carrousel
8) air cylinder swings tool carrousel back to park position

This all assumes the carrousel is counterbored to hold the toolholders and slotted so the tools can be removed after being lifted enough to clear the counterbore. You could use big E-clips if you can figure out how to make them.

It's a lot simpler than it sounds; it's just a swinging tray that spins to present the right tool to the spindle.

Pros:
All toolchanges occur near maximum Z. You don't have to move the table unless a tool would hit the workpiece.

No loss of table workspace.

Tools stored high and off to the side would collect fewer chips that might cause trouble.

Cons:
Requires a stepper output and a relay output for the air cylinder.

Tools not positively retained; they could dance around if the column vibrates.

Soon there will be 3.
Already a work in progress my friend,
shouldn't be too much longer.
Hoss 16 Tool Automatic Tool Changer (http://www.cnczone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56451)
Would have had it completed if the console didn't take so long.
I have the software and electronics done, just need to finish milling the metal bits.
All the hardware is on hand.
It won't just be for the X2 though,
any mill with power drawbar and 3/4 in. tool holding capabilities will do. :wave:

The extra USD 1,500 for an all bells and whistles tool-changer would buy an x3 or x4 with the extra table space/travel to accommodate the fixed tool changer. So no loss of table space and better machine into the bargain.

Something to think about at least.

Phil


I could build Dan's design easily enough, but I don't want to lose the table space

Phil he also said that it was way out of his price range. He is thinking about making one.

X2cnc take a look at this link. I know it's not for the X2, but I have been drawing up one of these for my X2. You can sort of figure out how it works by just looking at some of the pictures. http://home.insightbb.com/~joevicar3/Automatic_Tool_Changer_Plans.htm

How does one set up an air cylinder like that? What exactly would be needed to trigger it?

Thanks,
Dave

...from homeshopaccessories.com, there's also an ATC yahoo group for further ideas:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minitoolchanger/

Yes but it is still "something to think about at least".

A person might not be able to justify 1500 for a toolchanger on an X2 but a person might be able to justify 1500 for a more capable machine plus a tool changer.

Phil


Phil he also said that it was way out of his price range. He is thinking about making one.

Just as side note, you might want to consider a Geneva drive for the indexer. It might be easier, stronger or some other handy adjective than a straight stepper. Certainly it could be cheaper to drive with a small gear motor and limit switch for position detection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_mechanism

but $1500 is completely out of my price range

He has the X2, and wants to make an ATC for it. Clearly he wants to save some money too. If he wanted a new machine he would have said so (and I bet he knows about the other machines). If he had $1500 just lying around, he would probably buy a bigger machine, but he would still want the ATC. Getting an ATC for the bigger machine costs just as much.

So to keep on topic. Triggering the air cylinder (or cylinders) needs some kind of logical control unit to function. I would also add some kind of sensor to the system to check where the cylinders are at. You could probably let the computer do the controlling if you have some suitable outputs. In my design I have switched out the cylinder moving the head with a stepping motor and a threaded rod. You could also switch out the drawbar cylinder with a stepping motor too, but you would probably need some sort of gearing to get enough torque to compress the springs. If you use stepping motors for both tasks then you could use a micro controller to take care of signal handeling (that is if you know how to program one or know someone who can).

This is in no way an easy design, but it does look kind of cool, and it doesn't get in the way.

Also like praetor pointed out. The yahoo group has lots of pictures and information on it too.

http://home.insightbb.com/~joevicar3/Automatic_Tool_Changer_Plans.htm

I'll be danged if I can figure out how that thing works; from the pictures, the geometry looks like it's trying to cram the toolholders into the spindle at an angle.

Y
A person might not be able to justify 1500 for a toolchanger on an X2 but a person might be able to justify 1500 for a more capable machine plus a tool changer.
Phil

I have a Gorton 9J out in the shop. It's plenty capable. However, it's 102F out in the shop, and it's 81 in here in the computer room where the X2 is...

Sorry for suggested an alternative way of looking at the issue.(chair)

You did of course miss my point in you hurry to chastise me. Yes the larger machine still needs the ATC but the whole point was that you can sacrifice some of the additional space to accommodate a simple static tool changer.

Phil

PS: My suggestion may not be of interest to x2cnc but it might give others with similar goals something to think about.


He has the X2, and wants to make an ATC for it. Clearly he wants to save some money too. If he wanted a new machine he would have said so (and I bet he knows about the other machines). If he had $1500 just lying around, he would probably buy a bigger machine, but he would still want the ATC. Getting an ATC for the bigger machine costs just as much.

