I keep running into the same issues over and over while programming with Fusion360. There is some hurdle that I can't see that I keep running into, and I can't quite put my finger on it. 

Backtracking a little bit, all my previous CAM (machine programming) consisted of putting together a random assortment of toolpaths until I got my desired result. Unfortunately, I don't have a specific process in how I program, and isn't a noticeable problem on simple objects. Still, when I get over to 5axis parts or even those with complicated surfaces, it really becomes apparent. 

I keep finding myself in situations where I need to test several toolpaths to find the right one and often waste a ton of time trying to tweak certain ones to fit my parameters, only to throw it out when I find a more efficient way of doing it. This problem leads back to my time at the makerspace, where I would try out many different methods and used what "worked" but wasn't the best solution. 

I've hit a rut or plateau where I've got a decent understanding of the toolpaths available but not the best way to manipulate them. I've been working on the rocket project for a week or so now and have come up with several CAM programs for it but scrapped those and re-did them. I feel a little as if I am regressing instead of progressing; I'm don't have a strategy and am "finding my way" each time I program a new operation. I'm spending larger and larger amounts of time for sub par results; I'm honestly embarrassed how long it's taking me to get some of these parts going and keep thinking to myself it will be different next time because I know how to do it now. Still, I seem to fall into the same trap over and over. 

If anyone has any insight into resources that may be useful for going through a specific process when programming new parts or working on complicated surfaces, I would greatly appreciate it! I know there is a better way of doing things than my current method, and I know if I can figure out a series of questions I can ask myself, I could become highly efficient. 

Above I have a quick example of one of the areas I'm working in. I have to contour a piece with minimal side to side clearance and still get relatively small stepdowns for a 0.04" ball endmill to finish. When I use the 3d Pocket clearing toolpath, the problem I am having is either giving me consistent stepdowns that I define. Still, the height isn't going to match up with flat surfaces on the part necessarily, so I deal with the ball endmill cutting too much material. On the other hand, if I enable flat area detection (reads the flat surfaces and machines to them vs. consistent stepdowns), I run into the problem of it taking super light cuts when contouring raised surfaces and adding to the run time. 

The difference between the two toolpaths is approximately 20% longer with the flat area detection vs the consistent stepdowns. It's the difference of about a minute in this case which isn't all that much but when you scale it up to the rest of the part it adds up quickly. 

I made a bunch of progress on the programming of the model rocket today!

I was a bit dissatisfied with how my programs have been turning out lately, and I think I may have found the prime reason. I would typically use a lot of adaptive clearing toolpaths to rough out my projects. However, I would also take pretty light stepdowns (50% of tool diameter), so the machining time to clear out large areas is quite extensive. I would also use many different strategies to clear out material trying to be the most efficient with each tool, but adding it all up with the tool changes and time between paths builds up quite a bit of run time. 

I decided to review my boss's operation and imitate that as it was a proven program. I found that he only used pocket clearing methods to remove the bulk of the material, then come in with single tool finishing toolpaths that run right over quite large stepdown roughing at lower speeds than you would typically see. It's a fascinating combination of slow but steady mixed with swift overall operations. He is big on not pushing the machine to its limits and running hard to get every ounce the machine has got. 

It's a very interesting way of doing things and contrary to most machinists' methods, but his output speaks for itself. I'm shocked by some of the turnaround time's he has gotten on some very complicated parts. He's able to get the part from design to ship out the door at fantastic speeds; he focuses more on putting a good program through the machine rather than a high-performance one. He often tells me that he is not a production shop, and spending an extra hour of programming to cut down a few minutes in machine run time for a couple of parts doesn't make sense. 

It's really been a stumbling block for me to get over not using adaptive clearing methods as I was brought into that early on hearing it was the best thing since sliced bread. However, what I didn't realize was that it was better only for certain applications. For the majority of aluminum operations, you can push your tool pretty hard in full depth cuts. 

Got to watch a collaborated live class hosted by MakerBot and Fusion360. Jason Lichtman from Autodesk started with a basic overview of Fusion360, describing the many uses it has. Then started talking about the joint and simulation aspects, outlining some of the features and how to use it. 

One tool that caught my attention was the As-Built Joint, which defines the movement of two given components. The difference between this and the normal joint tool is that with the As-Built, it takes your components and keeps them in the same position, only defining the directional movement. In contrast, the joint tool requires you to select two contact points where the parts are to align. 

He then moved over to talking about Generative design, which I was really excited about. Generative design is a unique feature in Fusion360 that allows you to generate many design iterations by reading defined objects to avoid building. For example, let's say I want to design a bicycle frame; it only has five major points (wheels, handlebar, seat, and pedal setup) that I need to be defined, like a bolt hole to attach a wheel or a flat surface with special features to attach the pedal mechanism. Once I have those areas defined, floating in space independently, I can use the Generative Design feature to create the organic body shape that attaches all those defined areas in specific ways. 

