Tweaking the truck program here and there to get better surface finishes, and I'm actually super happy with one little change that greatly improved the bottom face!

Since this model truck is cut from a block of aluminum in one operation, there's a very long and slow process of cutting it off the base fixture that requires super slow feedrate and RPMs to avoid marring the surface. In the design, the car has a completely flat bottom with only z-height changes contouring the car's outline. The problem with this is that we don't have a tool with a long flute length to take it all at one pass, so it has to be taken at several steps with a short and stubby tool. This causes the side of the endmill without any teeth to rub against the side of the part, leaving a burnt-like surface appearance. Thankfully it doesn't affect the car in any way; it just leaves a pretty poor finish.

My setup currently consists of removing all but a 1/4" strip of aluminum in the center of the truck, at which point the machine pauses in front of the doors for me to add the clamp fixture. Once I properly secure the truck onto the remaining stock, the machine runs a stubby long-reach tool and takes very small stepdowns until it cuts the truck off the base.

My boss suggested having the long-reach tool not contour the bottom of the part, but a few thou (0.0004") away from the side, so that the shank of the tool (the part without cutting teeth) wouldn't rub against the walls. This actually worked amazingly well, and I got a fantastic finish! I also made some small changes to the corners where previously I would get tool chatter as it runs into a corner. For this, I only had to add a slight radius to those sharp corners so the tool wouldn't have to dwell but could smoothly run through without pausing. Though slight changes, it makes a huge difference in the overall quality.

In the video, the first car I show is the old version where you can see the surface marring and chatter marks; then the second truck is with the new system of having the tool away from the sidewall and smooth corners.  

Working on getting these trucks & rocket cleaned up and ready to get anodized!

The anodizing process requires the aluminum to be completely rid of any oils or stains so that the ink can properly cling to the material. From what I understand, the metal actually absorbs the ink into itself, sort of like a sponge, but for this to work, it has to be in a chemical bath that charges the aluminum to want to suck things in. If you have any grit or grime on the part's surface, the ink can't enter through it and leave splotchy patches; this is why you have to thoroughly clean each part before anodizing it.

Some processes even go so far as to let it soak in an acid bath to eat away any oils, though it's not entirely necessary if you can clean the part properly.

The plates and trucks come right off the machines with a lot of coolant, so I need to swish them around in hot soapy water to remove the coolant, then rinse each part to make sure there isn't any soap residue leftover. Though we don't really need to do this as they get washed before getting anodized, it makes the later job much easier and ensures we have a better finish. 

Running through the truck program some more today and refining all the small details I'd missed the first round!

My boss also wanted to try tumbling one of the trucks to see what it'd look like anodized so I got to lightly tumble this one before sending it off next week!

I tried the solution my boss posted yesterday, where I add a 2D contour toolpath before the tracing operation, and it worked!

My brother mentioned this, and I think he's right, where the problem arises from the G1-3 lines of code when it transitions between linear vs. arc milling types. From what I understand, the machine can read each position in the line of code in two basic ways. It can either move the machine to that location in a straight line, or it can give it a slight arc as it travels. For flat surfaces, you'd always want the point to point movement, but for more complicated features like cylinders, you'd want it to break up into small arcs to avoid facets on the side. 

Looking through the code I ran through yesterday, I found it would keep switching between the linear (point to point) and arc as the tool moved along. By breaking the toolpath up and using a 2D contour, it was more advanced to use the proper movement style when necessary and stay consistent until that segment ended. 

I also was able to run through the rest of the program, and I put the finishing touches on the final toolpaths before cutting it off. I also added chamfers to the edges to avoid sharp corners people could cut themselves on. The truck's underside isn't the greatest as the cut-off tool rubbed against the side of it, but my boss doesn't it'll be much of an issue after it gets anodized. Tomorrow I'll run through the whole program one again, this time without stopping it mid-way. And before running all the parts, he's going to send two out to get anodized, one right off the machine, and the other tumbled to compare to each other. 

