so i got a sieg kx1 today. i got it from novakon.net who normally sell the how mau version of this mill, but they had a demo model of the first gen sieg kx1 that had never been used, and gave me a nice price so i took it.

the mill had no controller, so i bought a gecko g540 last night, which should be here tomorrow morning (now thats service). i have a pc set up with the mach demo and only need a 40v power supply to get going.

i didnt have time to check the mill over much, but its a cool little thing. its very very rigid for how small it is. some of the design details are also really cool, like the spindle head set up. it gave me an instant modding idea which may be one of my first projects for it.

hopefully by the weekend i have it all running and going through some test g-code.

fun fun

:)

so i went over the machine to see if anythign was broken, what the full travels were, stepper specs and the like. its a pretty well build machine. it had been sitting around a while and it seems one of the limit switch brackets was bent cause the table didnt have enough clearance. i fixed it up and made it clear the table. other than that, one cable was frayed from being moved around, and thats about it. novakon is very responsive and offered to fix everything - but i had already done it myself in this case.

steppers turned out to be 40v optimum at 3amps, so ill be using a 350w 36v psu.

the full usable travels i measured were interesting. the specs read 9.45" x, 4.3" y and 9.45" z. these i assume ar for the new version of the mill. mine is in fact 11" in the x, a whopping 7.5" in the y, and 8.3" in the z.

the full y travel isnt usable for a few reasons. the way covers knock it down to a hair under 7", but the centre of the spindle to the column is only 5.5". so practical travel ends up something over 5" which is still pretty decent. if i mounted a high speed spindle like a dremel or proxxon to the side i could set it up to use nearly 7" travel though.

for "safety" ill call my practical travels 10.75" x 8" x 5".

ill post some pics later.

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/566/kx1cheatiq2.jpg

Very cool and congrats! I'm jealous yours will be up and running before mine...

BTW, WTH is that stuffed booger thingy on top?

Very cool and congrats! I'm jealous yours will be up and running before mine...

BTW, WTH is that stuffed booger thingy on top?

that is the cheat. hes is a little yellow squeaky thing the some the times steal my ladytypes....
www.homestarrunner.com
(thats a line from the cartoon)

so i got my gecko, but didnt have anything else ready so i started to hack together a control system.

first i tried to use it on my workstation... mach didnt run on xp64.
installed xp32... realized.. my workstation has no paralell port.
bought a pci parallel card... wouldnt boot - dead card.
store was now closed so i found an old pentium 4 system (mobo cpu ram) and placed it on a table, hooked up a hard drive, cdrom, and power supply and went to instal windows....
no go.. .my apple monitors are digital only, video on the motherboard was analogue.
soooo, i pulled out an lcd glass that was for a special project, along with its controller board. i taped the glass to a box so it would not fall over and hooked it to the pc.
voila! worked. finished installing windows and mach.
ran the mach driver test and at all speeds up to 100k got a "system excellent" rating. i used the g540 xml file from gecko to make a preset.

next issue was the gecko psu. i didnt have one yet, noone in town had a 36/48v psu in stock. so, i took an old notebook 19v 5A psu - the lower limit on the gecko - plugged it into the gecko and got the red fault light. so far so good.

i was going step by step in the instruction, and along the way i disconected the gecko from the psu. when i reconnected it no light up. after a short while i realized i crossed the wires and blew the fuse. didnt have a spare fuse so i just shorted the fuse socket.

wheee! green light!
hooked up the x axis motor on the mill and whadya know... it moved!

so, after playing around in mach i managed to get the axes going on 19v at 85 ipm with no lost steps and good reasonable acceleration. this is not bad at all. it should go over 100ipm with the correct psu easily as the motors are rated for twice the rpm they are moving right now. this will be a very decent rapid traverse speed. acceleration on the machine is ok but not spectacular. i assume the new psu wont help here, as its purely a function of low end motor torque fighting the table friction. more powerful motors are probably a better choice - but i have somethign else planned instead for later.