There is a forum for this toolchanger on Yahoo.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minitoolchanger/

There is a movie of it in operation in the files section.

Phil

I'll be danged if I can figure out how that thing works; from the pictures, the geometry looks like it's trying to cram the toolholders into the spindle at an angle.

You did of course miss my point in you hurry to chastise me.


I wasn't chastising you. The wonder of electronic communication is that we can talk nearly instantly to anyone; the downside is that sometimes the feeblebrotzes get snarpfurbled.

X2cnc, he was talking about me.

Why post such a thing in this topic? He is asking about an ATC for his X2 and I'm sure he knows all about the bigger machines. People looking for bigger machines will not go into a topic about ATCs looking for machine recommendations.

And even if he got a bigger machine, he would still have to pay a lot of money for an ATC. I have not yet seen any ATCs for the X3 or X4, so he would have to think up one on his own. Just a lot more work and money.

It would have been a good point if he was planning on spending such a large amount of money on an ATC, but here seems kind of pointless. It might help some of those other people watching this topic, but my bet is that they came here to look for some cool ATC designs. I would say that X2cnc seems like a smart enough guy that he can figure out what is more economical on his own.

X2cnc if you want to, I could send you some pictures of my design. If you have solidworks, I could even send you the cad files.

X2cnc if you want to, I could send you some pictures of my design. If you have solidworks, I could even send you the cad files.

I don't have Solidworks, but I'd love to see some pictures of your design.

I'm sure the swinging-carrousel design I came up with would work, but I started this thread hoping someone would suggest a different, perhaps better, idea.

I'm just noodling here, but how about a straight rack that mounts to the table side (or end) and slides or pivots on and off? Nothing to turn with a stepper. Nothing to index. Either an air cylinder or a gearmotor could simply drive it onto the table or back to park.

When not needed, the table space is available. Once shifted into place, it would work just like Hoss's passive rack.

CR.

I think the problem is that you can't use the space on the table for a part if the tool rack needs to move into that space for a tool change, so you may just as well leave it permanently bolted to the table. It would work if the rack were up at maximum Z, operating above the work piece, but then if your Z is slow tool changes could be like watching grass grow.

Phil

I'm just noodling here, but how about a straight rack that mounts to the table side and slides or pivots on and off? Nothing to turn with a stepper. Nothing to index. Either an air cylinder or a gearmotor could simply drive it onto the table or back to park.

When not needed, the table space is available. Once shifted into place, it would work just like Hoss's passive rack.

CR.

I think of the space as mainly used for work clearance. I doubt if many folks would be bolting a vise to the table end. I'm envisioning some rails bolted to the sides of the table, and a simple rack that slides onto or off of the table space at the end.

CR.

I think the problem is that you can't use the space on the table for a part if the tool rack needs to move into that space for a tool change, so you may just as well leave it permanently bolted to the table. It would work if the rack were up at maximum Z, operating above the work piece, but then if your Z is slow tool changes could be like watching grass grow.

Phil

Does tool change speed matter at all on an X-2? It's not as though your cycle times are going to be measured in seconds - I would have thought that reliability is the key here...

I may not be understanding your concept fully but where is the advantage over a fixed tool rack if the parts are small relative to the available table area.

If the parts are large and need all of the table then the sliding rack would have to move into the x/y envelope above the part.

Phil

I think of the space as mainly used for work clearance. I doubt if many folks would be bolting a vise to the table end. I'm envisioning some rails bolted to the sides of the table, and a simple rack that slides onto or off of the table space at the end.

CR.

I think of the space as mainly used for work clearance. I doubt if many folks would be bolting a vise to the table end. I'm envisioning some rails bolted to the sides of the table, and a simple rack that slides onto or off of the table space at the end.

CR.

Actually this is what I was working out and why I wanted to know more about how air cylinders function as I know NOTHING about them :confused:

I was thinking of mounting a changer rack on one of these air operated slides and it would come in from the side. Does anyone know where I can learn more about setting up a small air cylinder to actuate something like this? I'd like to be able to work it with a Macro through Mach 3.

Thanks-
Dave

I may not be understanding your concept fully but where is the advantage over a fixed tool rack if the parts are small relative to the available table area.

If the parts are large and need all of the table then the sliding rack would have to move into the x/y envelope above the part.

Phil

Lighten up man! HeHe.

