Jump to content


Photo

Brain cramp.


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 DonLans

DonLans

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts

Posted 06 January 2014 - 04:15 AM

This is driving me crazy. On drawing 48-13 on the right side of the drawing. It shows the 2 segments of the cocking switch silver soldered on a .250" square. It shows a .140" gap. I can't see how that can be. The way I figure it, it would be .110" because each step is .070". Therefore: .250" -.140" = .110" Am I missing something?

Don

#2 42rocker

42rocker

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 253 posts
  • LocationFla

Posted 06 January 2014 - 01:45 PM

Don
I did not do the math - but the two steps are different sizes. (48-10 & 11). Double check that page and lets see how it works then.

Later 42rocker

#3 DonLans

DonLans

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts

Posted 06 January 2014 - 07:34 PM

I rechecked 48-10 & 11 and it still comes out to a .070" step (ear) on each, the way I figure it. 1.860" - 1.720" = .140/2 = .070" on the inner cocking ring. On the outer cocking ring its 2.280" - 2.140" = .140/2 = .070". Then you add .070" and .070" and subtract that from .250" square stock (on drawing 48-13) and it leaves .110" and not .140". I'm stumped.

Don

#4 Cutter

Cutter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 747 posts

Posted 06 January 2014 - 10:29 PM

Don,
Keep in mind , your only using the outer ring part # 48-11
segments for cocking switch

#5 DonLans

DonLans

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts

Posted 07 January 2014 - 02:23 AM

Now I'm really confused. I see where it says to use leftover segments left over from p/n 48-12. But how do you make an outer ring an inner ring? The cross section on 48-13 shows the 25 degree segment cut and it seems to show to use both the inner and outer parts left over after the cut and solder them on the .250" square. Whoa is me.

Don

#6 Bzrkr

Bzrkr

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 07 January 2014 - 03:29 AM

My suggestion is don't make it like the plans. I tried it and it was just a mess. I scraped it and started over. I made a new cocking switch machined out of one piece of steel. It worked out much better that way. I didn't have to figure out some way to clamp those 3 little parts together all aligned correctly and eliminated that weak soldered joint which
I didn't like the idea of any way.

#7 DonLans

DonLans

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts

Posted 07 January 2014 - 04:20 AM

That's probably what I'll end up doing. I wanted to do it the first time by the plans just to see what was going on. Then make alterations. The cocking switch is giving me fits because I'm having a tough time visualizing the print. How its made from the remnants of the outer ring has really got me confused. I do appreciate all the advice. Thanks

Don

#8 Cutter

Cutter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 747 posts

Posted 07 January 2014 - 03:37 PM

Don,
Sorry for the confusion
Just pointing out another impossibility on the RG-G prints.

#9 DonLans

DonLans

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts

Posted 07 January 2014 - 04:12 PM

Speaking of impossibilites. The 25 degress segment layout on 48-10 & 11 is different from the 25 degree segment layout on 48-13. Which one is right? I am positive that I'm going to make a cutter to make this in one piece now. As you suggested in the photos. Thanks.

#10 Cutter

Cutter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 747 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 04:20 PM

Don,
For me, using 1/2 dia rod, made it very simple.
Here's a picture for comparison

#11 DonLans

DonLans

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts

Posted 09 January 2014 - 04:08 AM

Thanks Cutter. That makes it a lot simpler.

Don

#12 Cutter

Cutter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 747 posts

Posted 09 January 2014 - 04:21 PM

Couple repeat pictures, but may be of interest to someone

#13 Sparky_NY

Sparky_NY

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • LocationAnderson, SC

Posted 10 January 2014 - 12:03 AM

Nice work, as always Cutter. What do you use for cad/cam? That is something I have a lot of learning yet to do to get proficient at.

Now that that crazy cold spell is past, I hope to get back out into the shop and work on my mill retrofit tommorrow and the weekend. I am Sooooooooo anxious to get back on the gatling project.

George

#14 Cutter

Cutter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 747 posts

Posted 10 January 2014 - 04:09 PM

Thanks George,
I've been using Surfcam for about 20 years.
My first software was Micrographic manufacturing in 1985
on a Mac-Plus. That company is now Oracle.
Let me know if I can help, it's only a hobby.

#15 42rocker

42rocker

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 253 posts
  • LocationFla

Posted 10 January 2014 - 04:20 PM

off thread topic -- sorry but

Cutter what do you think of mach3 cnc software??

Later 42rocker

#16 Cutter

Cutter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 747 posts

Posted 11 January 2014 - 03:22 PM

Tim,
For home/hobby use Mach3 motion control software
works great. On my machine after the initial tune-up
no problems for over three years. Mach4 coming out
this year.

#17 nitewatchman

nitewatchman

    Site Admin

  • Moderators
  • 174 posts

Posted 12 January 2014 - 06:09 AM

off thread topic -- sorry but

Cutter what do you think of mach3 cnc software??

Later 42rocker


For what it's worth, I have run Mach3 on my Tormach 1100 for the last 2-1/2 years. I don't have any problems or strange events and some programs run over 600,000 lines of code.

There has been a lot of chatter on the Tormach Forum about how unreliable Mach3 is but some of the most vocal don't seem to own a Tormach and others are trying to do other things on the PC like watch a video while their machine is running. I think there is no place for external USB hubs, network adapters, sound cards, video players, etc. on a machine being run by a PC in a time sharing environment. These devices can throw an interrupt at some of the most awkward times.

nitewatchman

#18 Sparky_NY

Sparky_NY

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • LocationAnderson, SC

Posted 12 January 2014 - 12:15 PM

I have used mach for many years on my prior milling machine and it worked well for the most part. That is not to say it didn't do the occasional funny.

It IS interesting to see that Tormach has apparently dumped mach for their newest product, their soon to be released CNC lathe. They went with Linuxcnc instead (formerly known as EMC)

I dumped mach after my cnc lathe retrofit, although mach worked well for me on a mill, it was horrible on a lathe. Consulting with Brian, the owner of Mach, many of the bugs in lathe could not be repaired and would be addressed in Mach4. Not wanting to wait years for Mach4, I switched to Linuxcnc and have never looked back. My present mill retrofit is under Linuxcnc also. Friends have made the switch and also been far happier with Linuxcnc.

Basically, Linuxcnc does today what Mach4 only promises sometime in the future. On the downside, the learning curve is steeper with Linuxcnc but well worth the effort. Unfortunately, with that sort of power comes more complexity.

#19 DonLans

DonLans

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 03:50 AM

Cutter,
I drew the cocking switch up in AutoCad and I have an extra 4 degrees. Is it OK to eliminate it?

Don

#20 Cutter

Cutter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 747 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 05:03 PM

Don,
I have 10° above center line, the same 10° shown cut away on the cocking switch.
The small step left over .188, has no significance.
The drawing view to the far right is incorrect ( 48-13 )
Also, 77° is another drawing error. An offset line keeps the same angle.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users