06-18-2014, 07:48 PM
Well, as I half-expected I'll be starting on Version 2.0 soon. :(
I flipped it over today to counterbore the holes for the M6 socket head cap screws and something seemed wrong. I figured the depth and did the counterbores by setting the tool at the parallels it was sitting on, then dropped the table by the amount of stock that should remain. No problem. Then I stated milling the top side away. Oops, I think I went too deep, because the counterbores look a little shallow.
Doing some mathematics with the print in hand and converting millimeters to the inch readout, I discovered my error. Overall thickness WRONG. I thought I could use 1-1/4" thick stock, turns out I need at least 36mm.
Have I mentioned how I hate converting metric prints drawn in third angle projection and dimensioned using multiple datums? Oh well, at least 10 hours and a chuck of 1018 down the tubes. Not too depressed, I learned a lot about my machine's control so V2.0 done in higher quality stock will be done in half that time.
Anyone need an ugly paperweight?
I flipped it over today to counterbore the holes for the M6 socket head cap screws and something seemed wrong. I figured the depth and did the counterbores by setting the tool at the parallels it was sitting on, then dropped the table by the amount of stock that should remain. No problem. Then I stated milling the top side away. Oops, I think I went too deep, because the counterbores look a little shallow.
Doing some mathematics with the print in hand and converting millimeters to the inch readout, I discovered my error. Overall thickness WRONG. I thought I could use 1-1/4" thick stock, turns out I need at least 36mm.
Have I mentioned how I hate converting metric prints drawn in third angle projection and dimensioned using multiple datums? Oh well, at least 10 hours and a chuck of 1018 down the tubes. Not too depressed, I learned a lot about my machine's control so V2.0 done in higher quality stock will be done in half that time.
Anyone need an ugly paperweight?