# Is this an April fool video?



## Parlo (Apr 3, 2022)

Came across this video for quickly making a square section from a round bar. Does anyone do this? -


----------



## ttabbal (Apr 3, 2022)

I don't know that I'd say it's a joke. It looks like a valid and useful thing for particular circumstances. If nothing else, the bit about creating a rail to hold in the vise could be a useful trick for odd shapes like castings.


----------



## DavidR8 (Apr 3, 2022)

Not an April Fools joke. Posted on April 2 so there's that.


----------



## FOMOGO (Apr 3, 2022)

Have you seen this one?


----------



## mchasal (Apr 3, 2022)

Joe often posts about efficiency in machining, like this one about squaring stock in fewer setups, so it's certainly inline with his skills.


----------



## Batmanacw (Apr 3, 2022)

My buddy had to make a square part from round stock at work and he did the same thing. Pretty cool trick.


----------



## Parlo (Apr 3, 2022)

ttabbal said:


> I don't know that I'd say it's a joke. It looks like a valid and useful thing for particular circumstances. If nothing else, the bit about creating a rail to hold in the vise could be a useful trick for odd shapes like castings.


It could be rotated 90 degrees and held on the ends without the rail to cut the top and sides.


----------



## higgite (Apr 3, 2022)

Parlo said:


> It could be rotated 90 degrees and held on the ends without the rail to cut the top and sides.


True IF the ends are parallel to each other and square to the cylinder.

Tom


----------



## RJSakowski (Apr 3, 2022)

IMO. Joe Pieczynski is one of the better technical machinists on You Tube.  Now, if it were This Old Tony, I might question whether it was a joke or not.  Not that TOT is a bad machinist but he does tend to throw some humor out there from time to time.

In viewing the video in the link, I didn't catch how he he centered the square on the center of the cylinder.  It appears that he just eyeballed it.


----------



## T Bredehoft (Apr 3, 2022)

He eyeballed the  touch point of the mill, front and back, split the difference for 0.000.


----------



## RJSakowski (Apr 3, 2022)

T Bredehoft said:


> He eyeballed the  touch point of the mill, front and back, split the difference for 0.000.


That's what I thought.  That is so unlike him.  For the purpose of the demo, it works OK though.


----------



## Brento (Apr 3, 2022)

RJSakowski said:


> That's what I thought.  That is so unlike him.  For the purpose of the demo, it works OK though.


It is but he is just getting back into the shop right now bc he tore his achilles tendon.


----------



## Parlo (Apr 4, 2022)

higgite said:


> True IF the ends are parallel to each other and square to the cylinder.
> 
> Tom


They looked to be machined on the ends.
I can't see how the 70+ operations and moves in the video are better than the usual 4 passes with a shell mill.


----------



## Batmanacw (Apr 4, 2022)

Parlo said:


> They looked to be machined on the ends.
> I can't see how the 70+ operations and moves in the video are better than the usual 4 passes with a shell mill.



You may have watched a different video than I did.


----------



## wachuko (Apr 4, 2022)

Parlo said:


> Came across this video for quickly making a square section from a round bar. Does anyone do this? -


I saw it as well.  Not an April Fools' video.

I am subscribed to his channel.  Great content.  Some stuff I just need to watch a couple of times to understand the approach.  I know it will make more sense when I actually start putting into practice all of that.

He just makes everything look so easy...


----------



## Parlo (Apr 4, 2022)

mchasal said:


> Joe often posts about efficiency in machining, like this one about squaring stock in fewer setups, so it's certainly inline with his skills.


Hi mchasal:

Yes the video method you posted is commonly used, especially on CNC machines. It works well if there is sufficient thickness to finish 5 faces in one setup. When there is insufficient thickness to finish 5 faces it has no advantages as *4 edges have to be machined twice. *With the exta two passes and two Y axis moves per edge this adds a lot of time to the job as demonstrated in the video. The video has at least 20 passes and 20 Y axis moves.

With material that does not have enough thickness to use your posted method efficiently, there are lots of more efficient alternatives.

If I get a chance today I will shoot a short video demonstrating the technique ' chasing the burr '.
I will machine a cube in real time, not speeded up.
Square + to size with 6 passes + no Y axis moves + only one parallel and will not need any deburring until it is completely finished.

p.s. no stripes, just a flat smooth finish. I'll post it here later today to see what you think.

I may also machine a round bar to square in 4 passes.


