how to draw wood tools

[marcof]

thanks to your help but I'm stepping in a month maybe I'm done (I'm a little hard on my head maybe) but I don't have so much time, the customer would kill me, better than I let them keep doing them out like I did until now.

sorry x loss of time

but I don't understand one thing: you build these tools on drawings provided by others or sell them from catalog and asked you for a special tool?
because if you use swx for your work and you don't have time to learn it well alone, then a course is urgent.

 

[malpella]

thanks to your help but I'm stepping in a month maybe I'm done (I'm a little hard on my head maybe) but I don't have so much time, the customer would kill me, better than I let them keep doing them out like I did until now.

sorry x loss of time

I "quote" myself, after a moment of "depression" I wanted to continue the result I allego.
What do you say? A little better?

I'm also my name mike and I don't do turning jobs etc. I produce diamond tools for woodworking, so when you tell me how to create I have a little difficulty I use other cnc machines
(I study gorges, axiality etc. then my lathers think to realize the "body" then I balance the diamond and work on electro-erosion machines)

mainly sw I need x bring presentations to the customer of how I want to make the tool and also to give my suppliers to realize the body as I want it.

Thank you.

 

[Mike1967]

Well. mike, you're demonstrating to yourself that with application and practice, everything
it is surmountable, things that the moment seems very difficult, between a few days
will be at the odine of the day.
That's how it goes. :finger:

 

[marcof]

I "quote" myself, after a moment of "depression" I wanted to continue the result I allego.
What do you say? A little better?

quoto mike1976 and I congratulate you for resisting the temptation to throw the pc into the box of chips :smile:

I looked at the file and, apart from the net mileage to have at least halved the number of features and sketches. an observation: I would immediately make the "picchio" at 45° then add the work that they work to create the headquarters of the knives in those 22,5°. at the end of all repeat it 8 times and you find yourself with a unique solid body, without having to match.

I think you're doing the main sketch too complex. with strange odds, like that 4,685 or that 106,004 , that if you read them your heavier according to me you run behind with the bigger bare that has Besides, there are quotas clearly placed so much to bind the sketch but they have no sense, like that tilted by 106,004. I hope you're not using automatic quotation... in case you forget it

define how you do all the geometry of the mill in the first sketch could also go, but it seems to me a legacy of autocad and drawing 2d. I would split up a bit with simpler sketches.

a curiosity, I saw that the cut angle of the two knives is not equal; compared to the brake beam one is 8,79° and the other 10,51°. the numbers are strange (from chase with the bare in hand :smile and in my opinion there is something that does not fit.

Finally the question of extrusions along the 30th line: the important thing is that you are well aware that the geometries you get on the solid, in the sections perpendicular to the cutting direction are diverse from the ones you traced in the reference sketch on the front floor. for example the two faces for the seat of the knife are not orthogonal but are inclined between them by 91.555768°... other tracking value with bareno
if you want to get the correct sections the plan in which you draw the geometry of the cuts to 30° must be perpendicular at 30°, and at that point extrusions no longer need a direction to indicate.

Hi.

 

[malpella]

Hello everyone
Happy Christmas and a great 2011!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

 

[marcof]

Hello everyone
Happy Christmas and a great 2011!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Same to you!

but now we want to know how the story of this blessed frieze ended, otherwise there is no more taste to provide some straight...

 

[Luca Carciofi]

hi, I am a designer of brands too I should start drawing these cutters, pcd tips for woodworking in solid works.. is the tool for you suitable? I saw it was very intuitive. do you think there are limitations to create these tools in a parametric way?

 

[malpella]

hi, I am a designer of brands too I should start drawing these cutters, pcd tips for woodworking in solid works.. is the tool for you suitable? I saw it was very intuitive. do you think there are limitations to create these tools in a parametric way?

mmmm let's see if I guess... you're not a relative of a certain orlando...?
and the company mi....tech...?? in the province of mc??

 

[marcof]

but now we want to know how the story of this blessed frieze ended, otherwise there is no more taste to provide some straight...

mmmm see if I guess....(cut)

Oh, welcome back. . !
So? Do you want to update us on how it ended up with modeling your frieze?

 

[marcof]

hi, I am a designer of brands too I should start drawing these cutters, pcd tips for woodworking in solid works.. is the tool for you suitable? I saw it was very intuitive. do you think there are limitations to create these tools in a parametric way?

I have no limitations.

rather I wonder if posing with that kind of detail is the correct way. the profiles of the finished mill derive from the combined rotation/translation movement of cutters or otherwise shaped wheels that profile the body of the tool. If I think, for example, a hard metal candle cutter with helical cutters, spouts and discharges, I imagine the final result as a relatively simple programming on the cn that generates perhaps complex surfaces.
when remodeling to the cad the oerator to the cam then how to adjust to make the path tool, since the surfaces are the result of the continuous subtraction of a solid inside another?

