ISO 30 Spindle - Page 3


Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 116

Thread: ISO 30 Spindle

  1. #41
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    262
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    The retention knob is a modular acessory, there are at least 3 types in common use, and many many other types out there. So you can take the ret stud out and simply thread a drawbar into where it was, the NTB-30 threads are purpose desiigned for a drawbar I'd think, tha CAT holders on the other hand the threads were not purpose designed for that use(drawbar) ..so will they wear excessively ?? One thing that comes to mind is there might be enough room dia wise to use a threaded bushing that you could change as it became worn, thus the threads in your holder would not wear out. To be honest I have seen drawbars get stripped and worn but do not recall ever having an R8 collet or a holder's threads wear out even in daily use with a power drawbar.

    Another idea to throw in the mix is the devlieg flash changer.


    Billhttp://cgi.ebay.com/DeVlieg-Flash-Change-40-Taper-3-8-End-Mill-Holder_W0QQitemZ130058514671QQihZ003QQcategoryZ450 19QQcmdZViewItem

    I have used these in the 50 size and they repeat very accurately, and I have ran 2" HSS endmills with them on a boring mill, they are very rigid.....they would require the spindle to stick out of the head further....BUT you could use the flash on some stuff and normal holders with a drawbar when you wanted to.

    The other posibility is to drill and tap the FACE of the spindle to allow bolting a cutter directly to it, many horizontal mills and hydrotels were made this way, ends up a very short rigid solid deal for just slab milling



  2. #42
    Gold Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    2512
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    The tolereance on the gauge line for both NMTB type spindles tapers and toolholder tapers appears to be + or - 0.015" on each. So there are a number of potential problems with blue printing.

    1) You would have to blue print every toolholder as well as the spindle.
    2) If you were unlucky your standard spindle and tool holders would require material to be added in order to blue print.
    3) The tool holder flange face would require precision grinding.
    4) I think the precision necessary to ensure the 7/24 taper and the flange "come up" together may be tight in the extreme.

    I would suggest that if you plan to use the flange of an 7/24 NMTB taper as a part of the location system that you dig out the tolerance specs for something like the HSK system and evaluate if you are able to duplicate or do better on a NMTB taper. I think the 1:10 taper of the HSK system may be the key to achieving the tolerances necessary for dual contact.

    This link makes some very interesting initial reading.

    http://www.mmsonline.com/articles/100105.html

    Regards
    Phil


    Quote Originally Posted by Willbird View Post
    The flange as originally intended does NOT locate the tool. HOWEVER they DO make a setup that blueprints everything so it does bear on the flage for CAT tooling, this makes the system more rigid and allows use of lomger milling and boring tools. You COULD do that with r8 too...

    Bill




  3. #43
    Gold Member BobWarfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2502
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    In the end, I think a useful key to repeatability on a home built machine with cheap toolholders is going to be a tool touchsetter. It's straightforward to tie one back into Mach 3 and it eliminates the need to fuss with presetting the tool or worry about how closely your toolchanger and taper system can repeat. Just write your toolchange macro so it touches off the toolsetter to establish what's really going on.

    For those looking to do some experiments, it seems relatively straightforward to take this radial stiffness measure between two spindles with a toolholder and either a reference rod in the holder. You just need a dial indicator to measure the deflection and a consistent means of applying sideways force. It would be quite interesting to see these figures even across different mills with the same taper system. At the top of this page are measurements for a Bridgeport VMC (not an R8 Bridgie as most think of them!):

    http://news.thomasnet.com/fullstory/455492

    Radial stiffness is quoted as: 60 lbf/0.00004 in

    That same Bridgeport, BTW, has 4 angular contact bearings on the driven end of each ballscrew and 3 on the floating end. The ballscrews are 32mm in diameter. The spindle is running 4 angular contact bearings at the nose and a single roller bearing at the rear.

    http://www.jitsupplygroup.com/machinery/cncc.pdf

    Compare and contrast that to some of these low end machines and conversions!

    Best,

    BW



  4. #44
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    208
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    I agree with Bob. Once a mill has CNC controls, using a touch sensor eliminates the axial variable. Then it comes down to whether the ISO-30 or the R8 is better radially. I'm still wading through web sites to find reputable tests that show why it would be better to switch from an ISO-30 to an R8. So far, 100% of the recommendations have been just the opposite, to switch from R8 to ISO-30 (or ISO-40 or ISO-50).