next step is to make up propper cabling to the mill and get the spindle VFD running. i also need to put the pc and gecko and psu into an old atx chassis.

i did notice one thing in my axis testing, but im not sure what it means yet. the machine is repeatable to better than .0005" which i tested with good digital calipers taped to the table. but there is a lead discrepency between what mach says and the caliper says. its something in the range of .001" to .01" at various points. i dont know if this is lead error, or if my screw isnt precisely 4mm per turn or something else. i do know it isnt slop or backlash, its a 100% repeatable offset.

anyone know if this is normal for screws to be off the spec'd pitch? do i just need to use mach screw mapping to compensate?


in any case, im having fun and am surprised how relatively easy it is to set up a gecko g540 in mach. this should all be working by the weekend ready to cut some test pieces of wood n stuff.

its alive!
almost.

all the axes work, and the spindle runs, but im having issues with the pwm controller. its being jerky (literally) and never actually turns off completely.

even still, i manages to make a manual jogging test cut in some hardwood. 65ipm through 1/4" of purpleheart with the spindle at 5000 rpm. cut perfect. i think it could go through alot faster too, but 65ipm was my compromise in tuning the motors to have good acceleration and decent rapids. im still on the 19v psu though, so it might get a little faster when the new one comes.

so far so good though, i think this is goind to be a very very useful tool.

Sweet dude.

We need video! (youtube link?)

eep. i just ran the machine through some aluminium and some steel.

now, at this point i have the vise taped to the table with 2 sided tape. it has alot of give (.005 at least) and can only take so much force before it pops off the table.

i ran the machine through a 3/8" drill rod, skimming maybe .01" off the end in a full depth pass at 4 ipm and 5000rpm. had no issues. i ran it about .02" and you could hear it working harder, and it was moving the vise. clamped down properly i think it would run that cut at 25-30 ipm. surface finish was nice even though the workpiece was moving.

so then i tried some aluminium. not sure what grade, 6061 i think. my cutting ed calculator said i should be able to do 100 ipm with a depth of .5" and width of .04". this would use the full 500w of power in this spindle it claimed.

so, i ran it through at 100 ipm... and it worked fin for about an inch and forced the vise off the table. i think with the thing properly clamped i can mill aluminium like that no problem. i was climb milling here.

i also tried .12" width on the same cut at 10ipm, and it also forced the vise off, but did cut briefly.

once i get some t nuts and lock the vise down i will do some reall cutting. i am pleasantly surprised so far though. this thing is a little beast.

i will make some videos of it later this week

so i ran some sample gcode. the roadrunner file that comes with mach3. seemed to run it fine up to 100ipm - though it rarely got up to that speed during the program. it didnt seem to loose any steps at that speed, but i dont have anything to do really accurate measurements.

Haha, I would have never in a million years thought to hold a vise down with DS tape. I can't figure out if you're a genius or just insane :)

Haha, I would have never in a million years thought to hold a vise down with DS tape. I can't figure out if you're a genius or just insane :)

definitely genius.
:p

2 sided tape works rather well actually if you have enough surface ara and light loads. the vise doesnt have enough mounting surface though, so it doesnt hold that well. was ok for a quick test though.

so i ran some sample gcode. the roadrunner file that comes with mach3. seemed to run it fine up to 100ipm - though it rarely got up to that speed during the program. it didnt seem to loose any steps at that speed, but i dont have anything to do really accurate measurements.

something id never have thought. no lost steps at high speed, but lost ones at low speed. seems to be an issue with the gecko g540 where below a certain speed the motor just doesnt get any steps. putting it in sherline 1/2 step mode in mach fixed it up, though theoretically 1/2 step mode isnt as smooth and makes the motors noisy. works fine by me.

it seems now that accuracy on this machine is dependant on the controller, as a 1/2 step is .0004" of movement which is well within the repeatability of the machanicals.

so i think ive gotton this thing tuned as far as xyz motion goes. ive cut a piece of scrap aluminium with some gcode at 100 ipm. worked very poorly "dry", but rather well with a few drops of coolant. these were making .25" wide cuts at .02" depth. i think it could go 2-3 times that depth, but ive run into an issue with tool chatter. its not from fleax though as its only in 1 direction on the x axis.

it seems the head isnt 100% trammed correctly. this being an original kx1 though its not adjustable in any way. im wondering if its safe to put a thin shim under the column.

