# Finally !! PM 932 installed



## 1962guy (May 5, 2014)

Hello all,

After wrestling with building a roll around table that has leveling capabilities for over a month, I finally got the PM 932 fired up!! 

I'm sharing some pics for you guys. Feel free to comment good and bad. All opinions are welcomed!

One of the many issues with the table was that I wanted a tool box underneath for my tooling. My other boxes are full and even though this complicated the table dimensions, to me, it was worth it. Also, I had to get the machine high enough for the top to clear my existing counter tops.

On the floor pics, you can get a pretty good idea of how the casters and leveling pieces were put together. I'm pretty happy with it for now. Oh, also I used the chip pan that came with the PM 932, but I painted it black, so it would match the table and tool box.. While I was putting it together, I went ahead and plumbed a fitting in the coolant drain. That's my next "project". Installing a mist system.

No chips yet, but we're getting there !!!!

Enjoy


----------



## itsme_Bernie (May 5, 2014)

Wow man!  That stand is AWESOME!  I love incorporating those Craftsman drawered tool boxes.  Nice action on the BB slides.  My previous Heavy 10 fit one perfectly inside.  The one have now is just 1/2 inch too small in width!  Hah hah.  First world problems hah.

And the leveling feet too...  Man you really hooked yourself up! 

From what I've heard here, you are going to love that machine.  Nothing like having all your tooling at hand's reach too.  You even ran coolant and air to it!  

Bernie


----------



## Jamespvill (May 6, 2014)

Looks like a really nice setup. Good idea on installing levelers on your toolbox! I have the 932 PDF too and love it, my only regret is not getting the fancy DRO for it, but my Igaging's work well for the time being. 

Did some fly cutting with the Tormach Super Fly Cutter last night...Im not sure how I lived without the power crossfeed before. I also had to drill about 300 holes, that power down feed was real helpful there too! 




Enjoy your fancy new toy!


----------



## hukcats1 (May 6, 2014)

Can I say that I'm extremely jealous? Fantastic work and setup. Time to make chips!


----------



## Leagle (May 6, 2014)

Not only is that a really neat setup, but your shop is cleaner than my desk.


----------



## BenjamanQ (May 6, 2014)

That is very nice. Congrats on a job well done!


----------



## Plinker (May 6, 2014)

That is one great looking set up for sure.


----------



## zmotorsports (May 6, 2014)

Great looking setup.  Awesome job on the bench/stand.  Now quite messing around and make some chips would ya.:bitingnails:  I want to see that thing in action.

Mike.


----------



## Rapscallion (May 6, 2014)

Snazzy, very snazzy. :thumbzup:


----------



## Leagle (May 7, 2014)

Again, a neat idea.  However ...

Does anyone have any concerns that it may be difficult to keep the mill level due to "flex" in the top of the tool cabinet?


----------



## 1962guy (May 7, 2014)

It's kind of hard to see, but the tool box is inside of a steel frame. The bottom of the frame is 3/4 inch solid steel with 1 1/2 inch vertical steel supports. The table is topped with a solid piece of 3/8 inch steel. The machine sits on top of all of this steel.

The tool box simply slides in the opening in the steel, so none of the machine weight is on the tool box itself. I'll try to post some clearer pics.!!

Thanks for all comments!!


----------



## Ray C (May 7, 2014)

Leagle said:


> Again, a neat idea.  However ...
> 
> Does anyone have any concerns that it may be difficult to keep the mill level due to "flex" in the top of the tool cabinet?




Hi Leagle...

Hope you don't mind but let me chime-in with a few pearls...

With mills in this class, the bed itself won't flex any amount that can be accurately measured in a home shop and I can all but guarantee, error due to the flex in the tooling will far, far exceed any error introduced by the bed flexing.  There are two criss-crossed layers of ways on top of the bed and each one is floating on a layer of oil.  That will certainly hide any miniscule amount of bed flex.  

In some cases, vibration or oscillation might become apparent but if that's the case, an extra strut here or there -or possibly corner braces should take of that.  If you're taking light cuts, heck, you could leave it on the wooden pallet and you'd be OK.   There are two different stands available for most of these mills one is heavy sheet metal and the other is cast iron.  I happen to have one of each on my two 45's and I've never noticed any measurable differences in accuracy.  They sound very different of course (and I like the sound of the CI base better) but I just don't foresee  or detect any differences in accuracy.

 Also, just to set expectations, mills like this (actually ANY manual mill) are only intended to get precision parts very, very close to finish size (say, within 1 to possibly 1/2 thou) and if precision higher than that is needed, the traditional technique is to cut oversize then finish-up with a surface grinder.  Fortunately, for most milling operations, 1-2 thou accuracy is plenty good and 1/2 thou (which is trickier than you might think) is frosting on the cake.  You can indeed cut with higher precision on a manual mill but almost without exception, you'll need to take a couple practice cuts and adjustments.  It's also worth noting that the finish produced by conventional mill cuts is generally too coarse to measure with precision higher than 1/2 thou...

Lathes are a different matter because of their geometry.