    No matter what piece of equipment we use, we have to work within the limits of that piece of equipment. Debating endlessly whether something is the 'best' has never been a hobby horse that I like to ride. On the other hand, overlooking serious flaws, because they can be 'worked around', when there is a better solution, isn't very pratical either.

    Until I add CNC to my IH, the question is mute. Handcranking gives me immediate feedback on how the cut is progessing. The closed-loop system between my fingers and my ancient brain still works well enough that I can compensate.



  5. #45
    Gold Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    2512
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    Hi Bob, I'm sure you will think I am attacking you again but that is not the case and you should not take it as such.

    The stiffness figure you quote is for the spindle not the complete machine.

    .........................start quote..............................
    Further, the exclusive, German-built SKF spindle is twice as stiff as those on competitively classed machines. Its radial stiffness is 60 lbf./0.00004”, axial stiffness is 70 lbf./0.00004”.
    ........................ end quote.......................

    Whether you can detect the relative stiffness of different spindle arrangments will depend on the overall machine stiffness. Stiff machines benifit from stiff spindles, whereas stiff spindles may be a waste of time and effort on a not so stiff machine.

    Where the IH, Tormach or any other RF45 type machine fits in this scheme of things with respect to useful spindle stiffness is what is interesting.

    Regards
    Phil




    Quote Originally Posted by BobWarfield View Post
    In the end, I think a useful key to repeatability on a home built machine with cheap toolholders is going to be a tool touchsetter. It's straightforward to tie one back into Mach 3 and it eliminates the need to fuss with presetting the tool or worry about how closely your toolchanger and taper system can repeat. Just write your toolchange macro so it touches off the toolsetter to establish what's really going on.

    For those looking to do some experiments, it seems relatively straightforward to take this radial stiffness measure between two spindles with a toolholder and either a reference rod in the holder. You just need a dial indicator to measure the deflection and a consistent means of applying sideways force. It would be quite interesting to see these figures even across different mills with the same taper system. At the top of this page are measurements for a Bridgeport VMC (not an R8 Bridgie as most think of them!):

    http://news.thomasnet.com/fullstory/455492

    Radial stiffness is quoted as: 60 lbf/0.00004 in

    That same Bridgeport, BTW, has 4 angular contact bearings on the driven end of each ballscrew and 3 on the floating end. The ballscrews are 32mm in diameter. The spindle is running 4 angular contact bearings at the nose and a single roller bearing at the rear.

    http://www.jitsupplygroup.com/machinery/cncc.pdf

    Compare and contrast that to some of these low end machines and conversions!

    Best,

    BW




  6. #46
    Gold Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    2512
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    This raises an interesting point. A person could easily measure the static stiffness of various parts of his machine, including vertical and horizontal and slop in the ways/gib adjustment, in order to determine where best to direct their attention with respect to improving overall machine stiffness.

    If a set of standard tests were defined then quantitative comparison between machines would be possible and a person would be able to see if they have room to improve in a particular area compared to what others have achieved. This would remove the subjectiveness of current comparisons over the net.

    Regards
    Phil

    Quote Originally Posted by philbur View Post
    Hi Bob, I'm sure you will think I am attacking you again but that is not the case and you should not take it as such.

    The stiffness figure you quote is for the spindle not the complete machine.

    .........................start quote..............................
    Further, the exclusive, German-built SKF spindle is twice as stiff as those on competitively classed machines. Its radial stiffness is 60 lbf./0.00004”, axial stiffness is 70 lbf./0.00004”.
    ........................ end quote.......................

    Whether you can detect the relative stiffness of different spindle arrangments will depend on the overall machine stiffness. Stiff machines benifit from stiff spindles, whereas stiff spindles may be a waste of time and effort on a not so stiff machine.

    Where the IH, Tormach or any other RF45 type machine fits in this scheme of things with respect to useful spindle stiffness is what is interesting.

    Regards
    Phil




  7. #47
    Gold Member BobWarfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2502
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by philbur View Post
    Hi Bob, I'm sure you will think I am attacking you again but that is not the case and you should not take it as such.

    The stiffness figure you quote is for the spindle not the complete machine.

    .........................start quote..............................
    Further, the exclusive, German-built SKF spindle is twice as stiff as those on competitively classed machines. Its radial stiffness is 60 lbf./0.00004”, axial stiffness is 70 lbf./0.00004”.
    ........................ end quote.......................

