Tool length weirdness


Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Tool length weirdness

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    49
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default Tool length weirdness

    Ok, I'm pulling my hair out over here. Long proven program all the sudden falling short of the part Z0 on an ID chamfer with a small boring bar. Touched the tool off again to update the table, nothing. Reset the tool, nothing. Here's where it gets weird, I can G0 Z0 both my ref tool and the boring bar BEFORE the program and they hit the same spot. During the program, the boring bar falls .111ish short of the part face (Z0).

    Zero changes to the program from when it was running hundreds of parts perfectly, and all done in PP conversational. Update from 2.1.9 --> 2.2.2 hoping that might fix it, but no change.

    T01 - Face to Z0
    T01 - OD Chamfer
    T07 - Drill bore .3125'
    T05 - ID Chamfer
    T08 - Tap

    Thoughts and ideas are appreciated.

    S.

    Similar Threads:


  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    82
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: Tool length weirdness

    Is it simply possible that the part is slipping in the collet/chuck?



  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    49
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: Tool length weirdness

    Definitely not slipping.



  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    82
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScottDW View Post
    Definitely not slipping.
    Do you have any wear offsets in the tool table? Conversational will apply then, manual won’t unless you specify such



  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    49
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: Tool length weirdness

    No wear offsets for that tool, or the reference tool. I call T0505 as a habit, anyways.



  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1446
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: Tool length weirdness

    Hi Scott - have you got any further?

    I am not quite following you sequence prior to error, but does it fit a stepper or stepper brake coupling slipping?

    Or please explain in more detail.

    Cliff



  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    49
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: Tool length weirdness

    Cliff,

    Yes, I got the issue resolved. The g-code was no different to the eye, but when I ran it through a g-code interpreter it was showing strange characters that I had not put into the code. After lots of calls with people way smarter than me, what we determined is a newer version of PP than the one it was written in didn't agree the old code. The new post interpreted some NL and CR where there was none and barfed right in front of that op. It's still confusing to me how it happened.

    I reprogrammed that op fully from the new version of PP and it worked like a charm.

    TLR - New PP post didn't like old PP code.



  8. #8
    Member mountaindew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    1714
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: Tool length weirdness

    Quote Originally Posted by ScottDW View Post
    Cliff,

    Yes, I got the issue resolved. The g-code was no different to the eye, but when I ran it through a g-code interpreter it was showing strange characters that I had not put into the code. After lots of calls with people way smarter than me, what we determined is a newer version of PP than the one it was written in didn't agree the old code. The new post interpreted some NL and CR where there was none and barfed right in front of that op. It's still confusing to me how it happened.

    I reprogrammed that op fully from the new version of PP and it worked like a charm.

    TLR - New PP post didn't like old PP code.
    Interesting!
    Will need to keep an eye on this issue. I have no less then a dozen PP updates over the years and wondered how generic of code was created by conversational setups and how well they run from update to update. To date I have never had this issue with a cam post.



  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1446
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: Tool length weirdness

    Quote Originally Posted by ScottDW View Post
    Cliff,

    Yes, I got the issue resolved. The g-code was no different to the eye, but when I ran it through a g-code interpreter it was showing strange characters that I had not put into the code. After lots of calls with people way smarter than me, what we determined is a newer version of PP than the one it was written in didn't agree the old code. The new post interpreted some NL and CR where there was none and barfed right in front of that op. It's still confusing to me how it happened.

    I reprogrammed that op fully from the new version of PP and it worked like a charm.

    TLR - New PP post didn't like old PP code.
    Thanks for the reply - I hope that was an isolated incident and not going to be a regular problem. Cliff



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

Tool length weirdness

Tool length weirdness