When creating a new generative design part, you need to define certain aspects of it; if not, it could place the material in places that don't even make sense. I already mentioned your defined features, but there is another selection where you DONT want material. Let's say you wanted an empty gap between the wheels of your bicycle; you would create a rough block in that space and set it as a "no go" zone. So the program knows not to place any of the finished models in those no-go zones. Additionally, you can create a general design for Fusion to work off by setting up a rough draft of the shape you want it to start from. 

What I didn't know about GD (generative design) was that it creates many design iterations for you based on a slew of set parameters.  You could have one design generated specifically to lower the weight, another could be for manufacturing capabilities, or another could be based on certain pressure points. Each iteration isn't restricted to just one area; it could be a wild combination of many settings. One of the things that piqued my interest was the manufacturing capabilities. You can set the specific way you plan or are open to making the part you want. For instance, lets say I want my bicycle machined on a 3 or 5 axis CNC mill, 3D printing, injection molding, die cast, or even laser cut on a plasma machine. GD would create a different design iteration for each desired manufacturing outlet, making it very easy to quickly generate your product while knowing it can actually be manufactured.

I don't have the time to go into many more features, but the whole idea behind this is quite amazing!

Switching the pace a bit on my writing as I want to highlight my younger brother Ezra and some of the things he is working on. I'm honestly shocked at how fast he picks up the technical knowledge and puts it to use!

He is 12 years old and working on some impressive stuff for his age. Recently he picked up his own 3D printer after playing around with one he borrowed. He bought an Ender 3 Pro, a fairly basic printer with a single nozzle, and approximately 6" square build space. It came in completely disassembled, and he spent the better part of two hours putting it all together by himself. He did ask me a couple of questions on how certain parts fitted together, but for the most part, he was on his own and worked diligently until it was up and running. The next morning, he had printed the first piece on this printer, and the quality was outstanding! Worlds better than my own first attempts and probably better than what I could come up with now.

He also assisted me with 3D printing some of the prototypes for the Duif Workholding project and did a fantastic job where the parts fit together just right!

He's got two blogs going where he writes several times a week on wide-ranging projects, one of which includes coding using the course Codeacademy. He's very technically minded and really wants to get into some 3D design work, which I encouraged him to get started with Fusion360; however, due to some age restrictions, he cannot create an account at this time. He's tried some other 3D modeling programs like TinkerCad, but he is already reaching those basic programs' limits. 

As I am writing this, he asked about some formatting issues with a USB stick he was trying to move some files onto and showed him how to clean it up and unlock it. I'm really excited to see where he takes his talents and know he will go far on his interest alone!

His blog addresses are ezracodes.posthaven.com/ & ezraharris.com/ 

Didn't work on anything super exciting today, just continued cleaning up the rocket model and programming it. 

I also spent a good bit of time helping my boss set up for a virtual convention hosted by Facebook for small businesses that wanted to promote their company and connect with new people. I got to watch the opening presentation for it and some of the people who spoke after, and it was underwhelming, to say the least. Unfortunately, it was heavily focused on supporting minority groups and LGBT+ in detriment to other businesses. I personally don't really have a problem with companies supporting those groups. But, they are barring some companies from participating if they don't fall into the minority groups and limiting their influence. 

I also spent a bit of time playing around with the Pocket NC. I recently picked up a cheap 0.001" dial indicator off of MSC industry and hoped to build a fixture to hold it to correct any spinout the tooling may have. Unfortunately, after taking a closer look, I thought that adjustment screws on the tool holder's base were merely set screws used to lock it in place. There might be another area around the spindle area, but nothing popped out at me. I decided to check what the runout was and was pleasantly surprised to find it only about one thou from high to low. Still isn't ideal but not as bad as I was expecting. 

While poking around the spindle carriage, I noticed four threaded holes in each of the corners. I'm not sure what they are used for if anything, and may have been for some future feature Pocket NC was going to add or remove. I mention this because I've been considering adding a coolant system to my Duif Workholidng site that would activate with the spindle, and making a piece to mount over those holes would work really well for that.

My boss has got an exciting way of calling up potential clients with a unique business card type. I've mentioned this in previous posts but never actually showed it before. 

He designed and put together a mini model rocket "kit" that he ships out to specific people to showcase what our shop can do. It's a really ingenious idea and apparently has gotten him quite a bit of business in the past. Because it's a showpiece item that you'd typically display on your desk, it's something that catches your eye; it being a rocket is even better for those more technical minded who would appreciate it. Since it's a kit that you put together, you are emotionally invested in it; that's a huge factor when it comes to items of perceived value. If someone makes something with their hands, they subconsciously tie a higher value to it than the same item made by someone else.