    Whether you can detect the relative stiffness of different spindle arrangments will depend on the overall machine stiffness. Stiff machines benifit from stiff spindles, whereas stiff spindles may be a waste of time and effort on a not so stiff machine.

    Where the IH, Tormach or any other RF45 type machine fits in this scheme of things with respect to useful spindle stiffness is what is interesting.

    Regards
    Phil
    I agree completely, hence my comment, "It would be quite interesting to see these figures even across different mills with the same taper system."

    In fact, it would be interesting to understand a deflection stiffness for a lot of individual parts of mills such as the column itself. It should be possible to tie it all together to find the weak points if you're seeking to tune up a mill.

    Meanwhile, having an overall figure is an interesting way to compare mills. Somewhere I have seen an interesting test that was done using cuts with the mill. I saved it away somewhare. I believe it was an MMS article that specified a technique to find the highest chatter free feeds and speeds in a systematic way for a particular cutter. Applying that methodology to a variety of mills and tapers would also be interesting data.

    Lastly, I have commented more than once that it would be quite worthwhile to run through the Tormach QA certification on a variety of mills and see what the results there would be too.

    Data is always a good thing, and darned hard to come by, versus opinion, which is very easy to come by!

    Best,

    BW



  8. #48
    Registered
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    66
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default R8 or ISO

    At a car show the quickest way to start a fist fight is to start an argument about if Ford or Chevy is a “better” make of car.

    At a Machinist convention, the quickest way is to start an argument is about Hardinge or Monarch lathes.

    And here, which taper is “better” R8 or ISO 30.

    “Better” is a loose term, ambiguous at best. Each has advantages and disadvantages.

    I sell both, I have both, I like both.

    2 complete sets of tooling, 2 of everything.

    Why? Because each has its place.

    R8 works better on custom setups, one off operations, on my old mill I do mostly custom mill modifications, each setup is special. The work is always unique and the tooling varies quite a bit. R8 provides a lot of flexibility in the setup. Collets are quick and easy, you can put a drill bit in a collet and get good rigidity (for example), and then switch over to a fly cutter while using the same collet (both 3/4”). The work is custom, it is ok it takes few minutes to change over and re-zero.

    On my production mill, ISO wins, I know exactly what I’m making each time. I do not re-zero during the entire production run of 8 hours and 48 tool changes. Changes take about 1 minute (or less) and repeatability is second to none. The tooling cost more, but I save the time and get more parts produced.

    Purpose; is what it all comes down to. What is the purpose?

    Insofar as which is more rigid? ISO wins hands down in my book. The contact area of the taper is what maters, ISO 30 has 2-3 times the contact of the R8. The rear shank of the R8 doesn’t matter as there is a few thou gap for clearance in there. In a perfect world is will not even be touching on the sides up near the top. It is touches equally (ie perfect fit) you run the risk of the collet getting stuck in the spindle after operation because of heat expansion. That will only happen once in every shop I’ve seen, they will make it so the collet comes out.

    Taping it with a wrench is not the top of the collet binding, is overcoming the taper/compression lock. Beating it with a sledge hammer is heat bind. (been there...once).

    Back to the R8, if it touches only on one side at the top, (not sure how this will happen) the end mill will wobble.


    Often it comes down to the creation, the origin of a product that defines its purpose.

    ISO stands for:

    Industry
    Standards
    Organization

    And is made up of bunches of people from each field of expertise and they give up time (for free) to make the world a better place for manufacturing and consumers. Then they publish those standards. You cannot copyright or patent a “standard”, but you can produce it without any royalty charge.

    Basically, these masters in a field of expertise give their time for free (often they pay hotel expenses and flights and out of pocket by themselves), for the honor and privilege to determine how the “world” should do something. It is done out of respect for the industry. If you are on an ISO team you ARE the best of the best.

    R8 is NOT an ISO standard, it will never be because it endorses a particular manufacturer. It was designed by a group of people to make a profit, from direct sales or royalties. It has become a ‘de facto’ industry standard, patents have long expired. Anyone can produce it.

    Now here is the fun part, companies have engineers, engineers do NOT make decisions, marketing departments make decisions, marketing guys are not engineers. Their job is to market, to make money, the more the better.

    Bridgeport gained popularity during WWII, Bridgeport sold the best (least affordable) knee mill in the country. We needed a lot of them. They came with collets that were made by the same company. More money, more collets, single vendor.. Bridgeport.