----------



## Batmanacw (Apr 5, 2022)

My buddy used this same trick months before I learned about it from Joe. Not all pieces of round stock are small enough to conveniently hold in a vise length wise. I think this was the situation Joe was really referring to without milling a huge costly chunk of steel.


----------



## RJSakowski (Apr 5, 2022)

Batmanacw said:


> My buddy used this same trick months before I learned about it from Joe. Not all pieces of round stock are small enough to conveniently hold in a vise length wise. I think this was the situation Joe was really referring to without milling a huge costly chunk of steel.
> 
> View attachment 403141


Unless I'm missing something, that looks llike a very dangerous way to machine something.  Round stock should always be clamped past the center or otherwise held down with a third clamp.


----------



## wachuko (Apr 5, 2022)

RJSakowski said:


> Unless I'm missing something, that looks llike a very dangerous way to machine something.  Round stock should always be clamped past the center or otherwise held down with a third clamp.


Look closer... it is machined as in the video from Joe... and then clamped with two vises due to its length...


----------



## Parlo (Apr 5, 2022)

Here is the ' chasing the burr ' technique video as promised.
6 passes - no deburring - no Y axis moves.








						chasing burr technique.mp4
					






					drive.google.com
				




And just to show the 4 pass method from round to square. No Y or Z axis moves.








						round to square.mp4
					






					drive.google.com


----------



## Batmanacw (Apr 5, 2022)

RJSakowski said:


> Unless I'm missing something, that looks llike a very dangerous way to machine something.  Round stock should always be clamped past the center or otherwise held down with a third clamp.



Look.closer. This was one of many options but with light cuts he got it to square without issue. This concept works.


----------



## RJSakowski (Apr 5, 2022)

wachuko said:


> Look closer... it is machined as in the video from Joe... and then clamped with two vises due to its length...





Batmanacw said:


> Look.closer. This was one of many options but with light cuts he got it to square without issue. This concept works.


OK, I see it now,  One of the problems with having the start of cataracts is I can miss the details.


----------



## Parlo (Apr 6, 2022)

Batmanacw said:


> My buddy used this same trick months before I learned about it from Joe. Not all pieces of round stock are small enough to conveniently hold in a vise length wise. I think this was the situation Joe was really referring to without milling a huge costly chunk of steel.
> 
> View attachment 403141


I'm not sure that the video was posted to solve this particular situation at all. The title is: 
Machining Round Stock to Square -- A Time Saving Technique !!!​The opening words quoted included a 'very quick shortcut' , ' half a dozen steps involved but I'm going to show you a way to cut that back', and in the description ' a useful way to save time'. All the references suggest that this is a general demonstration of a very quick method.

At no point in the video was it stated this method is specifically to solve the problem when the bar radius is bigger than the height of the jaws. This video clearly demonstrated and suggested that the technique with it's 70+ operations is quicker on any size bar, regardless even if it is small enough to use the simple 4 pass method, as was the piece in the video. ( Which incedentally could have been held on the ends at 90 degrees to the jaws, without a rail ).

There have been in excess of 36 000 views, some viewers and commentators now thinking that this hugely involved method is the 'go to' time saving technique, however small the bar diameter.

p.s. If the bar radius was larger than the jaw depth, and the bar longer than the jaw opening, how would you machine the rails in the first place? 

Taller jaws and g clamps would work for machining the rail or simply to use to deck all 4 faces.


----------



## matthewsx (Apr 6, 2022)

Didn’t do it with a mill but making stuff square can be done a bunch of different ways.









						Tool Grinder Attachment
					

I bought this really cool small tool grinder a little while back.    It was set up for grinding reamers but not much else so I started doing some research. All I could find online was the original patent filing from 1933, it showed another piece that I didn't get which looked perfect for...




					www.hobby-machinist.com
				




John


----------



## Batmanacw (Apr 6, 2022)

Parlo said:


> I'm not sure that the video was posted to solve this particular situation at all. The title is:
> Machining Round Stock to Square -- A Time Saving Technique !!!​The opening words quoted included a 'very quick shortcut' , ' half a dozen steps involved but I'm going to show you a way to cut that back', and in the description ' a useful way to save time'. All the references suggest that this is a general demonstration of a very quick method.
> 
> At no point in the video was it stated this method is specifically to solve the problem when the bar radius is bigger than the height of the jaws. This video clearly demonstrated and suggested that the technique with it's 70+ operations is quicker on any size bar, regardless even if it is small enough to use the simple 4 pass method, as was the piece in the video. ( Which incedentally could have been held on the ends at 90 degrees to the jaws, without a rail ).
> ...