The plan for this showpiece is to have certain aspects anodized blue and other raw machined aluminum. This means the part is a multi-operation piece requiring the majority of it to be finished, then it gets sent out for coloring and gets cut again to remove some of the colors in certain areas.

My boss designed the rocket in Mastercam, which is used for CNC programming and not as design software. Thus, the part consisted of a series of single faces put together for toolpaths to follow over. He also had a fixture plate already made for the project, so I was tasked with fixing the broken model and making it a solid one, which I would then program the operation. 

I got to use some new features in Fusion360 to help me out with this, one of which was the section of the surface where you could create and manipulate independent faces and build solid models in a roundabout way. Using this, I was able to fix gaps in the models and turn the rocket into a bunch of solid models. It took a bit of playing around to get the hang of it, but when I did, the work went really fast, and got everything cleaned up! 

The image of the yellow and purple parts is the before, where everything isn't connected properly, and you can only get a general idea of the model. And the grey is the finished model where all the bodies are solid and complete.

My boss also decided to get the Fusion360 manufacturing extension, which will give me a huge amount of new tools to work with. I am most excited about the snipping tool; it allows you to manually go through and cut out any parts of your toolpath to avoid certain areas or just cut down on machine time! 

After my boss saw my work with the model truck I designed up last week; he gave me another project that stumped him for some time. I have to re-create has got a very organic shape to it with only two faces that actually require specific dimensions. One face is at an odd angle, which is where he ran into the greatest difficulties.

With Fusion360, a feature allows you to import images directly into your project, which is perfect for drawing up already existing items. Because of this, I could take images of each face of the part using my phone, then uploading them directly into my workspace as canvases. From there, I can scale the image to the desired size by editing the imported drawing and defining two points to set the proper size. 

I played around with a few different features to see what would work best but kept coming up with the same problem, and that was one of generating the 3D body. My initial thought was to use the loft toolpath using the two defined faces as starting points and connecting them via rails, which would outline the right shape. However, the rail guidelines didn't work, and I would only end up with a lofted part that connected the two faces using straight faces. 

I briefly tried using the generative design section of Fusion360 to create the organic shape but abandoned the idea after some testing and found it was more for stress components and not generating the type of body I wanted. 

By accident, I stumbled upon a feature in the loft toolpath that allows you to set how far each face should keep its pattern. I illustrated a quick example of comparing the two lofting methods. The drawing on the right shows the straight angled loft toolpath with no user interaction, and the example on the left shows you can move the faces forward or backward to hold that shape for a defined distance before morphing into the other face. Using this method, I was able to get a very close match to the part in a few moments, versus trying to draw it out manually. 

All in all, if I had the project again from scratch, it would only take me about 10-15 minutes to have it all modeled up and ready to go!

Well, I am now over my 20 hours limit I set for myself to launch this product. I figured this would be the case but not how fast it would come about. 

Today I worked on setting up the campaign emails that the people signing up for updates would receive. I was using Mailchimp to do this, and was fairly straightforward at first. 

I already have a few people who signed up to get updates, so I had to be careful not to touch those contacts or accidentally send out emails before I was ready to do so. The first thing I set up was the "thank you for subscribing" page, which would consist of a quick thank you note and mention a few emails you may receive. I found that those emails are called Final Welcome Emails; basically, the last email you receive after opting in. I didn't realize that you could have double opt-in emails, which will send a confirmation email asking the person to confirm that they want to receive emails from the site. 

You absolutely do not want this, it gives your people extra steps to get added to the list, and if they forget to do so, you may never get their email. Unfortunately, Mailchimp isn't that clear on how to remove the double opt-in emails, only how to add them, by default; it shows that it isn't activated, but when I test it with my own email, I immediately get the confirmation request and don't get to see my welcome message until I confirm it. I spent a few hours looking around and trying to get this to work but to no avail. My suspicion is there is a bug, and the double opt-in setting should be activated, but it seems to be not connected to anything. 

For the time being, I am going to leave the signups as is, and new people that get added to the list won't get any emails right away, but I don't want to push them through the hoops of confirming their subscription, which would dramatically reduce my outreach.

I also learned that depending on what email you use, your campaigns could end up either in the spam folder or promotions folder, neither of which get opened that often and so you could lose those contacts. Sites like Gmail have exceptional filtering systems, making it difficult for spam emails to get through, but when you don't want to be identified as spam, you have to go to extra lengths. One of them is using a site name email address, so instead of example@gmail.com or example@yahoo.com, you would use example@yourdomainname.com, which automatically puts your email above many of the filters built into the system. It gets much more complicated than that going so far as to how long you hover your cursor over the email to define which category it goes in, but I'm not really sure how that all works. 