    The war ended, people (machinists) in general buy what they know, Bridgeport. Good or bad doesn’t matter. Buy what you know.

    Tada, a de facto standard is born. It only took, one marketing department, one war, and what ? 55 million dead?

    You have to remember during WWII the United States produced more machinery and more heavy equipment then was EVER produced up until that time. We out produced the entire world and all of history up until then. That is a HUGE achievement.

    So the R8 has earned its respect, but it is not the better tool, it is the better marketed tool.

    Their lies the difference.

    Aaron Moss

    www.IndustrialHobbies.com


  9. #49
    Gold Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    2512
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    ISO actual stands for "International Organization for Standardization". These types of committees are normally populate by professionals from organizations that have a vested interest and whose time and costs are paid for by those organizations. Nice story though.

    Regards
    Phil

    Quote Originally Posted by IndHobby View Post

    ISO stands for:

    Industry
    Standards
    Organization

    And is made up of bunches of people from each field of expertise and they give up time (for free) to make the world a better place for manufacturing and consumers. Then they publish those standards. You cannot copyright or patent a “standard”, but you can produce it without any royalty charge.

    Basically, these masters in a field of expertise give their time for free (often they pay hotel expenses and flights and out of pocket by themselves), for the honor and privilege to determine how the “world” should do something. It is done out of respect for the industry. If you are on an ISO team you ARE the best of the best.




  10. #50
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    208
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    Phil,
    ISO is a non-governmental organization whose responsibility is to verify that proposed standards have been given due process before being recognized as standards. Edited: As Aaron pointed out, ISO-30 is a standard recognized world-wide while R8 is not recognized by ISO.

    "International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is a non-governmental global organization established in 1947 that works to develop standards across goods and services."
    www.softsite.org/copydvd/glossary/

    "ISO (International Standards Organization) is the International Standards Organizations. They do not create standards but (as with ANSI) provide a means of verifying that a proposed standard has met certain requirements for due process, consensus, and other criteria by those developing the standard."
    www.orafaq.com/glossary/faqglosi.htm

    "International Standards Organization: An organization established to develop standards to facilitate the international exchanges of goods and services and to develop mutual cooperation in areas of intellectual, scientific, technological, and economic activity."
    www.sivideo.com/9pcterms.htm

    -Mike

    Last edited by Richards; 12-16-2006 at 09:51 PM. Reason: Clarification and spelling


  11. #51
    Gold Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    2512
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    Yes I know. Nt sure what your point is though.

    Try the the horses mouth:

    http://www.iso.org/iso/en/aboutiso/i....html#nineteen.

    This is a small exstract:

    "ISO standards are developed by technical committees comprising experts from the industrial, technical and business sectors which have asked for the standards, and which subsequently put them to use. These experts may be joined by others with relevant knowledge, such as representatives of government agencies, testing laboratories, consumer associations, environmentalists, academic circles and so on."

    The ISO organization is just the facilitator, industry produces the actual standard.

    I hope that is clearer for you.

    Regards
    Phil

    Quote Originally Posted by Richards View Post
    Phil,
    ISO is a non-governmental organization whose responsibility is to verify that proposed standards have been given due process before being recognized as standards. Edited: As Aaron pointed out, ISO-30 is a standard recognized world-wide while R8 is not recognized by ISO.

    "International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is a non-governmental global organization established in 1947 that works to develop standards across goods and services."
    www.softsite.org/copydvd/glossary/

    "ISO (International Standards Organization) is the International Standards Organizations. They do not create standards but (as with ANSI) provide a means of verifying that a proposed standard has met certain requirements for due process, consensus, and other criteria by those developing the standard."
    www.orafaq.com/glossary/faqglosi.htm

    "International Standards Organization: An organization established to develop standards to facilitate the international exchanges of goods and services and to develop mutual cooperation in areas of intellectual, scientific, technological, and economic activity."
    www.sivideo.com/9pcterms.htm

    -Mike




  12. #52
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    262
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    To be fair, there were competing knee mills to Bridgeports, and some offered a few things like longer quill travel and a powered knee (Wells Index maybe?)...but none of them IMHO offered the same balance of strength and fitness that the BP does, the only thing that ever really competed with it is cheap foriegn copies of itself, "Millport" being one of the first ones, made on stolen bridgeport patterns, the castinf said "bridgeport" right on them and they riveted a sheet metal cover over that that said "millport" on it. Now we have copies of copies out there.