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/2886/kx1testcut01dk6.jpg

so i think ive gotton this thing tuned as far as xyz motion goes. ive cut a piece of scrap aluminium with some gcode at 100 ipm. worked very poorly "dry", but rather well with a few drops of coolant. these were making .25" wide cuts at .02" depth. i think it could go 2-3 times that depth, but ive run into an issue with tool chatter. its not from fleax though as its only in 1 direction on the x axis.

it seems the head isnt 100% trammed correctly. this being an original kx1 though its not adjustable in any way. im wondering if its safe to put a thin shim under the column.

I continue to be baffled by people bragging about running some hellacious feed rate on their mill. 100 IPM with a 1/4" cutter is 4X the recommended chipload for that size tool, which is a recipe for *really* short tool life, unless you're doing high-speed machining, which means >25K RPM. You'd be far better off cutting much slower, and deeper. You'll get just as much work done, your tools will thank you by lasting almost forever, and you'll get a better surface finish.

Regards,
Ray L.

I'm currious about all this feed speed stuff as well. My biggest issue is my 2krpm max spindle speed, bout the best i've done so far is .250 endmill, 2k rpm, .125 DOC and 2IPM..

isnt that a more realistic #?

is there a chart somewhere i can look at to get some balpark #'s? I've allways figured it like this:
DOC = .5*mill diameter
feed speed = (.001*# of flutes*spindle rpm) / 2
2ipm=(.001*2*2000) /2

I've tried 4IPM but it was pretty noisy, and when i slowed it down, things just seemed to smoothe out, so thats where i've been at.. me and my 4+ hour machining runs on one part....

suggestions?
new math to figure it by?
something i can look at and actually trust enough to risk trying and breaking a cutter?

I'm currious about all this feed speed stuff as well. My biggest issue is my 2krpm max spindle speed, bout the best i've done so far is .250 endmill, 2k rpm, .125 DOC and 2IPM..

isnt that a more realistic #?

is there a chart somewhere i can look at to get some balpark #'s? I've allways figured it like this:
DOC = .5*mill diameter
feed speed = (.001*# of flutes*spindle rpm) / 2
2ipm=(.001*2*2000) /2

I've tried 4IPM but it was pretty noisy, and when i slowed it down, things just seemed to smoothe out, so thats where i've been at.. me and my 4+ hour machining runs on one part....

suggestions?
new math to figure it by?
something i can look at and actually trust enough to risk trying and breaking a cutter?

RPM is determined by tool diameter, and material, by calculating SFPM - Surface Feet Per Minute as follows:

SFPM = (PI * ToolDiameter * RPM) / 12 or,

RPM = (SFPM * 12) / (PI * ToolDiameter)

This is usually rounded to:

RPM = SFPM * 4 / ToolDiameter

SFPM is a function of the tool material and the work material. For mild steel being cut with HSS cutters, SFPM should be around 80. For aluminum, 400 SFPM is a good average. If using carbide, double or triple those numbers. So, if you're cutting mild steel with a 1/2" HSS endmill:

RPM = (80 * 4) / 0.5 = 320 / 0.5 = 640 RPM

Feed rate is a function of RPM, the number of flutes on the tool, and the "chip load", which is the nominal thickness of the chip each tooth carves out:

FEED(in IPM) = RPM * #Flutes * ChipLoad

Chipload is a function cutter diameter, and for roughing cuts ranges from perhaps 0.0004" for very small endmills (1/16") to perhaps 0.006" for large ones (1"), and varies linearly for sizes in between. So, for a 1/2" 4-flute endmill, assume a 0.003" chipload, and you get:

FEED = 640 * 4 * 0.003 = 7.68 IPM

Depth of cut should be as much as you can get away with, which will be limited by spindle power, machine rigidity, and coolant used.

