Log in

View Full Version : Experimenting to find correct feed and speed



richards
10-08-2004, 02:42 AM
This is an awfully long post, but it might help a few fellow newbies understand the process of finding the correct rpm/feed-speed combination. . .

When I was learning to play the trumpet many years ago, my dad asked my mother, "When will the noise start sounding like music?"

Starting a few days ago, my Shopbot started playing sweet music.

I've been fighting feeds and speeds since the Alpha arrived in July. The machine has worked great, but I never felt like I was getting it to work as good as it could. Sometimes the router bogged down too much. Sometimes I fried bits when I ran up the RPMs or slowed down the speed. Sometimes the cut was not as smooth as expected. Sometimes I wondered if I would ever catch on.

However, when I stepped back a bit and looked back at experiments that I've run in a totally different field - photography, suddenly, everything began to make sense. For those of you who are photographers, you know that there are three basic things that determine whether an exposure is technically correct; film speed (ISO/ASA), shutter speed, and f/stop. You also know that if you know the correct f/stop and shutter speed for a certain exposure, that you can quickly determine other f/stops and shutter speeds. For example shooting a gray card with a tripod mounted camera using a film with an ISO/ASA rating of 125 at high noon on a cloudless day would require an exposure of 1/125 at f/16, 1/250 at f/11, 1/500 at f/8, or 1/1000 at f/5.6. Any one of those combinations would produce negatives/slides with the same graycard density. A good photographer would know when to use any one of the shutter speed f/stop combinations. A good photographer would also know when to rate the film at a higher or lower ISO/ASA value due to lighting conditions or processing variations.

With the Shopbot, there are also three factors that determine proper operation: chip load, router/spindle speed and feed rate. For example, if I wanted a chip load of 0.030 when using a single flute bit, my Porter-Cable 7518 has five different rpm/feed-rate combinations to achieve that particular chip load: 10,000 rpm at 5.0 ips, 13,000 rpm at 6.5 ips, 16,000 rpm at 8.0 ips, 19,000 rpm at 9.5 ips, or 21,000 rpm at 10.5 ips. Any one of those combinations would produce a chip load of 0.030 with that single-flute cutter. (For the sake of discussion, we'll totally ignore the router's power curve and assume that we're using a router that produces equal power at each speed setting.) The hard part for those of us who are novices at CNC routing, is to know which of those combinations is correct for the cut that we want to make. There is a simple way to find out. All that it requires is to run a series of tests at each speed. For example, starting at 10,000 rpm and 5.0 inches per second, I could make up to seven cuts in some 3/4-inch material; one cut at 0.10 inch depth, another fresh pass at 0.20 inch depth, another fresh pass at 0.30 inch, a fourth at 0.40 inch, and so on until the router started to slow down or until the maximum depth was reached. Next I could run a test at 13,000 rpm at 6.5 ips at those same depth settings. Again running the test to completion, or stopping if the router started to bog down. In the same manner, I could run a series of tests at the other rpm/feed-speed settings. At the end of the tests, I could pick any feed-speed/rpm combination that didn't bog down the router at the depth that I needed to cut.

However, if all tests passed without bogging down the router, which feed-speed/rpm combination would I choose? That would depend on the part that I needed to cut. For example, if I needed to cut small squares, 3-inches per side, where ramping would be a big factor, I would need to run an actual test at each feed-speed to see what the actual feed-speed with ramping included actually was. For that type of test, I would create a file without any z-axis moves or any jogs and without a speed setting (no MS,x-axis,z-axis command), manually enter the five ideal feed-speeds at the console, one for each test, air cut the file and then look at the logs to get the running times, and then divide the times by 12 (3+3+3+3) to get the actual inch-per-second produced. If, because of ramping, the fastest ips setting obtained was 6.5, even though I had asked for 10.5 ips, I would know that 13,000 rpm would probably be the correct router speed with a feed-speed of 10.5 (derated by the controller to 6.5 ips due to ramping) to get the desired chip load. Making a few test cuts at 13,000 rpm and 10.5 ips (derated by the controller to 6.5 ips because of ramping) would verify the test.

If the part to be cut was a cabinet side with long runs where ramping would only be a minor part of each cut, the fastest rpm/feed-speed combination could probably be used.