I've been enjoying using a lot more of the tool setting in Fusion and actually setting up each holder exactly like what I have in the machine. It's given me the ability to get a lot more tool rigidity than I normally would have by eye-balling it. I don't completely trust it with the really hard to reach areas, but it hasn't failed me yet and has saved me on more than one occasion!

I'm running into some issues with the 3D trace toolpath on the truck project today, and I'm not entirely sure what's going on.

While I was proof checking the toolpaths for the model truck project, I noticed that the trace toolpath that contoured the vehicle's bottom rim left a faceted surface. This is the toolpath that I had to manually draw out for the endmill to follow as it had some odd heights and angles it had to reach. It seems that the tool is cutting the face, but it's leaving considerable facets as it moves. I thought initially I made a mistake when drawing the spline out, but after redrawing it, I had a similar result. 

My boss thinks it could be the software making things overcomplicated, and the machine is getting overwhelmed by the information. He suggested I add a simple 2D contour toolpath right before it to get the bulk of the material away, then only use the 3D spline in the section that it needs. Thankfully this is pretty easy, and I can test it out tomorrow.

I also ran through some of the deep walls finishes with a long flute endmill, which was a bit sketchy and screeched quite a bit, but at low RPMs and feedrate, I got an amazing surface finish. I'm honestly quite shocked how well it turned out for how much it was squealing in the corners! I did have to play around a bit with the feed optimization setting in the passes tab to make it crawl into corners rather than taking them at full cutting speed. 

I was recently walking through the neighborhood and had an encounter with three dogs, each different from the other. 

The first dog I passed by was cheerful, eagerly walking toward me with excitement, and didn't flinch or move as I passed by him and his owner. You could tell he was only looking for a good time and only had to fight if it was forced. 

The second dog I walked by immediately started barking when he saw me at a distance, and as I drew near, he would dart back and forth in front of me constantly barking. You could tell he wanted to be a big shot and show off his power and what he was capable of, though backing down in the face of real danger.

The final dog had a similar countenance to the first, where he was cheerful as I walked toward him. But once I got within a certain distance from its owner, he gave a very low and deep growl and did not waiver in his step. You could tell he was there to serve and protect; he was not afraid to stand for his owner and gave a light warning to those who drew near, nothing against them, but purely a statement that he had a duty and was going to uphold it. 

Each of these dogs was fascinating to me and, from my experience, tends to hold similar patterns to those I see. Some people are cheerful and just going through life simple and happy, not caring to strive for greatness. Others see greatness with its outcome and move toward it being boastful and exaggerate what they've accomplished. And then there are the truly great people, those who strive for greatness, not being showy with what they've done, but are stable and true leaders, tough and steadfast in the face of uncertainty. 

Expanding on my previous post talking about using Kaizen in machining, I'd like to give an in-the-field example of what that would look like. 

For this truck project, I've pretty much got the entire operation completed and checked; however, there is a lot of wasted time and efficiency in machine movements and incorrect speeds and feeds that could be improved on. It works, and changing it won't get a different outcome, but the program run time would be reduced and increased tool life.

My process consists of a bunch of small immediate improvements to the toolpaths as the program is running. For this project specifically, many mirrored toolpaths run on each side of the truck, making it especially easy to make fixes as I can run through one side, make changes, and run through the other with the improvements. I'll have my laptop right in front of the machine in which I can do the quick edits while the operation is running, then pause the mill, and upload the new file. Making these improvements immediately allows me to get feedback on how I'm doing. If I were to put it off, I would risk forgetting the change or not applying it to all the toolpaths.

For the instance of roughing this part out, I found a lot of wasted time when the tool ramped down into the material that I missed in the simulation. So while it was running through one of the toolpaths, I made the change and continued watching it run to see if I could spot any other areas I could improve on. The key is not stopping the machine every time; it's only pausing it between toolpaths after they finish so that you still get the same outcome. 