This was just a noodled possible different-way suggestion to someone already planning a movable tool rack. I don't intend to build it--So don't have to defend it.

Obviously if the parts are ALWAYS large, there would be no benefit. The only advantage would be for smaller parts--Then You would HAVE the space for the occasional large part, but could not use the toolchanger for that part.

I have 16 1/2 inches of X travel, and 18 1/2 inches of Z travel, so I will use a fixed table rack when I ATC my SX3.

CR.

Actually this is what I was working out and why I wanted to know more about how air cylinders function as I know NOTHING about them :confused:

I was thinking of mounting a changer rack on one of these air operated slides and it would come in from the side. Does anyone know where I can learn more about setting up a small air cylinder to actuate something like this? I'd like to be able to work it with a Macro through Mach 3.

Thanks-
Dave

Air cylinders move quite abruptly. I'm not sure this would be good for a rack full of loose tools. (Remember: You will want slots for the widest tools so they can slide out.)

If I were building this rack, I would use a small gearmotor and a short threaded rod with limit switches at each end.

CR.

Air cylinders move quite abruptly. I'm not sure this would be good for a rack full of loose tools. If I were building this rack, I would use a small gearmotor and a short threaded rod with limit switches at each end.

CR.

That's actually a valid point, thanks. There's no way to slow them down, possibly a regulator?

I'm so lighten up I'm in danger of floating away.:wave:

I'm planning on making a fixed rack tool-changer. As far as I can see it is a very simple and elegant solution, possibly not very cool:cool: but it gets the job done for the minimum of effort. I am therefore interested in any improvements versus the associated complications. So keep noodling and posting please. Of course you don't have to defend it but it is useful when exploring the +'s and -'s.

Phil:)


Lighten up man! HeHe.

This was just a noodled possible different-way suggestion to someone already planning a movable tool rack. I don't intend to build it--So don't have to defend it.

Obviously if the parts are ALWAYS large, there would be no benefit. The only advantage would be for smaller parts--Then You would HAVE the space for the occasional large part, but could not use the toolchanger for that part.

I have 16 1/2 inches of X travel, and 18 1/2 inches of Z travel, so I will use a fixed table rack when I ATC my SX3.

CR.

They can be controlled by regulating the supply and holding some backpressure on the exhaust (small needle valves are often sufficient). The biggest problem for many is the noisy compressor.

Phil

That's actually a valid point, thanks. There's no way to slow them down, possibly a regulator?

I'm planning on making a fixed rack tool-changer. As far as I can see it is a very simple and elegant solution. Phil:)

I agree! For me, simple and functional are the way to go.

How many tools do you want to put on your rack? I'm thinking three rows of four, with slots for large tools on the frontmost rack.

CR.

I have to say I'm impressed by your ability to know what other people may or may not be interested in.;) However I'm less impressed by you ability to grasp the concept of a simple, low cost ,fixed tool rack bolted to the table and using the mills existing x,y and z motions to achieve the tool changes.:idea:

Phil

PS: You seem to have picked up an annoying habit of wanting to speak for other people.:nono:



...... It might help some of those other people watching this topic, but my bet is that they came here to look for some cool ATC designs. I would say that X2cnc seems like a smart enough guy that he can figure out what is more economical on his own......

......And even if he got a bigger machine, he would still have to pay a lot of money for an ATC. I have not yet seen any ATCs for the X3 or X4, so he would have to think up one on his own. Just a lot more work and money.....

My thoughts are to design a single row rack that maximises the width of the y travel. Then make several similar racks and mount as many as the job requires, taking into account available space. You could then also mount then as close to the work piece as possible, optimising the speed of tool changes for the job in hand. Also you could possibly mount then along the x-axis if the job warranted it. Very flexible and uses the minimum amount of x y travel for the job in hand.

Phil


I agree! For me, simple and functional are the way to go.

How many tools do you want to put on your rack? I'm thinking three rows of four, with slots for large tools on the frontmost rack.

CR.

X2cnc, he was talking about me.

Why post such a thing in this topic? He is asking about an ATC for his X2 and I'm sure he knows all about the bigger machines. People looking for bigger machines will not go into a topic about ATCs looking for machine recommendations.

And even if he got a bigger machine, he would still have to pay a lot of money for an ATC. I have not yet seen any ATCs for the X3 or X4, so he would have to think up one on his own. Just a lot more work and money.