    The smaller machines like you made (not to lump cheap junk in with your machines) hit a niche market of guys that cannot afford or do not have room for a full sized machine.

    My two bridgeports may Dad bought new, one in 1972 for $2500, one in 1982 for AROUND $6000, 34 and 24 years later both machines are still mechanically sound, and I can but any part of them as far as I know if needed and MOST if not all parts between the 72 and the 82 are exactly the same........even amoung american iron that is an outstanding design IMHO.

    Even Bridgeport didnt use an R8 to start off :-)..they like most other machine tool mfg. developed what they needed, Brown nd Sharp is one example that used non standard threads and tapers on it's prodcut, there is NO reason for a 3/4-12 thread like they used on some screw machine parts like the nut that holds a gear onto a shaft...other than making things so the guy HAS to buy BS parts :-).

    Looking at the other tapers used in knee mills at the time the R8 came out none of them are remotely as nice to use, and in fact some just plain SUCK if your used to how nice an R8 actually works out day to day.

    I do agree the ISO-30 offers something.......

    The other taper in that size range that is finding some use in industry is ER32, they are making more and more crap to go into an er-32 and other er holders that is not a collet as such, tap holders, heat sjring holders, etc.

    One other one that could be used but may be impractical is capto. It is very rigid and would work with a drawbar.

    Bill



    Quote Originally Posted by IndHobby View Post

    Bridgeport gained popularity during WWII, Bridgeport sold the best (least affordable) knee mill in the country. We needed a lot of them. They came with collets that were made by the same company. More money, more collets, single vendor.. Bridgeport.

    The war ended, people (machinists) in general buy what they know, Bridgeport. Good or bad doesn’t matter. Buy what you know.

    Tada, a de facto standard is born. It only took, one marketing department, one war, and what ? 55 million dead?

    You have to remember during WWII the United States produced more machinery and more heavy equipment then was EVER produced up until that time. We out produced the entire world and all of history up until then. That is a HUGE achievement.

    So the R8 has earned its respect, but it is not the better tool, it is the better marketed tool.

    Their lies the difference.




  13. #53
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    262
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    The system to draw up on the flange of a CAT holder is already in place, the idea is surely not mine...it's right in the Parlec catalog :-)

    one thing the steep taper offers is that it has some tolerance for sloppy worn tool holders...which to some extant become part of any high speed high production environment.

    The HSK system may make some inroads, but I'd bet my $$ that you will have to look long and hard in even 10 years to find it in a shop local to you :-)....The small co. I work for probably has 10,000 or MORE CAT50 holders now and thats a co. with 100 employees and 3 plants...any machine other than cat50 is going to be a hard sell.


    Quote Originally Posted by philbur View Post
    The tolereance on the gauge line for both NMTB type spindles tapers and toolholder tapers appears to be + or - 0.015" on each. So there are a number of potential problems with blue printing.

    1) You would have to blue print every toolholder as well as the spindle.
    2) If you were unlucky your standard spindle and tool holders would require material to be added in order to blue print.
    3) The tool holder flange face would require precision grinding.
    4) I think the precision necessary to ensure the 7/24 taper and the flange "come up" together may be tight in the extreme.

    I would suggest that if you plan to use the flange of an 7/24 NMTB taper as a part of the location system that you dig out the tolerance specs for something like the HSK system and evaluate if you are able to duplicate or do better on a NMTB taper. I think the 1:10 taper of the HSK system may be the key to achieving the tolerances necessary for dual contact.

    This link makes some very interesting initial reading.

    http://www.mmsonline.com/articles/100105.html

    Regards
    Phil




  14. #54
    Gold Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    2512
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    If you are talking about the "Simul-Fit System/Dual Contact Taper Shrink Fit CAT Holder with plate assembly" it looks to me like a precision spacer is added to each tool holder flange to adjust for the gauge line tolerance. Which is a kinda material added solution as I indicated in my last post. The standard CAT however still has the gauge line tolerance issue to deal with.

    Regards
    Phil

    Quote Originally Posted by Willbird View Post
    The system to draw up on the flange of a CAT holder is already in place, the idea is surely not mine...it's right in the Parlec catalog :-)




  15. #55
    Gold Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    2512
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    I may have missed your point. It does seem to show that the dual contact concept is possible with a 7/24 taper. How well it works would depend on what standard you are able to excecute the modification. The precision spacer arrangement would also suggest that you would possibly not need to modify the spindle.