And for the sake of completeness, some mills have requirements for flooring.  I'll spill the beans and let folks know, I'm looking at some nice mills now like the one shown.  I need to find industrial space that has a minimum of 5" concrete flooring and allows installing studs in the floor.  These mills have finished-product accuracy specs which is tested by running a known part and measuring it.  These can work on fairly hard steel and produce finishes of "lathe-like" quality given the SFMs they are capable of.  This is a whole different can of worms from a manual mill.






Ray


----------



## Ray C (May 7, 2014)

Was thinking about some of the questions that folks ask so I'll toss-out a few random thoughts...

Lets say you want to cut a 1/2 wide slot.  Should you use a 1/2" wide endmill?   -Probably not and for several reasons.

A 1/2" wide endmill won't remain 1/2" for very long -especially if it's HSS.  Take a brand new endmill and carefully measure the diameter then, take a few cuts in any carbon steel or if you're brave, stainless steel.  Now re-measure the endmill.  It will be about 1/2 to 1 thou less in diameter.  I'll bet you coffee and a donut on that.  Carbide is a little better in this regard but, it wears down too.  Also, if you sharpen your cutters, they will decrease in diameter by a good bit.

Next issue on top of this, is that tooling flexes.  The center portion of an endmill flexes and so do the individual flutes.  When you combine this with other issues such as material type and feeds & speeds, it's highly unlikely a 1/2" endmill will ever produce a precise 1/2" wide slot.  Depending on the factors and starting size of the cutter, it could over cut or under cut the desired amount.

So how do you do it?  Use a 3/8 or 7/16" endmill and make multiple passes.  When you do this, be mindful of making hill climbs (don't do hill climbs for stock removal with machines equipped with ACME leadscrews).  When I need to make a clean and fairly precise slot, I use a 3/8 or 7/16 cutter and make a first pass then make another set of conventional passes taking off all but 1 thou on each side.  Finish off by doing a couple hill climbs to take off that little bit and you'll get a very nice finish.

One other thing I do for work that must be precise, is keep several sets of identical tooling around.  I used ridged or rippled edge hoggers for stock removal and smooth sided cutters for light cuts and final finish passes.  Sounds extravagant but trust me, doing this saves money in the long run -and lots of it.

Also, I'm a big fan of carbide endmills -but not just any kind of carbide.  TiN coated is pretty good but TiALN (also sometimes called ALTiN by some vendors) is the cat's meow.  It's razor sharp and stays that way for a long time.  Naked carbide chips all too easily and a couple bucks more for the coated stuff is money in your pocket.  Also, it helps to keep your feeds and speed about 20-30% below HSM cutting rates.  I avoid cutting too slowly as that generates a lot of heat in the part, work-hardens most materials and dulls the tools much faster.  Why does it dull the tools faster?  Chip Load.  Each time a flute takes a bite out of metal it dulls the edge a little and it makes no difference if the bite was a big one or a little one.  Big bites of course cause more stress on the overall tool (and machine) but the amount the edge dulls is the same.

One other thing to watch for (and this will be avoided if you keep your finish cutters separate from your hoggers) is that endmills will taper over time.  Most cuts only use the tip (or very lower portion) of the cutter.  The day will come when you need to side-off a piece and if you do it in steps, you'll see a step-like pattern in the cut because the cutter is actually tapered from use.

And finally, use the right kind of cutter for the job.  If you need to face a part, be mindful of your DoC and don't try to take 15-20 thou off with a 2.5" face tool.  Most of us have 1-2 HP motors and that's not enough HP to take cuts like that.  Use the right size facing cutter for the job and avoid using endmills to do facing work.  Most important...  Try to use stock that is appropriately sized for the desired piece.  You will save time/money by keeping an inventory of stock in 1/8" increments.

It's all just common sense but for some reason, I had to learn all this the expensive way...


Ray


----------



## Smudgemo (May 7, 2014)

1962guy said:


> Feel free to comment good and bad. All opinions are welcomed!



Personally, I think it's a mighty-fine looking setup.  :whistle:




-Ryan


----------



## 09kevin (May 8, 2014)

You are looking at a Hurco 5 axis?  That would be sweet!


View attachment 76375


Ray[/QUOTE]


----------



## Ray C (May 8, 2014)

09kevin said:


> You are looking at a Hurco 5 axis?  That would be sweet!
> 
> 
> View attachment 76375
> ...


[/QUOTE]


Yes... looking at several units similar to this.  Not sure about the need for 5 axis though -at the very least, because my brain can't think in those many places all at once .   Been looking at Haas, Hurco, Milltronics and also spending a lot of time for industrial floor space to put it.  Units like these have requirements on mounting to the floor as well as requirements on the floor itself.

Ray


----------



## HurricaneWhisperer (Jul 4, 2014)

Ray C said:


> Was thinking about some of the questions that folks ask so I'll toss-out a few random thoughts...
> 
> Lets say you want to cut a 1/2 wide slot.  Should you use a 1/2" wide endmill?   -Probably not and for several reasons.
> 
> ...