It would have been a good point if he was planning on spending such a large amount of money on an ATC, but here seems kind of pointless. It might help some of those other people watching this topic, but my bet is that they came here to look for some cool ATC designs. I would say that X2cnc seems like a smart enough guy that he can figure out what is more economical on his own.

X2cnc if you want to, I could send you some pictures of my design. If you have solidworks, I could even send you the cad files.

I never spoke for him. I just assumed that he was a intelligent person that knows what he wants. So where was I speaking for him? Please phil. Point it out to me.

I can imagine what people might be interested in, and I have not stated that I know what they are interested in.

Seriously Phil. Where have I said that I don't grasp that concept? Seems like you are the one speaking for other people.

And about those quotes you are using. Lets go through them.

...... It might help some of those other people watching this topic, but my bet is that they came here to look for some cool ATC designs. I would say that X2cnc seems like a smart enough guy that he can figure out what is more economical on his own......

My BET. Yes. I never stated that they were absolutely 100% comming in here looking for ATC designs, but I'm assuming thats why they are here. After all the topic says "X2 automatic tool changer". Kind of gives you a clue.

I'm also assuming that X2cnc is a smart person and that he can figure out what is more economical on his own. I never said that I know what he is thinking of or what he wants. I'm just saying that if he wanted a new machine, he would seek the information himself. He never asked for a new machine, or expressed the need for one, so I did not see the need to point one out for him. Guess you know what people are thinking about huh?

......And even if he got a bigger machine, he would still have to pay a lot of money for an ATC. I have not yet seen any ATCs for the X3 or X4, so he would have to think up one on his own. Just a lot more work and money.....

So this is not true? If he followed your advice he would end up with an X3 or X4 without a tool changer. And the tool changer was what he wanted in the first place. Kind of stupid don't you think? Or maybe you think I was speaking for him again? I was stating the obvious. New machine, but still no ATC.

Your advice so far for people who want an ATC for their X2 is to get a bigger machine so that you can mount a smipler ATC on the table to reduce travel. Seems like you can't grasp more advanced concepts. I would try to make the best out of what I have. The Z-Bot is an elegant sollution to the problem, and it's not that hard to make if you can set up enough axis on the controller or you can make some sort of micro controller for it. The only disadvantage with that design is that it also limits the length of the pieces you can machine. It gets in the way of long pieces that hangs out over the sides of the table. Also if you want a 4th axis and want to give it as much space as possible, you would have to place it further out then the table can move. So by mounting a tool changer on the head of the machine, or on the collum in a way, you could avoid these problems.

PS: Jeg gidder ikke engang svare igjen, fordi dette er meningsløst. Jeg synes han skal få lov til å lage en verktøysskifter til sin X2 om han har lyst. Det er tross alt derfor han laget dette topicet. Hvis du vil diskutere videre, så kan vi gjøre det utenfor forumet og jeg vil gjerne gi deg e-mailen til min msn konto. Du virker også som en intelligent person og jeg har ikke noe i mot deg overhode, men jeg syntes det var et dumt forslag. Mest fordi alle som har en X2 får høre igjen og igjen at de heller skal invistere i en større maskin uansett om de har tenkt tanken eller ei.
I'm sorry about that, but I'm just saying to phil that I'm backing out of this discussion to not get too far off-topic.

Air cylinders move quite abruptly. I'm not sure this would be good for a rack full of loose tools. (Remember: You will want slots for the widest tools so they can slide out.)

You control the speed of the air cylinder with a needle valve. They look and work just like aquarium valves.

Motion would have to be reasonably slow to keep from throwing the tool out of the rack when the carrousel reaches the end of its travel.

My design not only has the tools loose, but the sides of the carrousel are cut away so the changer can straddle the tool. When the drawbar releases, the toolholder falls into a counterbore, say .100-.200" deep. The front corners of the counterbore, maybe 1/8" on each side, are all that would keep the tool in place.

By contrast, the Z-Bot uses big spring clips to hold its tools, and Hoss' first-design changer drops the tools into holes in a tray where they can't rattle out.

I think the fixed rack is very hard to beat. However, for a high-capacity design, you could use a magazine-type approach like you see on big machines. They have a swinging arm that's sort of like a dumbell. OK, kind of hard to explain, here's a 1000 words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNn-Yr7it5s

I think the fixed rack is very hard to beat. However, for a high-capacity design, you could use a magazine-type approach like you see on big machines. They have a swinging arm that's sort of like a dumbell. OK, kind of hard to explain, here's a 1000 words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNn-Yr7it5s

While those arm-type changers are impressive, they are amazingly complicated - that thing has a chain-type magazine that has to index to the correct tool, then the tool pocket has to be flipped through 90 degrees, then the tool in the spindle is swapped with the new one by the arm, the old tool goes back into the pocket and back into the chain!

