For those of you using G-Wizard Calculator.

[chuck26287]

Over time, I have been burning bits.  On initial running of a given RPM/IPM, things look okay, but after repetitively running multiple pieces over time, I start getting a darkened bit that is dulling.  Obviously, my RPM/IPM settings are off.

I have been going through my entire tool collection and entering it in a custom tool crib in G-Wizard Calculator (GWC), being as accurate as possible in setting up the tool's geometry (particularly stick out) and entering the manufacturer's recommendations for operating speed and chip load.  I almost exclusively use Amana tools, and so far, all of their spec sheets recommends 18000 RPM, so I try and set everything up at 18000 RPM, and only adjust from that when I have to in order to get a recommended chip load.  Even then, the recommended chip load can be very difficult to achieve for some bits as we can only get a speed of 200 IPM.  In addition to this 200 IPM limitation, I don't like to run it at the upper end of the speed envelope as I have always felt accuracy in these types of machines is better when not pushing the speed envelope.  I like to keep my IPM no higher than 180, and prefer 144 to 168.  Not theoretically the best for production, but again, I'll trade a little throughput for accuracy and reliability every time.  To get the GWC's starting points (which I input as the settings for the tool in the Aspire tool database), I basically lock the RPM at 18000, and lock the chip load at the average recommended value (0.004 when recommendation is 0.003 - 0.005), set the cut width to SLOT (bit diameter - 100% radial engagement) and optimize for depth of cut (axial engagement).  I've had to drop to 15000 RPM, and even 12000 RPM for some of the larger chip load recommendations, but this has seemed to work fairly well so far for the majority of my typical bits (flat-bottom, straight walled bits).

I have always used 1/2 the bit diameter for depth of cut, and thought I was being VERY conservative.  However, when using GWC and ensuring the tool deflection stays below 0.001", it's not uncommon to get nowhere near that much depth.  But, that's okay.  It's why I invested in GWC... to be able to determine this.

However, now enter the "Tapered Ball Nose" 3D carving bit.  There is specific data input into the Aspire tool database that I'm not sure I'm entering correctly into the GWC tool crib.  Once I pull up the TBN bit in GWC and set a material, I'm at a loss for the axial and radial engagement settings (width and depth), and I'm maxing out both RPM and IPM, and I don't know why.  And, tool deflection is really high, as well.  This doesn't make sense with as little of the tip of these hardy bits that make contact during 3D carving.  Does anyone else have Amana TBN bits in a custom tool crib in GWC?  If so, are you seeing what you expect when bringing that tool up to calculate a Speed & Feed in GWC?

I've attached a few screen shots showing the Aspire database details, and some data from the GWC tool crib entry.  My goal here is to update my Aspire tool database with new starting feeds and speeds that adhere to the manufacture's recommended specs as closely as possible, while keeping tool deflection below 0.001" per GWC.  This will mean me running my machine at a much higher IPM than I have in the past, but I'm hoping that's what is needed.  For instance, for a 1/4" spiral flute plunge, down-cut bit, I have typically used 18000 RPM @ 50-60 IPM (1/8" depth of cut).  However, to get the 0.005" chip load recommended (low end of recommended range), it appears from GWC, I should be at 180 IPM, and for proper deflection, depth of cut is only 0.0824".  That seems to be a pretty significant difference to me.  Burning/scorching the bit over time seems understandable.

I'd love to hear back from some folks well-versed in using GWC.

[Deleted]

I also use this to clean my bits after each use if there is anything on them that makes them look less than brand new:

smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B0036F7EX2/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

[branson]

Chuck, I have done the same thing, but alas I also get the burning effect. I would love to look at your tool database and compare results....it looks like you have been more diligent than I have. I just accepted the burning and dulling as part of the game.

[Eric44]

I have spent some 40 to 50 hrs using G Wizard and many emails with Bob. Although potential is very nice it is definitely NOT a verified software and there is no evidence that Bob is really an experienced machinist if one at all. Just look at his "examples" they are all for cutting plywood. Is that what a machinist does?? It seems to be nothing more than a big database [with hundreds of empty cells] collected from other people's blogs on internet. That would be OK, and even useful, except there are hundreds of holes in the database and the software never warns you that it has no idea what it is doing. The "thousands" of calculations are really an attempt at a scam, as after all these so-called calculations, it still gives you data that causes your machine to bind and shut down, even when G Wizard thinks it is using 1% of allowed power. In this case it became evident and even admitted by Bob that the machine data did not exist. He told me I could measure my machine and add data to G Wizard. That is what I am paying HIM to do!!! Bob does not seem to have any real examples of actually cutting metal and seems to have no interest is ever doing any, NOR in validating any of his "results." How could a commercial machine shop ever possibly be stupid enough to pay him an annual fee? His only major interest seems to be in making blogs about screw drivers that he can watch over and over and show his friends. Never tests his software or updates it to work correctly and gets very angry if you "question" him. I could not find a single example of any results with Bob shown doing any machining. All of his hundreds of "video" are just theoretical showing screen shots of software and Bob bragging bout mostly non-existent great results.