He showed a neat trick that has some validity in certain situations. Try to relax. He isn't going to please every machinist every time. It's obvious you don't like it. We get it.


----------



## Parlo (Jun 10, 2022)

Joe has posted a comment asking viewers how many separate operations_* they*_ saw performed to acheive the square part in his video.

I made it a conservative 70+
Touching off Z + Y axes = 6
Setting DRO = 5
Z axis moves = 7
Y axis moves = 32
X axis moves = 26
Total: 76 separate operations..
A few more than the quoted ‘½ dozen steps involved’ ..

We all know that only 4 X axis passes are required to turn a round part into a square.

Count the number of operations you see and post your reply. - My reply is already blocked.

Time saving technique? I don't think so. 

Is it _*really*_ quicker than this?


----------



## jmkasunich (Jun 10, 2022)

Parlo said:


> Joe has posted a comment asking viewers how many separate operations_* they*_ saw performed to acheive the square part in his video.
> 
> I made it a conservative 70+
> Touching off Z + Y axes = 6
> ...



My two cents:  On a manual machine, Joe's approach does have a lot of steps.  But suppose you are programming the job on a CNC.  (And he's doing manual just for demonstration purposes.)  His approach requires you to stop the machine to re-clamp twice.  The old-school requires re-clamping the part for every face.  

On the CNC, Joe's way:

put part in vise, run program 1 to make the rails
flip part, grab by rails, run program 2 to mill both sides, both ends, and the top  (he only machined the sides and top, but he said you could also do the ends in the same setup, and I agree)
add parallels, flip part, grab by sides, run program 3 to mill the bottom (now the top)

On the CNC, old school way:

put part in vise, mill one side
rotate part 90 degrees around X, mill 2nd side
add a spacer under part, rotate part 90 degrees around X, mill 3rd side
rotate part 90 degrees around X, mill 4th side
rotate part 90 degrees around Y and use a square to set it up, mill one end
flip part, mill other end

Both methods have their place.


----------



## Flyinfool (Jun 11, 2022)

Parlo said:


> Joe has posted a comment asking viewers how many separate operations_* they*_ saw performed to acheive the square part in his video.
> 
> I made it a conservative 70+
> Touching off Z + Y axes = 6
> ...


I am not trying to be rude here just trying to make it a fair comparison of 2 different but both very valid methods of getting the same end result. There are a lot of other methods possible depending on the particular equipment and situation that are presented.

If you count steps in Joe's video the same way you counted the steps in your video then Joe did it in just 3 steps. In your vid you only counted times the part was moved in the vice.

Now go back to your video and count steps the same way that you counted steps in Joe's video. You also had a lot more than 4 steps. Maybe not as many as Joe, but still a lot more than claimed. 
You are counting all of the steps that Joe used in setup and zeroing of the machine. You did not count or even show any of your machine setup zeroing steps. 
You counted every move Joe made, You only counted your setups. 
You also did not count the machining of the spacer that was just the right thickness or putting it into the vice.
You were using a machine bigger than what most hobbyists have to work with and a very expensive cutter that most hobbyists do not have.
You were cutting soft plastic on a big machine with an expensive cutter so you could blow thru a half inch of material as fast as the machine could move. Joe was cutting steel with a small cutter, so yes it will take more time and passes.

Joe's part also came out square with square corners, yous still had rounded corners since you did not take more time to machine the spacer to the correct dimension and or make several more Z moves to get to the correct height. The stated goal was the largest possible square out of a round.

Joe was not trying to say this is the only way to square round stock, it is just one way that will work for people with smaller machines and tools.


----------



## Parlo (Jun 11, 2022)

jmkasunich said:


> My two cents:  On a manual machine, Joe's approach does have a lot of steps.  But suppose you are programming the job on a CNC.  (And he's doing manual just for demonstration purposes.)  His approach requires you to stop the machine to re-clamp twice.  The old-school requires re-clamping the part for every face.
> 
> On the CNC, Joe's way:
> 
> ...


I agree that the approach to cnc machining is different from manually machining the part. For the example shown it's probably best first to compare Apples with Apples. Using a manual mill it is surely better to cut that part in 4 passes in less than a couple of minutes with 1 Z axis movement for the final size and just 4 passes. The title stated a time saving technique yet took over 8 minutes with some parts speeded up. There were over 70 different individual operations any of which can go wrong. So the demonstration was not  " time saving technique " by any means.
In conclusion for manual machines.
Old skool 100 seconds.
Demonstration over 8 minutes.
My choice is Old skool.