Now, you're not likely to reach this numbers on a small mill, due to the limited spindle power, limited rigidity, and inadequate cooling. So, start by setting the calculated RPM, pick what you feel is reasonably modest depth of cut, and start by feeding at perhaps half the calculated rate. Increase feed rate until finish quality starts to degrade. When you reach that point, back off on the feed rate perhaps 10%. Now increase depth of cut until the machine starts shaking, or the spindle motor starts laboring, then back off a bit.

There are no canned numbers, as every job is different, and you have to learn how to "read" the machine. Some rules of thumb:

Keep chip load as high as possible. If you find you have to reduce feed rate well below the calculated value, then reduce the RPM to keep the calculated and actual feed rates reasonably close. Running high RPM with low chip load will cook tools faster than anything.

USE COOLANT!! You will never come anywhere even close to the calculated numbers without coolant. A mist system will work wonders, with very little mess.

Here are some typical numbers I use on my knee mill, running mist coolant:

1/2" 4-flute HSS endmill cutting 1018 steel: 700 RPM, 5 IPM, 1/2" DOC
1/2" 2-flute HSS endmill cutting 6061 aluminum: 3100 RPM, 12 IPM, 1/2" DOC

Regards,
Ray L.

see, now that actually makes sence.. i am running a full flood coolant, coolmist 77, its mixed a little thicker than the bottle sugests, but its ok.. and i'm using an x3 mill, so i think mine is a little bigger than the one listed above, but small compared to a real knee mill.

ok, so now i need to sit down and figure my stuff out.. all i ever cut on this machine is t6061 alum, seems i should be able to work up a spread sheet of #'s to aim for, and then make adjustments as i go...

see, now that actually makes sence.. i am running a full flood coolant, coolmist 77, its mixed a little thicker than the bottle sugests, but its ok.. and i'm using an x3 mill, so i think mine is a little bigger than the one listed above, but small compared to a real knee mill.

ok, so now i need to sit down and figure my stuff out.. all i ever cut on this machine is t6061 alum, seems i should be able to work up a spread sheet of #'s to aim for, and then make adjustments as i go...

The spreadsheet I developed for my own machine is attached. There's a lot of extraneous stuff in there as well. I took what I learned, and wrote a Perl script that generates all the tool data for SheetCAM, calculating most of the parameters on the fly. Works really nice.

Regards,
Ray L.

eep!

dont burn me!

i used a calculator to do the feeds, but i screwed up and misread something. a safer feed would have been 50ipm and .003 feed per tooth at 5000rpm with a 3 flute end mill. of course i could go deeper and get the same removal rate as before or even more. and indeed (once i fixed the spindle tram) it made a world of difference when i ran it again.

right now im just screwing around, seeing what the machine can and cant do, and what makes for better finishing or roughing.

one thing i do know is i need a new vise. this one isnt quite parallel to the table using the upper part of the jaws because it flexes. serves me right for trying to save $40 but getting a drill press vise instead of a milling one.

eep!

dont burn me!

i used a calculator to do the feeds, but i screwed up and misread something. a safer feed would have been 50ipm and .003 feed per tooth at 5000rpm with a 3 flute end mill. of course i could go deeper and get the same removal rate as before or even more. and indeed (once i fixed the spindle tram) it made a world of difference when i ran it again.

right now im just screwing around, seeing what the machine can and cant do, and what makes for better finishing or roughing.

one thing i do know is i need a new vise. this one isnt quite parallel to the table using the upper part of the jaws because it flexes. serves me right for trying to save $40 but getting a drill press vise instead of a milling one.


0.003" is still WAY heavy for a 1/4" tool. 0.001-0.0015 is more like it. 0.003" is above the manufacturers recommendation for most 1/2" endmills.

Regards,
Ray L.

0.003" is still WAY heavy for a 1/4" tool. 0.001-0.0015 is more like it. 0.003" is above the manufacturers recommendation for most 1/2" endmills.

