GearHeads Forum

I have decided after all this to make a simulation
on screen so I can watch the damn thing cut in real time.. :)

Hi Art, is this simulation going to be made available to Gearotic users,..........pretty please. I did think about finding me a 3D simulator that I coud use but it would be very nice ...

I see that now. On my low tooth count gears the base circle is well above the root diameter, so aI guss a bullnose might work. Whereas for larger tooth counts the base circle can even be above the root diameter, so as you say not enough room for the bullnose. But can you not use a bullnose and allow ...

Art. having a square ended tool dancing around in a confined space trying to produce what should be a convex profile was always going to be tough ask. Surely a bullnose cutter would stand a much better chance and at the same time be able to do the tan shaving and have the potential to minimise tool ...

The spur was very small, 15mm OD, and I used the largest possible end mill 3mm, as this was the size I used for the helicals (for comparison). Maybe the cutter size and the relatively small number of root passes is the cause of the ugly spur?

Phil

ArtF wrote: And we figured raising the bit a bit woudl stop the problem..wish I knew what changed..

I though lowering the tool was the solution. It puts the flank at the tangent point, not the tip?

Phil

Art, I thought we pretty much had a solution in post #49 and were only trying to avoid the tool marks on the tan shaving by lowering the cutter a little bit?

Phil

Regarding the missing photo. When I post with an illegal format attachment it rejects the whole post. When I correct the attachment and try to repost it says its a duplicate post and rejects it. So I copied the text, closed the site then reopen, pasted the text and posted it to see if it would be ...

Art, here's the M2.5, 4 tooth spur

Phil

Of course, I had assumed that total depth related to the cut depth in 2.5D and had nothing to do with the 4th axis. It's difficult for the user to guess that you also use total depth in 4th axis to vary the gear thickness to avoid having to go back to the design stage. Seems to violate the whole ...

Then I'm confused. What has final depth got to do with the blank thickness, final depth should be fixed at the distance the root is below the top of the blank (the z = 0 point). Why does the CNC processing redefine the blank thickness This is confusion total confusion!!!!!!

Phil