Smikkelbakje/Drone-FabAcademy-2025
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://gitlab.waag.org/make/fablab/interns/2025/sam.git synced 2025-08-03 20:04:56 +00:00
Code Issues Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

group assignment stuff

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Sam Hos
2025-03-07 12:52:18 +01:00
parent d19bb98936
commit 3ba2bc53ac
1 changed files with 21 additions and 13 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

34
docs/Assignments/week_7_computer_controlled_cutting/computer_controlled_cutting.md
View File

@@ -163,21 +163,9 @@ What jog home does is. It goes to the start position of the last job
#### The software
##### V-carve
Tabs are there to keep the object in place. You have to remove them afterwards by hand. Otherwise without tabs things may go flying.
Fillet then add some sort of T-bone and Dog bone.
Make sure when you make modififications to re-calculate the tool path.
Make sure to save both the shopbot file and the vcarve file.
###
#### V-carve
When you open up the software it will ask for the job setup
<insert image of vcarve>
@@ -247,5 +235,25 @@ You can also configure your own milling bits in fusion if yours isn't pre-config
## Testing the machine
We ran some tests on snap fit, conventional or climb milling and we varied with the feed and rpm. We did 2 of the 3 tests wrong the first time. With the Rpm and the feed tests we cut against the grain of the wood.
### Feed and rpm test
![alt text](IMG_8848.JPEG)
The top 3 are the feed tests. The values of those where 60 90 120. From top to bottom. The other 3 lines we varied with the rpm. //TODO: add rpm values
#### Calculating the Vcutting and Tchip of the lines
### Snap fit test
The first time we did the snap fit test we set the offsets wrong. We accidentally did it to the outside instead of towards the inside.
![alt text](IMG_8869.JPEG)
The first test where the 3 blocks on the right. We couldn't get those into the wood. Afterwards realized we set the offset wrong so the next day friday morning we did it again and then we got the expected result. The -0.1 was kind of snap fit but still a bit loose. -0.2 and -0.3 where more loose so these weren't qualified for snap fit. After that I wanted to try -0.05 and that worked even better than the -0.1. Because we could lift the wood partially without the snap fit getting loose and we still could get the piece of wood out.
<video controls src="jj-500.mp4" title="Title"></video>
### Climb vs conventional milling
You can see a big difference in the edges with conventional and climb. Climb milling leaves a lot more dust and splinters on the edges. But as Neil explained climb is better when you're finishing a hole through. That will leave a clean hole. For surface cutting is conventional better.
![alt text](image-8.png)