Regards,
Ray L.

this 1/4" HSCO end mill is rated for .0015" feed per tooth at 8000-12000rpm in aluminium aparently. so, according to them, 25ipm was the correct speed to run at 5000rpm. the same company has a carbide 2 flute rated for .003" feed per tooth side cutting. probably why i was confused.

in any case, it was not the appropriate tool for the task, which was surfacing the little block. as i said, im just goofing around at the moment.

this 1/4" HSCO end mill is rated for .0015" feed per tooth at 8000-12000rpm in aluminium aparently. so, according to them, 25ipm was the correct speed to run at 5000rpm.

in any case, it was not the appropriate tool for the task, which was surfacing the little block. as i said, im just goofing around at the moment.

I think you're doing a conversion wrong. Chipload does not change with RPM. If they recommend 0.0015", then you use 0.0015" regardless of RPM. Feedrate scales with RPM. So, if you're running 5K RPM, your feed should be roughly half what they recommend at 8-12K RPM, or about 12 IPM. Running 0.003", you'll end up chipping the cutting edges of the tool very quickly.

Regards,
Ray L.

I think you're doing a conversion wrong. Chipload does not change with RPM. If they recommend 0.0015", then you use 0.0015" regardless of RPM. Feedrate scales with RPM. So, if you're running 5K RPM, your feed should be roughly half what they recommend at 8-12K RPM, or about 12 IPM. Running 0.003", you'll end up chipping the cutting edges of the tool very quickly.

Regards,
Ray L.

they say .0015 feed at 8000rpm which = 36ipm. slow down to 5000rpm = 22.5ipm.

when i said they recomend 25ipm i has already compensated for spindle speed.

this 1/4" HSCO end mill is rated for .0015" feed per tooth at 8000-12000rpm in aluminium aparently. so, according to them, 25ipm was the correct speed to run at 5000rpm. the same company has a carbide 2 flute rated for .003" feed per tooth side cutting. probably why i was confused.

in any case, it was not the appropriate tool for the task, which was surfacing the little block. as i said, im just goofing around at the moment.

BTW - While making really fast, shallow cuts is fun to watch, it's expensive, as it makes very poor use of tools. You're basically doing all the cutting with the very tip of the tool, so the tip gets worn out while 98% of the tool is untouched. To get your moneys worth out of your tooling, you're much better off going as deep as possible, even if that means slowing down a lot. Always keep within the manufacturers recommended RPM and chipload. Running 10-20% below max RPM will increase tool life noticeably. The sweet spot is where your removal rate (depth of cut time width of cut time feedrate) is maximized. Where this happens is very much a function of the spindle power and rigidity of your machine. If the machine can stand it, you want to be running just a little short of where the tool breaks off.

Regards,
Ray L.

BTW - While making really fast, shallow cuts is fun to watch, it's expensive, as it makes very poor use of tools. You're basically doing all the cutting with the very tip of the tool, so the tip gets worn out while 98% of the tool is untouched. To get your moneys worth out of your tooling, you're much better off going as deep as possible, even if that means slowing down a lot. Always keep within the manufacturers recommended RPM and chipload. Running 10-20% below max RPM will increase tool life noticeably. The sweet spot is where your removal rate (depth of cut time width of cut time feedrate) is maximized. Where this happens is very much a function of the spindle power and rigidity of your machine. If the machine can stand it, you want to be running just a little short of where the tool breaks off.

Regards,
Ray L.

:)

yeah, asside from the surfacing thing, which is unavoidable in terms of cut depth... i had the notion that faster shallow passes would be ideal.. but this is not the case i see. it seems shallower widths and larger depth (side cutting) at a slow speed is not only better for chatter and finish (and as you say likely tool iife), but can take out material even faster.

so on the little pocket i made, plunging to full depth then spiraling out at 20-25 ipm (with that end mill) in passes of .1" would do a better finish and reduce the cycle time by 20-30% (depending on tool path).

ill learn all this stuff yet! :)

thanks.

im just glad my dad is on the other side of the country... hes been a machinist for 40 years. he would be yelling at me and saying things like "garbage in, garbage out".