I spent about 2:30:00 hours on this today, which brings my total hours up to 25:00:00, and I still have a ways to go before releasing the product to the public. My rough estimate is that I will be somewhere around 35-40 hours total. I've got such a learning curve on this project where about 80% of the information I didn't know already, so most of the time spent so far has been just learning. I guess that if I were to start this project again from scratch with only the knowledge I know now, I could probably do it in 7-10 hours. 

I wasn't much work at the shop today, so I got the opportunity to work on my Duif Workholding project!

Spent the day making the baseplate for the dovetail vice, and it turned out amazing! 

I used round stock to make the main plate instead of square stock because of how it's made at the foundry. Square stock is typically poured into a mold where round stock is rolled into its shape. The benefit of using round stock is that because it's rolled, the center point of strength starts from the middle and moves outward, making a uniform shape to the edges. Whereas square stock doesn't have a defined strength point and is kind of all over the place when it's cast. The differences are minimal for what I'm working on, but it's a fascinating idea to keep in the back of my head when working on more strength intensive projects. 

To surface the material, I decided to use a 3" fly mill (a fly mill is a large cutter with inserts that cut the metal) to deck the top of the stock, ensuring I had a perfectly flat surface to work off of. However, what I didn't take into account was that since the stock was only 4.5" in diameter, the size of the tool grabbing the aluminum was a significant ratio of the part; what could have happened was when the fly mill entered into it's cut if it were enough of a bite it would yank it out of the jaws and throw it across the machine. Thankfully I only took very light stepdowns, and so wasn't an issue, but my boss pointed out that using a smaller ratio endmill would reduce the chance of that happening even though it would add to the overall run time. 

I accidentally broke a 1/4" endmill when I came into the stock's side too quickly, which unfortunately left a mark on the finished product. I was using the same endmill to finish off the tall walls of the clamp piece I made the other day and didn't think it necessary to swap it out with a stubby flute one because the flutes extended for about an inch the strength was significantly reduced at the tip. 

For the large facets on the plate's sides, I used a 1/2" ball endmill to finish the surfaces. However, since I roughed the area out with a square endmill, there were pretty large steps it had to mill out as it was finishing the surface and the load of the tool deflected it ever so slightly, which left small dent looking marks where the tool jumped around. The solution for this is to rough it out with the same ball endmill, but leaving a tiny layer on the faces, just a whisper of a cut (no more than two thou), and come in again a second time to finish it up. In this fashion, the tool would have almost no resistance and so leave a much better finish. 

When cutting the dovetails in the main groove, I found that if you leave more than three or four thou on the face that the dovetail cutter is passing through, it will make this gnarly looking chip. It doesn't affect the finished product, but it's fascinating to see on a CNC mill. 

I used a set of soft jaws to hold the raw stock in place, and after finishing the first operation, I was able to cut the jaws again to match the facets on the side of the piece. From the other side, I could remove that little bit of material I used to hold onto and get the final details finished up, which in this case was just a small step down in the center of the disk that would fit onto the raised cylinder on the Pocket NC. 

For kicks, I decided to add my Duif Workholding logo to the plate's top surface using an engraving bit. I could program this quickly by converting the image to an SVG file using an online converter and importing that directly into my design, thus giving me geometry to reference when setting up the engraving toolpath. 

Since the shop has been slow the past week or so, we're getting many more of the tasks that weren't as critical finished up. One of those was making showpieces to give to potential clients to show off what we can do. Today I was tasked with re-creating a unique vehicle made by a German car company. I can't share too many details on it, but it's basically a very stubby truck design, somewhat similar to a G-wagon. Reminds me a lot of a tractor, and you will definitely see why when I finish the project up. I spent about two hours working on the design and getting close to finishing it up. However, the biggest issue I'm working with now is the curves and angles on the car. I may take a short Fusion360 course on design to have this project done properly, making machining the project much easier down the line. 

The mini car showcase is one of three parts that will be sent out to prospects, one is a mini model rocket, another the car, and the last a scooby do that will be done on the 5-axis. 

Each part is designed to pique the interest of the type of client it gets sent to; for instance, the model rocket kit will get sent to engineers and those with more technical backgrounds.

I also recreated one of the dovetail fixtures my boss created (where I got my inspiration for Duif Workholding), and 3D modeled it in Fusion360 with a few minor changes. He is considering manufacturing and selling them to the general public as the soft-jaws of the dovetail workholding world, cheap to make and works really well, may not have all the fancy features of a 5th-axis brand. Still, it gets the job done, and you don't have to worry so much about cutting into it.