Of course, as experience was gained, I could use a different chip load setting, thus modifying the router's rpm or feed-speed to get an even better result, just as a professional photographer would alter the ISO/ASA rating of a film to tweak things based on his experience.

The last few days have been an awakening as the Alpha has cut thousands of 2x6 inch and 2x10 inch pockets 0.40 inch deep in popular and baltic birch. The first cut up the center of each pocket, using a 3/8-inch spiral, 2-flute bit, at 0.40 inch depth required a slow 1.25-ips to keep the router from bogging down too much in most of the popular, but the rest of the passes in each pocket were cut at 12-ips. The pockets were cut in half the time that it required before testing and tweaking. The quality of the cut was much better, and the same 3/8-inch bit was used without frying or premature dulling.

The sound of good quality work being produced efficiently is sweet music indeed.

Mike

mikejohn
10-08-2004, 05:51 AM
Mike,
As a wannabee, not even a newbie, I find your approach very interesting.
My only problem with your analogy is that a films 'speed' is determined by the manufacturer. Photographers know how to alter this for certain conditions.
Does this mean that the manufacturer determines the chip load of any particular bit type, which experience will help us to alter this when necessary.
Or does the desired chipload rely on the type of finish, and the type of material?
If I am cutting with a 6mm (1/4) two flute bit, do I want the same chipload for 6mm (1/4) ply, producing the finest finish I can, as I would using the same bit cutting through 15mm (3/5) pine where the final finish is produced with another process?
Awaiting the day I have a shopbot to play with, determining bit type, router speed and feed rate seems the biggest problem I have to face.
I can see taking your experimental approach will arrive at a workable solution (providing I can work out what type of bit to use!)
Thanks for the post
Mike

gerald_d
10-08-2004, 08:04 AM
Mike John, if you are going to be using a router instead of a "spindle", you can do a lot of that experimenting by timing yourself to push your handheld router across/along a plank. There will be no noticeable deviations from this experience when the router is mounted in a glorified "router-pusher".

richards
10-08-2004, 09:16 AM
Mike John,

You're right about the film manufacturer determining the film's ISO/ASA rating. In the same manner, the bit manufacturer, Onsrud, for example, lists a range of chip loads in their catalog for various materials. In most cases that range is fairly broad.

I've choosen another method. The first thing I do is check Eric Lamoray's posts to see if he has recommended a particular feed-speed/spindle speed for the intended material. If he has, I start with the chip load using those values. Even though he uses a spindle and I'm still using a router, his recommendations have worked very well.

Next, I run a series of tests, with the dust collector off, cutting the material at a shallow depth (usually 0.10 inch) to keep the router at its intended speed (so that bogging down will not be a factor). The test series starts at a low feed-speed and increments to a speed that is higher than I would normally use (like bracketing exposures in a camera). After running each test, I check the resulting chips produced by the cut (that's why the dust collector stays off during the test.) Assuming that the chips have the texture of sand and not the texture of talcum powder, I verify that the speed is at least fast enough to produce chips. When all test cuts have been made, I carefully examine the cuts to see if they all have the desired finish. If the higher speed cuts start to produce a ragged, jagged finish, I reject those speeds. (Melamine coated particle board easily shows chips in the melamine when the speed is wrong.) At the end of the tests, I pick the fastest feed-speed that gave the desired finish, plug that speed, the rpm speed, and the number of flutes into Andrew McClary's chip load calculator to find the resulting chip load.

It takes a little time, but it works.

Mike

mikejohn
10-08-2004, 11:49 AM
This may be obvious but, do you find repeated cuts in similar materials repeatable over time?
Gerald:
I can control things on my pin router, but hand routing is, for me, a nightmare,
If I dont get a shopbot soon, I'm sure I'm going to lose a finger or two!
The names Mike by the way, tthe John is a surname, like Elton John (more hair, less money) We were too poor to have a proper surname, had to make do with a spare first name.

richards
10-08-2004, 12:14 PM
Sheet goods have been repeatable with little variation; however, I've cut less than 100 4x8 panels (MDF, MCP, baltic birch ply) since July.