Yeah, when I'm just removing metal, I run full depth (one diameter, sometimes more), and full width, or close to it. Do your plunges at half the feed rate, chip removal allowing.

Regards,
Ray L.

ok, so lemme see if i'm really understanding this...

Ray, your telling me to run the tool as deep as i can (or need to whichever is shallower) and calc the feeds from there.

where do you stand on the whole theory of never run a tool deeper than it is wide?
I do see your point, my 1/4 endmill has cutting edges for more than 1/2 inch up the body, so in theory i could cut at .500 with that tool, (assuming the machine can handle it) and in alum, with a max spindle speed of 2000 rpm, i would feed at 6 IPM? following your math?

i'm attaching the simple excel file i made to make sure i got the math right...

BTW - While making really fast, shallow cuts is fun to watch, it's expensive, as it makes very poor use of tools. You're basically doing all the cutting with the very tip of the tool, so the tip gets worn out while 98% of the tool is untouched. To get your moneys worth out of your tooling, you're much better off going as deep as possible, even if that means slowing down a lot. Always keep within the manufacturers recommended RPM and chipload. Running 10-20% below max RPM will increase tool life noticeably. The sweet spot is where your removal rate (depth of cut time width of cut time feedrate) is maximized. Where this happens is very much a function of the spindle power and rigidity of your machine. If the machine can stand it, you want to be running just a little short of where the tool breaks off.

Regards,
Ray L.


While this makes sense on a larger machine, the Taig is a little baby and has no business making deep cuts. With coolant, chipping away at .025" or .03" DOC with a .25" bit is probably maxed out for this machine - deeper cuts would minimize productivity. The cutting tools will last for months this way anyways with a properly matched rpm and coolant. Rather than maximize tooling, how about minimize destruction of the machine and maximize productivity. The $2/month tooling cost is insignificant IMO, as the machine will not be nearly as productive trying to deep cuts and will likely push itself out of tram if you get too aggressive. - kinda like the last couple statements - the sweet spot is limited by machine rigidity and HP(neither of which is the Taig's claim to fame), so shallow cuts at high rpm and reasonably high feed rates will be most productive, cost effective and least destructive. I always followed the rule that DOC shouldn't exceed 1/2 of the cutter diameter and maximum tool length should be less then 3x the cutter diameter to minimize tool breakage and deflection(rules can't always be followed of course).

i've never seen a tiag, how does it compare to the x3?

The Taig is an 85lb machine(1/4 the mass of an X3). It is quite competent and capable for its size - largely due to its 10k rpm spindle speed capability and generous travel for its size(similar table travels to the x3 really) - for small tooling, it is a cute, yet potent little hobby mill capable of accurate work. It isn't gonna remove material at any great rate of speed and I wouldn't go hammering through aluminum with a 1/2" bit with it, either.
The x3 is a much larger brute with a slow spindle - it needs a big bit and deep DOC to make any kind of productivity in aluminum.

ok, so lemme see if i'm really understanding this...

Ray, your telling me to run the tool as deep as i can (or need to whichever is shallower) and calc the feeds from there.

where do you stand on the whole theory of never run a tool deeper than it is wide?
I do see your point, my 1/4 endmill has cutting edges for more than 1/2 inch up the body, so in theory i could cut at .500 with that tool, (assuming the machine can handle it) and in alum, with a max spindle speed of 2000 rpm, i would feed at 6 IPM? following your math?

i'm attaching the simple excel file i made to make sure i got the math right...

"Ray, your telling me to run the tool as deep as i can (or need to whichever is shallower) and calc the feeds from there." - No, I'm saying calculate RPM, calculate feed rate based on that RPM and recommended chipload, then sert depth of cut as deep as spindle power and rigidity allow.

