Steve:
Your right, of course, I have only put in Radius programming, so the
number to enter in the correction box is the radius of the stock, plus the
guage thickness. The reason I recommend doing it this way is so the end
result gives you a DRO reading of the outside radius point of the piece. It
shouldn't matter if previous G92's happened along the way, the end result
should be anb easy acces to "zero" to the piece so that the new coordinate
is the actual coordinate of the outside or face of the stock.
As to the tooltables, you are probably correct, I have not played with
them yet as to the changes in logic needed between mill and lathe. Mill
seems very stable at this point and now I need to make the lathe specific
changes to its logic, the only one done so far, is that in lathe mode, the
tool x length offset is added to the X instaed of the Z. I have not used it
personally so it could be backwards or otherwise buggy. I will now check it
out.
Let me know how the zeroing experience goes, its the easiest method I
(with others help) could come up with to easily zero to the face and radisu
of lathe stock. If you have a better idea, feel free to discuss it here, I
have no problem changing it to conform to easier methods, but I have to
conform to multiple usage patterns and mutiple patterns of G92 and fixture
usage. The "correction" DRO seemed the most logical.
Don't worry about the numbers that appear in the offsets when zeroing,
they are simply the additive numbers required to create your requested zero
point when all offsets are considered.
I WILL fix the tool offsets though. Should they be , in lathe, a positive
length which is added to the X (so the DRO reads the proper distance away
from zero when retooling) or a negative number which is subtracted to get
the same end result?
Thanks,
Art
www.artofcnc.ca