Lumber is different. Several pieces of the several hundred pieces of popular that I cut this week got my attention in a hurry when the Porter-Cable started to bog down severely on the first pass in the pockets. It was able to finish the cut, but I had my hand on the Kill Switch, just in case.

By the way, in December, after cutting a few hundred parts on the shaper and router table, I stopped into Timberline Equipment, one of the better local equipment suppliers to inquire about a pin router - to save my fingers because of several close calls with both the shaper and the router, even though I followed every safety rule that I know. They asked me if I'd looked into Shopbot. I said Shop who? A little searching on the web and several enjoyable hours with Lee Cheney, a local Shopbot owner, showed the possibilities. A downturn in my computer business and the annoucement of the Alpha made me look closer. After crunching numbers in the spreadsheet, I knew that buying a Shopbot would be an excellent business decision. The learning curve continues to be steep, but the machine does what is advertised.

Mike

mikejohn
10-08-2004, 12:24 PM
Mike,
i am convinced about buying a shopbot. The order should be winging its way west by early November.
My pin router I made by converting another machine.
it does a job, but only up to a point.
My use of the shopbot is only within my own business. i will not be looking to make parts for others.
For the moment, I'm looking at cutting small parts from 4mm (1/6") and 6mm (1/4") birch ply, and drilling and cutting 15mm (5/8") pine.
If i get get that sorted, and I have machine time left, maybe I'll experiment with something else!
I come to this business from a specialist branch of photography. Did you start that way?
Mike

gerald_d
10-08-2004, 02:00 PM
"do you find repeated cuts in similar materials repeatable over time?"

The sharpness of the cutter also plays a role. And then there is also your judgement on how well the job is clamped. We have discarded our notes on speeds/feeds/materials - they were not that reliable.

richards
10-08-2004, 02:10 PM
Mike,

Shopbot owners seem to be a curious bunch, with varied backgrounds. I owned and operated a photolab servicing professional photographers for about 10 years. During that time, I developed (no pun intended) some process control computers to operate the Kodak S-series photo printers, the Kodak VCNA closed circuit video color negative analyzer, and various other pieces of equipment. For the last twenty-four years, I've travel the U.S. designing, programing, installing and maintaining computers specialized for the professional photo lab. Some of those process control computers used electronics and components similar to those found in the Shopbot.

At any rate, now that most professional photo labs are facing extinction, due primarily to the ease of use of digital cameras, good quality photos from the local Wal-Mart store rather than professional photo labs, and the general decline in the quantity of wedding/portrait type photos taken, I looked for a niche where I could use my computer skills to operate some type of CNC machine. The Shopbot was the answer.

Mike

paco
10-08-2004, 03:11 PM
I second Gerald on this... don't set cutting parameter only based on speed/feed chart... we all got a very powerfull computer at top of our neck that can judge proper cutting parameter based on common sense... not that a speed/feed chart is to be avoid but there are MANY other aspect to consider...

fleinbach
10-08-2004, 05:47 PM
I third Gerald and second Paco, I can achive very nice cuts almost guessing what feed/speed combo will work well. Of course I almost always cut the same material the same way so if it worked before it works again.

richards
10-09-2004, 01:25 AM
I agree that following a feed/speed chart created by the bit manufacturer, the material manufacturer, or even by other Shopbotters should never be the last word; however, one has to start somewhere.

I believe that my original post on this thread, although very wordy, made three points:

1. Read the general feed/speed recommended by the bit manufacturer.

2. Search the forum to see if anyone you consider to be particularly experienced and evaluate his/her recommendations.

3. Create a repeatable test method to refine the recommendations based on your Shopbot, your router/spindle, your cutter, and your material.

There are always exceptions, but, in my case, the vast majority of the work that I cut now is very much similar to the work that I cut last week and the week before, meaning that I can use the same feed/speed chart that I built based on manufacturers' recommendations, advice from more experienced Shopbotters, and repeatable tests.

It goes without saying that a cutter/bit must be retired BEFORE it becomes dull. It also goes without saying that the material must be inspected before being moved into cutting position. In the case of sheet goods, that inspection might be a quick glance to verify that all staples or other foreign objects have been removed, while lumber might have to be inspected to reject pieces with knots in the cutter's path.