Working on setting the project back up again for the truck operation!

One of the problems I was encountering before with the project was that of tool heights. I didn't have the complete program finished before starting to rough the part out, and so when there were harder to reach places, the tools weren't set up for that, so I had some close calls. Now that I've got the program finished, I need to run through everything and start speeding it up.

I am in love with the Kaizen method that Toyota uses for improving systems! The word literally means "change for the good" or "change good," which Toyota takes to heart and centers its production line around everyone being able to make small improvements at the moment and not having to put a proposal and wait for it to go up the chain. 

In this truck project, I can use the Kaizen method by first getting a result that works, then making small adjustments to improve the time and efficiency. This wouldn't make sense on a few parts, but since I've got 50+ to make, improving the cycle time even by 4 minutes would make a huge difference. Apart from this, though, I have to set things up right the first time. Kaizen is also focused on avoiding making the same mistake twice and fixing it for good. I, unfortunately, have not done this too well, and I'm really learning how to take my time and not get so caught up in getting the parts out. 

Working on optimizing the rocket project again today and focused on improving the time for the second operation.

I'm honestly a bit conflicted about how much time I should be dedicating to shaving downtime on the run time as there aren't too many plates left to do, and the project will be over very soon. I'm thinking mostly of the long-term what would be the most beneficial long term, so an investment now isn't as much if it pays off. 

My boss is very much orientated to getting the projects done with speed and quality; the program itself doesn't have to look pretty or necessarily be re-used. He does many more manual changes on the machine and will make small edits that you would have to remember if you were to re-use it. He's very much an "If it works, it works" kind of guy. And he knows what he is doing too, he can put out parts like nobody's business, but he has a ton of experience too.

He teaches me in his outcome method, which is to get a program running and not try to 'optimise' everything. However, since I don't have the kind of experience he does, I have to think a lot more about the projects, which add a ton of time to each job, and if I only focus on what works, I won't learn those few small tips that might make huge differences. 

I think he has the right concept for prototype and small-time production, and I still want to know those little tricks that speed things up and reduce machine wear. Which is the primary reason I am taking as much time as I am on this production and working through getting the program down with as little waste.

After getting a good portion of the rocket kits complete and ready to ship out, I decided to spend a bit more time working on the toolpath operation for the milling operation to improve time and tool efficiency.

I mainly wanted to do this because of the nagging feeling that the way I programmed it was extremely inefficient and that it was only a matter of time before a tool broke.

It felt somewhat interesting going through and optimizing, and changing some of the toolpaths. I was able to shave 17 minutes off the first operation alone, which is an absolute ton of time. I'm kicking myself for not taking the time early to make sure all the speeds and feeds were correct and connected as I had to individually go through each one and reset it to the correct new preset. 

The main time suck for the operation was the finishing toolpath on the fins. My boss went the extra mile and had me add a particular machining pattern to make it look as if the fins were ejecting and the rocket lifting off. Basically, there is a central point that the toolpath makes a straight line out of, like an exploding star. 

This toolpath alone was 11:20 of the 46:00 total time for the first operation.

The problem was that I initially had the endmill go one cutting direction, then would lift and move back for another pass. The time came in when the tool lifted and moved back across. I initially played around with trying to use rapid motions when retracting and lowering the retract height. Still, there always seemed to be a slight machine pause as it owuld transition from cutting to retracting. So after discussing it with my boss, I was given the go-ahead to change the toolpath to run both directions. I thought this would cut the time in half, but I was mistaken. It cut it down to 4:21 from the previous 11:20! This was huge, and the surface finish was of equivalent quality. 

After that, I ran through the rest of the operation, making small improvements here and there, and got it all to run in 29:00 vs. the previous 46:00! My goal is to get these 1+2 operation parts to under an hour, which will speed up the time to get these sent out before the rush of work comes. 

I also ran through and checked the plate's flatness after the first operation to ensure it's all even so that I won't run into issues as I did in the past.