Also; a simple mill is all that is required, no dro needed.

Let's consider manually machining the ends too.
Old skool would probably hold the part between two vee blocks - machine one end - measure - flip and remove the excess to size.
The demonstration could possibly be a little quicker if adding machining the ends to size, ( I really can't see why the advantage of machining the ends was not shown ). With a batch of parts I think the old skool woud be quicker.

Let's consider the principle behind the method. It was devised to hold parts with a diameter larger than the height of the vice jaws. Parts with a diameter too large can't be held securely clamping below the centre line. The issue with the demonstration is that to machine a rail in a large diameter part the jaws must already be tall enough to clamp it over centre. So if the jaws are tall enough, the Old skool method if far simpler, quicker and much less prone to errors.
You will note that a finishing cut was added to the top and bottom faces with a reference to cutting into the part to help with burrs and prevent chipping. Using a correct face mill with a sharp geometry and/or an angled lead prevents edge chipping naturally without a finish cut.
I've posted a video to show this.
It has a button insert face mill with 20mm diameter inserts cutting 12.7mm deep! - over half the insert diameter without any chipping of the part, perhaps this is another an old skool tip.





Let's consider the part on a CNC.

The proposed method would be as you point out.
Cut rail - flip - machine profile + top - flip & machine base.
Part moved 3 times & 3 programs.

You will need taller jaws than the radius of the part.

Old skool method on cnc.
Clamp part on ends + machine profile + top - flip & machine base.
Part moved twice & two programs.

You won't need taller jaws.

No need for a rail?


----------



## Parlo (Jun 11, 2022)

Flyinfool said:


> I am not trying to be rude here just trying to make it a fair comparison of 2 different but both very valid methods of getting the same end result. There are a lot of other methods possible depending on the particular equipment and situation that are presented.
> 
> If you count steps in Joe's video the same way you counted the steps in your video then Joe did it in just 3 steps. In your vid you only counted times the part was moved in the vice.
> 
> ...


I'll try to address all your concerns as you wrote them.

In my video I counted the x axis cutting moves = 4, the same way as I counted the X axis cutting moves in the  promoted video.
I stated that I made 4 passes.
There were no Z or Y axis moves in my video. Sorry I set the Z axis before running the camera, so yes, there is an extra move.

I did not count moving the part in the vice in either video. Ok, Jo moved it 3 & I moved it 4. I was still over 6 minutes quicker though.

My demonstration, was rehearsed for concise viewing, the part diameter was calculated and machined to leave an equal 2mm chamfer and the cutting depth was calculated to match the parallels I already have. It was shot in one take so all my moves were seen. Just 4 passes all at the same height and in the same Y axis position.

I believe I was comparing Apples with Apples.

I was cutting Delrin ( Acetal ) so was Joe.

I deliberately wanted to show how rounded corners could be achieved and even added the simple formula in the subtitles at the beginning of the video.
Jo mentioned that this could have been achieved in his video but did not show it, I don't know why.

I hope this explains that it was intended to be a like for like comparison. I don't know what moves or measurements were taken off camera in Joes video. All my moves were in one continuous shot without edits or speeded up clips.


----------



## mmcmdl (Jun 11, 2022)

My question is , what the Heii good is a square roller ?   And where is all this saved time ?


----------



## Parlo (Jun 21, 2022)

jmkasunich said:


> My two cents:  On a manual machine, Joe's approach does have a lot of steps.  But suppose you are programming the job on a CNC.  (And he's doing manual just for demonstration purposes.)  His approach requires you to stop the machine to re-clamp twice.  The old-school requires re-clamping the part for every face.
> 
> On the CNC, Joe's way:
> 
> ...





jmkasunich said:


> On the CNC, Joe's way:
> 
> put part in vise, run program 1 to make the rails
> flip part, grab by rails, run program 2 to mill both sides, both ends, and the top (he only machined the sides and top, but he said you could also do the ends in the same setup, and I agree)
> add parallels, flip part, grab by sides, run program 3 to mill the bottom (now the top)


Old skool on a CNC including 12 chamfers and all 6 faces - 



Machining all 6 faces to make a finished die cube with one program and one flip without a 4th axis. -


----------