    Regards
    Phil

    Quote Originally Posted by Willbird View Post
    The system to draw up on the flange of a CAT holder is already in place, the idea is surely not mine...it's right in the Parlec catalog :-)

    one thing the steep taper offers is that it has some tolerance for sloppy worn tool holders...which to some extant become part of any high speed high production environment.

    The HSK system may make some inroads, but I'd bet my $$ that you will have to look long and hard in even 10 years to find it in a shop local to you :-)....The small co. I work for probably has 10,000 or MORE CAT50 holders now and thats a co. with 100 employees and 3 plants...any machine other than cat50 is going to be a hard sell.




  16. #56
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    262
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    I have not seen any system like that in actual use, I read about it years ago in a mag like metalfax, and happened to notice the other day that it was in the parlec catalog. I do understand from reading that it takes some tweaking to make sure it works, and I would think it may only get used on tools in the program that benefit from it, while other stuff like say a #7 drill tap drill for 1/4-20 would use a normal non flange contact holder. In the real world of machine shops the deal is probably too finiscky to work well.............it's primary benefit originally was aimed at preventing the taper from wedging deeper into the spindle at high rpm and long duration tool runs. This is noticed more on machines that to not have a good knockout built right into the tool retention plan, I have seen some machines that had a 2lb deadblow right there to wack tools stuck in the spindle from that :-). On the OKK HM80S we have the only time tools stick is if the knockout is not set up right. For the home shop cnc deal you really could simply install a couple setscrews(in the fnalge of the offending holders) properly adjusted and locked down to prevent the tool from sucking deeper into the spindle and being a bear to remove without a slap to the drawbar. This is more of an issue with spindles that are a bit dainty too, thin out at the exit of the taper.


    Bill



  17. #57
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    208
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    Phil,
    My post was basically to support and expand on your post: "These types of committees are normally populate by professionals from organizations that have a vested interest and whose time and costs are paid for by those organizations."

    The reference that you cited: http://www.iso.org/iso/en/aboutiso/i....html#nineteen. has two sections that answer WHO developes ISO standards and HOW those standanrds are impremented.

    "Who develops ISO standards

    ISO standards are developed by technical committees comprising experts from the industrial, technical and business sectors which have asked for the standards, and which subsequently put them to use. These experts may be joined by others with relevant knowledge, such as representatives of government agencies, testing laboratories, consumer associations, environmentalists, academic circles and so on. The experts participate as national delegations, chosen by the ISO national member institute for the country concerned. These delegations are required to represent not just the views of the organizations in which their participating experts work, but of other stakeholders too. According to ISO rules, the member institute is expected to take account of the views of the range of parties interested in the standard under development and to present a consolidated, national consensus position to the technical committee.


    How ISO standards are developed

    The national delegations of experts of a technical committee meet to discuss, debate and argue until they reach consensus on a draft agreement. This is then circulated as a Draft International Standard (DIS) to ISO's membership as a whole for comment and balloting. Many members have public review procedures for making draft standards known and available to interested parties and to the general public. The ISO members then take account of any feedback they receive in formulating their position on the draft standard. If the voting is in favour, the document, with eventual modifications, is circulated to the ISO members as a Final Draft International Standard (FDIS). If that vote is positive, the document is then published as an International Standard."


    Bottom line - the specifications for ISO 30 tooling - the tooling that this thread is all about - went through the ISO process and is now accepted world-wide as tooling that has been (1) examined by experts on a technical committee, (2) debated and argued by those experts, (3) voted on by ISO members, and (4) published as a world-wide standard. Others have already done the work for us. All we have to do is to decide whether it is worth $65 to purchase the spindle so that we can start building a replacement for our current R8 spindles.

    -Mike



  18. #58
    Gold Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    2512
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    Well thank you Mike.

    Just one final passing thought. You have probably heard the phrase:

    "It must have been designed by a committee".

    To bring it back to where we started. I have never claimed that the R8 provides for a stiffer set-up or that ISO30 is not an appropriate conversion if you are intent on fitting an ATC. The starting point was: Does it warrant the time, cost and effort to replace an R8 spindle (and tooling) on an RF45 type mill, bearing in mind the overall stiffness of the machine. Perhaps we need an ISO standard for RF45 type machines.

    Regards
    Phil


    Quote Originally Posted by Richards View Post
    Phil,
    My post was basically to support and expand on your post: "These types of committees are normally populate by professionals from organizations that have a vested interest and whose time and costs are paid for by those organizations."