"where do you stand on the whole theory of never run a tool deeper than it is wide?" - Run as deep as you can get away with. If you're limited by spindle power, and some point, the spindle will slow down or stall. If rigidity is limited, surface finish will deteriorate as you go deeper. If the tool is the limiting factor, it'll start flexing, giving poor surface finish, or just snap off. The key to getting the most out of the machine is to gradually push it, while watching for signs of "stress". When you see those, back off 10% or so on whatever factor you were pushing. Nothing wrong with cutting 2X the diameter, if everything can handle it. With small tools, you won't get that far, but it's entirely feasible with large tools. The whole idea is find the operating that lets you remove the most material in the least time. On one machine, rigidity limited, that may be high RPM, shallow depth, high feed. On another, it may be a very deep cut, at lower feed. Every machine is different, which is why you don't see "canned" tables, only guidelines.

Regards,
Ray L.

ok, so lemme see if i'm really understanding this...

Ray, your telling me to run the tool as deep as i can (or need to whichever is shallower) and calc the feeds from there.

where do you stand on the whole theory of never run a tool deeper than it is wide?
I do see your point, my 1/4 endmill has cutting edges for more than 1/2 inch up the body, so in theory i could cut at .500 with that tool, (assuming the machine can handle it) and in alum, with a max spindle speed of 2000 rpm, i would feed at 6 IPM? following your math?

i'm attaching the simple excel file i made to make sure i got the math right...


Your math is correct.

Regards,
Ray L.

ok, see, now thats starting to make sence to me.. alrighty, so i was headed in the wrong direction then, i wastaking lighter and lighter cuts, and trying to feed faster.. and i should be experiementing in the other direction... at least with my larger tools.. ok, got it.. but at least now i have some math to give be a basic starting point.. and then i can push from there...

Personally i dont care if the thing is taking 20 passes at 100 IPM or 1 pass at 5 IPM, i just want my parts to get done faster, cause i'm tired of standing around for 4 hours watching one 5x5 rat maze heat exchanger cut 1/2" deep.

If i can cut 2x as deep, and not slow down to 1/2 speed, then i have gained. 99.9% of everything i do only needs to be rough cut, and most times if its within, oh, say, .005 then thats close enough for me.

Are you running coolant project5k? This alone can double or triple your feeds while providing a better finish.

While this makes sense on a larger machine, the Taig is a little baby and has no business making deep cuts. With coolant, chipping away at .025" or .03" DOC with a .25" bit is probably maxed out for this machine - deeper cuts would minimize productivity. The cutting tools will last for months this way anyways with a properly matched rpm and coolant. Rather than maximize tooling, how about minimize destruction of the machine and maximize productivity. The $2/month tooling cost is insignificant IMO, as the machine will not be nearly as productive trying to deep cuts and will likely push itself out of tram if you get too aggressive. - kinda like the last couple statements - the sweet spot is limited by machine rigidity and HP(neither of which is the Taig's claim to fame), so shallow cuts at high rpm and reasonably high feed rates will be most productive, cost effective and least destructive. I always followed the rule that DOC shouldn't exceed 1/2 of the cutter diameter and maximum tool length should be less then 3x the cutter diameter to minimize tool breakage and deflection(rules can't always be followed of course).


*eyes the thread title*

no taigs here :)
the sieg kx1 is far more rigid and accurate than the taig. its actually more on par with the kx3 for strength, which is in turn vastly superior to the manual x3.

the machine itself has NO issues with the type of cuts i was taking... they just werent safe for the tooling.

it takes over 50lbs of force to deflect the head .001" on this thing and thats more than the spindle will exert in most cases. we get something like 63lbs of force on a cutting edge in a 1/4" bit if it was stopped dead on a single edge. the bit will break before the machine.

*eyes the thread title*

no taigs here :)
the sieg kx1 is far more rigid and accurate than the taig. its actually more on par with the kx3 for strength, which is in turn vastly superior to the manual x3.

the machine itself has NO issues with the type of cuts i was taking... they just werent safe for the tooling.

it takes over 50lbs of force to deflect the head .001" on this thing and thats more than the spindle will exert in most cases. we get something like 63lbs of force on a cutting edge in a 1/4" bit if it was stopped dead on a single edge. the bit will break before the machine.