Going back the comparison with photography, In my photo lab, there were specific tests that were required to be run before a machine could be placed in production for the day. None of the tests vere particularly difficult to run, nor were they particularly time consumming, but the tests identified vertually 100% of all possible problems, with the end result being that valuable time and supplies were not wasted, which increased the efficency and profit of the lab and allowed us to produce a quality product in the least amount of time at the lowest cost to the customer.

Efficiency might mean different things to different people. To me, finding an efficient way to make a cut is part of the challenge in CNC routing. As an example, when I first started, I nested parts in MCP a minimum of 0.50 inch apart when I used a 3/8-inch cutter. I also made all of the cuts at the same 3-4 ips. Later on, I reduced the distance to 0.435 inch minimum between parts, which is only 0.055 inch smaller, hardly worth the effort. Right? Wrong. Cutting six 24x24 panels the old way took 240 seconds, or 4 minutes. Cutting six 24x24 inch panels the new way can be done in 152 seconds, or 2-1/2 minutes, since I can safetly eliminate the slow, rough pass on some of the sides and go directly to the final 0.030 inch clean-up pass at 12 ips. (For those of you who wonder why I'm so excited about saving 1-1/2 minutes per sheet but wasting 1/4 of the sheet, be assured that the rest of the sheet was used, but not as closely nested due to the shape of the parts.)

A manufacturer's chart, the advice from someone I've learned to trust, and a repeatable testing routine combined to create a quality product cut in the least amount of time.

Mike

gerald_d
10-09-2004, 04:45 AM
Before I leave an impression that I am not agreeing with Mike R.....on the contrary, the initial experimental/analytical approach was very valuable and important to us as well. Later, as the experience and confidence grew, we lost the sheet of paper with all the speeds and feeds simply because we started to trust our "gut feel" to give better first time settings.

bleeth
10-09-2004, 05:45 AM
Another great starting place is the onsrud catalog. A copy or two of it is indispensible when working out a huge variey of bit selection and operation dynamics.
www.onsrud.com (http://www.onsrud.com)

mikejohn
10-09-2004, 05:54 AM
To follow up on Geralds point, and to continue the photography analogy, consider this.
My photography was specialised, Aerial Survey mapping Photography, where instead of a fixed ASA,you have something called EAFS (effective aerial film speed) This differs for almost every project, and depends on many factors, including flying height, terrain (jungle, desert, urban)
But you do have manufacturers start point, and a series of tests to determine the film speed.
When your new, you religiously follow the test procedures.
When your an old codger like me, you stick your finger in the air, squint out of the window, look at the ground, and come up with an answer which invariably gets good results.
I can do this with my eyes shut
for aerial photography, I am going to need all the tests possible when I start cutting on the shopbot.
I took Geralds advice, and did some trials on the pin router, and got the clean edges I need, so when the shopbot comes, I have some start point from which to tweak.
Gerald says And then there is also your judgement on how well the job is clamped.
Doesnt the job have to be clamped perfectly each time?
Or am I again missing something?
As always, thanks for the interest.
Mike

gerald_d
10-09-2004, 08:53 AM
What I meant was that we would cut slower (or shallower passes) if we knew that our clamping was dodgy.

fleinbach
10-09-2004, 09:56 AM
"When your an old codger like me, you stick your finger in the air, squint out of the window, look at the ground, and come up with an answer which invariably gets good results."

Mike,

This appears to be what happens when we get older (some would say we are getting lazy) I prefer to think of it as experiance.

I remember when I worked for the phone company back in the late 60's. The newer younger guys in downtown Baltimore area carried a tool box, filled with tools, and test equiptment,to each repair site which consisted mainly of wire or relay repair (computerization and solid state wasn't very big back then). But the older guys closer to retirement carried all they needed to fix the same problems in there top shirt pocket, consisting of a screw driver, a wire shears and an orange stick. Some how they didn't need the test equiptment but they always got the job done just the same.

I too have reverted to the eye ball method in the past few years. My company custom builds additions and houses. I can make a wall straight or detect weather it's out of plumb just by site.
Of course I require my employees to use a string to get things straight, they are young and need a little practice. Plus they don't have that extra little help we older guys have, "Glasses".