    The reference that you cited: http://www.iso.org/iso/en/aboutiso/i....html#nineteen. has two sections that answer WHO developes ISO standards and HOW those standanrds are impremented.

    "Who develops ISO standards

    ISO standards are developed by technical committees comprising experts from the industrial, technical and business sectors which have asked for the standards, and which subsequently put them to use. These experts may be joined by others with relevant knowledge, such as representatives of government agencies, testing laboratories, consumer associations, environmentalists, academic circles and so on. The experts participate as national delegations, chosen by the ISO national member institute for the country concerned. These delegations are required to represent not just the views of the organizations in which their participating experts work, but of other stakeholders too. According to ISO rules, the member institute is expected to take account of the views of the range of parties interested in the standard under development and to present a consolidated, national consensus position to the technical committee.


    How ISO standards are developed

    The national delegations of experts of a technical committee meet to discuss, debate and argue until they reach consensus on a draft agreement. This is then circulated as a Draft International Standard (DIS) to ISO's membership as a whole for comment and balloting. Many members have public review procedures for making draft standards known and available to interested parties and to the general public. The ISO members then take account of any feedback they receive in formulating their position on the draft standard. If the voting is in favour, the document, with eventual modifications, is circulated to the ISO members as a Final Draft International Standard (FDIS). If that vote is positive, the document is then published as an International Standard."


    Bottom line - the specifications for ISO 30 tooling - the tooling that this thread is all about - went through the ISO process and is now accepted world-wide as tooling that has been (1) examined by experts on a technical committee, (2) debated and argued by those experts, (3) voted on by ISO members, and (4) published as a world-wide standard. Others have already done the work for us. All we have to do is to decide whether it is worth $65 to purchase the spindle so that we can start building a replacement for our current R8 spindles.

    -Mike




  19. #59
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    208
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    Phil,
    I think that we're coming to a concensus here using a process much like the ISO people. Someone posed the question about whether the ISO-30 spindle that Aaron is offering would be a good replacement for the R8 spindle that ships with the machine. You added your input about Automatic Tool Changers. Many others gave their opinions about the merites of ISO-30 tooling vs R8. Bob Warfield submitted some preliminary designs about how he would implement the change-over. Rebuttals were made. Tempers may have flared once or twice, but, in the end, the overall tone is that for $65 for the bare spindle - not including bearings or modifications to the IH mill - ISO-30 tooling would be a worthwhile conversion in a non-ATC environment. (I believe that you are the only expert on the committee that has taken a stand on ATC - perhaps another thread should be started where ATC tooling is debated.) So, this 'committee" of "experts" (at least in our own minds) has reviewed and debated the issue. All that is left is the voting.

    I vote to recommend that Aaron's $65 spindle be regarded as a worthwhile addition to the IH mill for those looking for something that meets ISO standards.

    -Mike



  20. #60
    Gold Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    2512
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    Go for it. Let us know how you get on.

    I don't think tempers flared. I would prefer to call it a passionate debate. They are invariably the most interesting. Differing opinions always produce the best results.

    Regards
    Phil


    Quote Originally Posted by Richards View Post
    Phil,
    I think that we're coming to a concensus here using a process much like the ISO people. Someone posed the question about whether the ISO-30 spindle that Aaron is offering would be a good replacement for the R8 spindle that ships with the machine. You added your input about Automatic Tool Changers. Many others gave their opinions about the merites of ISO-30 tooling vs R8. Bob Warfield submitted some preliminary designs about how he would implement the change-over. Rebuttals were made. Tempers may have flared once or twice, but, in the end, the overall tone is that for $65 for the bare spindle - not including bearings or modifications to the IH mill - ISO-30 tooling would be a worthwhile conversion in a non-ATC environment. (I believe that you are the only expert on the committee that has taken a stand on ATC - perhaps another thread should be started where ATC tooling is debated.) So, this 'committee" of "experts" (at least in our own minds) has reviewed and debated the issue. All that is left is the voting.

    I vote to recommend that Aaron's $65 spindle be regarded as a worthwhile addition to the IH mill for those looking for something that meets ISO standards.

    -Mike


    Last edited by philbur; 12-17-2006 at 11:14 AM. Reason: posted to quickly


Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


About CNCzone.com

    We are the largest and most active discussion forum for manufacturing industry. The site is 100% free to join and use, so join today!

Follow us on


Our Brands

ISO 30 Spindle

ISO 30 Spindle