I have had a cnc'd ext. table x1 and 6k rpm spindle setup - I wouldn't call it FAR superior to the Taig by any means. It is a little burlier and perhaps a little more rigid, but I actually preferred the Taig(better finish on the parts). It is still a small machine, though the limit is probably spindle power more than rigidity. Somehow I thought we got onto the Taig somewhere in this thread - I must be mixing up the threads! I apologize. :)

I have had a cnc'd ext. table x1 and 6k rpm spindle setup - I wouldn't call it FAR superior to the Taig by any means. It is a little burlier and perhaps a little more rigid, but I actually preferred the Taig(better finish on the parts). It is still a small machine, though the limit is probably spindle power more than rigidity. Somehow I thought we got onto the Taig somewhere in this thread - I must be mixing up the threads! I apologize. :)

:)

also to note... sieg X1 is NOT equal to a sieg KX1. the have the same general dimensions but dont share any castings that im aware. the kx1 also has ground ballscrews and other such fun features. it really is an impressive machine for the size and while i dont plan on abusing it, i wont be nursing it either.

It looks the same to me - not the stock x1, but the extended y travel modified x1 - the castings look unchanged aside from color- including the spindle(though they removed the quill). Ground ballscrews make a big difference I am sure. It looks a bit nicer than mine did - more refined and more bells and whistles, but it also looks largely the same - not a bad machine at all. I hope you have great luck with it. :)

It looks the same to me

looks are decieving :)

i think the most relevant difference is the column on mine is wider and deeper and solid cast iron (not hollowed). this makes the dovetails wider, and the spindle head while looking similar is also wider. this is probably the biggest improvement in strength on the machine. it doesnt have the swivel base of course either which also helps.

the new kx1 has a wider column still, but its hollow - its like the x3 just smaller. i dont know if thats better or worse yet. ill probably see one at novakon in the next few weeks. the new one also has a redesigned head casting which is tramable and a faster 7k rpm spindle. id like to also order the way covers of the new model too, much nicer than mine.

so, experiences cnc-ing one of the many x1 variations is probably not a valid reference for the kx1 (old or new version).



:)

Are you running coolant project5k? This alone can double or triple your feeds while providing a better finish.


full flood, coolmist 77

I guess you've never seen the pics of my rig....

heres a few of the pics i took while working on the conversion
http://www.jpcustomcrafts.com/new%20shop/photogalleries/convertingx3tocnc/Album1.htm

looks are decieving :)

i think the most relevant difference is the column on mine is wider and deeper and solid cast iron (not hollowed). this makes the dovetails wider, and the spindle head while looking similar is also wider. this is probably the biggest improvement in strength on the machine. it doesnt have the swivel base of course either which also helps.

the new kx1 has a wider column still, but its hollow - its like the x3 just smaller. i dont know if thats better or worse yet. ill probably see one at novakon in the next few weeks. the new one also has a redesigned head casting which is tramable and a faster 7k rpm spindle. id like to also order the way covers of the new model too, much nicer than mine.

so, experiences cnc-ing one of the many x1 variations is probably not a valid reference for the kx1 (old or new version).



:)

Sounds like a better machine altogether. Mine didn't have the swivel z axis(not interested in that). The 2 biggest shortcomings I remember was the spindle motor was kind of wimpy and the stupid steel gibs on the table were near impossible to make smooth AND accurate - I ended up making my own brass gibs, but it was still an exercise to make it smooth. The taig, conversely, was smooth and easily produced superior finishes when tuned correctly(although it needed adjustment fairly frequently to keep backlash below .001").

full flood, coolmist 77

I guess you've never seen the pics of my rig....

heres a few of the pics i took while working on the conversion
http://www.jpcustomcrafts.com/new%20shop/photogalleries/convertingx3tocnc/Album1.htm

Flood is nice - i use a fogbuster myself - pretty happy with it. Sounds like you just need more rpms for the small bits you use. :)

yep, 2k rpm just isnt getting it when i'm running a 1/32" endmill

thats why i end up with such long runs...