 

[bagaroz]

Good morning to all,
Recently work in a small company that produces hs and hard metal cutters. when I asked that cad used they almost laughed, in their opinion it is much easier to start from drawing 2d with the basic parameters (dead, spouts, nuclei, propellers etc) then work directly on the machine cnc simulator, which allows you to set the same parameters of the sharpeners and also provides a three-dimensional output of what you get.
Are they using a strange method or is it a "prax"? I haven't seen what they do yet, but I'm sure they don't.

by curiosity I tried to look at the various files posted and it is really a very complex job to realize

 

[malpella]

Good morning to all,
Recently work in a small company that produces hs and hard metal cutters. when I asked that cad used they almost laughed, in their opinion it is much easier to start from drawing 2d with the basic parameters (dead, spouts, nuclei, propellers etc) then work directly on the machine cnc simulator, which allows you to set the same parameters of the sharpeners and also provides a three-dimensional output of what you get.
Are they using a strange method or is it a "prax"? I haven't seen what they do yet, but I'm sure they don't.

by curiosity I tried to look at the various files posted and it is really a very complex job to realize

for the hard metal cutters you use? schneeberger, walter, anca, etc... ?
I have used for years a schneeberger gemini and I can tell you that they are right it is very + simple to use the simulator of the machine since it calculates everything already calculating the type of mola set, just change the parameters of the discharges, throat, angles, etc... and she shows you how it comes and any errors

 

[Fulvio Romano]

but "starting from drawing 2d" do you mean paper and pen? because if it is not so, see that cad is not synonymous with 3d...the 2d made to the computer is fall to all effects, because it is a drawing assised by the computer.

for the rest, I do not know the peculiarities of the job, but the cad 3d is used where there is neither need, if it is not necessary would be a mistake to use it.
the very widespread concept of "today only the feces draw in 2d, given the power of 3d", is totally wrong.

 

[bagaroz]

we say they use autocadlt 2002, with predefined standard blocks. in practice a schematic idea of the type of tool is right and the different parameters are reported that do not change the design in its form. for special products always perform on autocad of the most explanatory drawings of profiles or particular sections, sometimes obtained only after the simulation (which does not allow to export anything, at the limit you can save the screen as image)

@malpella: we have machines of all three brands, a single schneeberger old enough used mostly for "grossolani" jobs, walter and anca we have different. the walters guarantee perhaps the best results but the anca software is more intuitive (it is what for now I am learning to use first). for the next purchases I know they will go to see also a rollomatic grindsmart. What were you better with?

 

[malpella]

we say they use autocadlt 2002, with predefined standard blocks. in practice a schematic idea of the type of tool is right and the different parameters are reported that do not change the design in its form. for special products always perform on autocad of the most explanatory drawings of profiles or particular sections, sometimes obtained only after the simulation (which does not allow to export anything, at the limit you can save the screen as image)

@malpella: we have machines of all three brands, a single schneeberger old enough used mostly for "grossolani" jobs, walter and anca we have different. the walters guarantee perhaps the best results but the anca software is more intuitive (it is what for now I am learning to use first). for the next purchases I know they will go to see also a rollomatic grindsmart. What were you better with?

I was always "in love" of the shneeberger I used it to make tools for wood: hm tips, shaped knives, sharp drilling tips etc.. but I also know walter and anca two great machines (the walter perhaps a little poor as technical assistance)
but from the point of tools is a nice race I would say that they are all 3 on the same level

 

[Luca Carciofi]

hi are luca, study and in part during the week I work a company like yours, producing wood tools in the inter maceratese. I've been doing a solid part a week for two years. Seeing your design, I can give you some very useful advice since I hit our head a lot.

1 doing the solid course is fundamental, only after I noticed it, seeing some of your very complicated sketches I could tell you that the course makes you a lot easier.

2 eye always on the cam, maybe in your design do a lot of fittings that then with the cam you can not reproduce

3 you always need to look for a way to adjust angle clamp angle axiality etc. so you can change the parameters whenever you want.

If I can help you, let me know
Hi.

 

[malpella]

hi are luca, study and in part during the week I work a company like yours, producing wood tools in the inter maceratese. I've been doing a solid part a week for two years. Seeing your design, I can give you some very useful advice since I hit our head a lot.

1 doing the solid course is fundamental, only after I noticed it, seeing some of your very complicated sketches I could tell you that the course makes you a lot easier.

2 eye always on the cam, maybe in your design do a lot of fittings that then with the cam you can not reproduce

3 you always need to look for a way to adjust angle clamp angle axiality etc. so you can change the parameters whenever you want.

If I can help you, let me know
Hi.

Are you working at the microtech? ?

 

[Luca Carciofi]

Did you end up working? They're microtech!

 

[malpella]

Did you end up working? They're microtech!

salutami gabriele ...

 

[Luca Carciofi]

greetings from? ?