Very nice, but not really the same ball game. So this brings to light the first question a person should ask before embarking on the design and building of an ATC. "What game do I want to play?"

One extreme is a quick and dirty route to fill a need, the other extreme could end up being a hobby in itself.

Phil

I think the fixed rack is very hard to beat. However, for a high-capacity design, you could use a magazine-type approach like you see on big machines. They have a swinging arm that's sort of like a dumbell. OK, kind of hard to explain, here's a 1000 words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNn-Yr7it5s

While those arm-type changers are impressive, they are amazingly complicated -

Agreed. Having watched that type of tool change up close 600,000 times (rough estimate ;) ) they are a joy. Also the #1 reason for paging the maintenance department !

This might be an easier VMC design to copy

I've worked with a few Milltronics. Very reliable on the toolchange.

edit/ OOPS will fix the link in a moment!
edit2/ dammit I don't have time for this! Google a milltronics partner toolchanger if interested.

YouTube - For Sale1991 Milltronics Partner 1 Series

Very nice, but not really the same ball game. So this brings to light the first question a person should ask before embarking on the design and building of an ATC. "What game do I want to play?"

Good question. And as with so many good questions, the answer is "it depends."

At the very least, I'd want a regular end mill, a ball end mill, and a center drill. I could drill, countersink, counterbore, and tap on the drill press. So, three would be the minimum number of tools to be worth the trouble.

Of course, I *want*, oh, maybe a hundred tools, more if I want to put every standard-size drill bit and tap in there. Then I'd have a giant toolchanger with an X2 accessory hanging off the side.

The answer becomes "no less than three, up to the point where the design becomes awkward or expensive." I would be reasonably happy with six. Sixteen, like Dan's design, looks like more than I could ever need. Of course, I thought something similar when I went from storing data on cassette tapes to that gigantic 360Kb floppy drive...

The way I see it, 80% of the benefit is in the power drawbar and tool holders, at least for the way I work. Those will eliminate most of the time and drudgery. I'm not going to run unattended really--I just don't trust things well enough to walk away for any length of time. I can probably walk over to the mill and change a tool when it beeps as quickly as the ATC could. Otherwise the parts I make don't require so many tool changes that it would help me enough to justify the added complexity.

I think the fixed rack is very hard to beat. However, for a high-capacity design, you could use a magazine-type approach like you see on big machines. They have a swinging arm that's sort of like a dumbell. OK, kind of hard to explain, here's a 1000 words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNn-Yr7it5s

Yeah that's a Matsuura like we have at work(only ours is cleaner)
What you can't see is there is another mechanism that pulls the tools from the
magazine (36) and positions it for the swing arm to grab.
I stared at it trying to figure a way to do it on the little mill but it gave me a headache.
Too much going on, almost Rube Goldberg.
The Milltronics was one of the inspirations for the new ATC, something similar
on our Cincinnati Sabre Cincinnati Sabre
Really 6 tools are more than enough for any job and you can change tools
quicker by hand (or a helper monkey could)
it's a cool luxury is all and don't we need indulge ourselves now and then?
I made it with 16 to hold a six pack on there:)
Hoss

The Milltronics was one of the inspirations for the new ATC, something similar
on our Cincinnati Sabre

Ah! That's it! That's precisely what I was trying to describe earlier. A swinging tray that rotates the tool into the Z path, and the spindle curtseys over the tools to make the change.

Fixed the earlier post to include the video. What gremlins prevented that from working yesterday remains a mystery. Anyway the machine Hoss showed is very similar. Milltronics has another design where the carousel moves to the spindle in a linear move and includes a trap door. The pivoting arm type shown would probably be easier to duplicate.

The ATC I'm working on moves the carousel out in a linear move,
pivoting would have been simpler.(chair)
but I wanted ( I thought) to have the possibility of having 2 rows of tools (31 total!)
probably never see the light of day though.
Then again;)

Okay. I started cutting metal for mine this afternoon. I was waiting to see if you had any neat tricks I could copy, but what the heck...

I remembered why I went with a linear move now, because thats the way Hoss, I mean, Haas does it.:)
Haas Tool Change

Found another video of the Matsuura tool change that shows all the moves.
Matsuura Tool Change