Excellent point as well as the description of the work around.  We found that 1/2 to 1 thousandth wear in a HSS end mill you described could occur after making just 1 to 3 keyways in 17-4 PH stainless steel.  We didn't have near that sort of wear in 416 or 316 SS and it encouraged us to try to do keyways in 17-4 in the CNC bed mill using carbide tooling and taking advantage of the much stouter box ways over the knee mill.


----------



## HurricaneWhisperer (Jul 4, 2014)

> Yes... looking at several units similar to this.  Not sure about the need for 5 axis though -at the very least, because my brain can't think in those many places all at once .   Been looking at Haas, Hurco, Milltronics and also spending a lot of time for industrial floor space to put it.  Units like these have requirements on mounting to the floor as well as requirements on the floor itself.
> 
> Ray



I loved the RH-20 Milltronics we had.  It was an open machine that suited the large parts and small quantity production numbers we had. I would characterize it as a machine with a lot of travel for the money built more for low production and toughness than high production and speed.  Had much less trouble out of the PC based control than the industry standard control on the lathe.  Very easy to program for quick jobs.  Nice durable buttons and visible screen too.  It's still working.  I no longer own the shop though.


----------



## Ray C (Jul 4, 2014)

HurricaneWhisperer said:


> I loved the RH-20 Milltronics we had.  It was an open machine that suited the large parts and small quantity production numbers we had. I would characterize it as a machine with a lot of travel for the money built more for low production and toughness than high production and speed.  Had much less trouble out of the PC based control than the industry standard control on the lathe.  Very easy to program for quick jobs.  Nice durable buttons and visible screen too.  It's still working.  I no longer own the shop though.




Do you happen to remember which PC based controller you used and were pleased with?  I have a background project of locating a second source to be offered as an option for the PM45CNC.  Naturally, I'd prefer to start looking at the brands/models that folks have positive experiences with.  Anyone's thoughts/opinions are welcome.

On a related matter, I'm curious about how much programming folks tend to do on the controller alone vs. generating CAM code with a primary CAM software package.  I've tried to direct programming on Mach 3 but, it just seems too risky.  I've watched many videos of direct programming on the Hurco/WinMax platform and it looks really cool.  That controller cannot be purchased individually though...


Ray


----------



## JimDawson (Jul 4, 2014)

Ray C said:


> Do you happen to remember which PC based controller you used and were pleased with?  I have a background project of locating a second source to be offered as an option for the PM45CNC.  Naturally, I'd prefer to start looking at the brands/models that folks have positive experiences with.  Anyone's thoughts/opinions are welcome.
> 
> On a related matter, I'm curious about how much programming folks tend to do on the controller alone vs. generating CAM code with a primary CAM software package.  I've tried to direct programming on Mach 3 but, it just seems too risky.  I've watched many videos of direct programming on the Hurco/WinMax platform and it looks really cool.  That controller cannot be purchased individually though...
> 
> ...



Is a Centroid controller out of the question?  There is really nothing that competes with Mach3 in price.  It might make sense to develop your own house brand, using one of the available, less expensive motion controllers to do the heavy lifting.  There are quite a few options available, but I only have personal experience with one brand.  In my opinion, direct PC control sucks, at least when using a Windows OS.  While my machine is running, I can be working on another CAM file, or actually drawing in a CAD program with no problem.

For simple shapes and patterns, like squaring a block or large facing operations, I will just pop Notepad up and write a quick G-code routine to do the job.  I have a few ''canned routines'' that I just change a few parameters in and press GO.  If it's too complex, it's easier just to run it through a CAM program, even if I have to go in an do a quick edit.


----------



## Ray C (Jul 5, 2014)

JimDawson said:


> Is a Centroid controller out of the question?  There is really nothing that competes with Mach3 in price.  It might make sense to develop your own house brand, using one of the available, less expensive motion controllers to do the heavy lifting.  There are quite a few options available, but I only have personal experience with one brand.  In my opinion, direct PC control sucks, at least when using a Windows OS.  While my machine is running, I can be working on another CAM file, or actually drawing in a CAD program with no problem.
> 
> For simple shapes and patterns, like squaring a block or large facing operations, I will just pop Notepad up and write a quick G-code routine to do the job.  I have a few ''canned routines'' that I just change a few parameters in and press GO.  If it's too complex, it's easier just to run it through a CAM program, even if I have to go in an do a quick edit.



Hi Jim,

The Centroid units have a great reputation as far as I can tell.  The product information is very good and by all accounts, it seems great.  It appears though, the kit prices are on-par with the cost of the mill -effectively doubling the price.  -That won't go over very well...

The CamSoft package looks very good and I'm tracking down more information on it.


Ray


----------



## HurricaneWhisperer (Jul 6, 2014)

Ray C said:


> Do you happen to remember which PC based controller you used and were pleased with?  I have a background project of locating a second source to be offered as an option for the PM45CNC.  Naturally, I'd prefer to start looking at the brands/models that folks have positive experiences with.  Anyone's thoughts/opinions are welcome.
> 
> On a related matter, I'm curious about how much programming folks tend to do on the controller alone vs. generating CAM code with a primary CAM software package.  I've tried to direct programming on Mach 3 but, it just seems too risky.  I've watched many videos of direct programming on the Hurco/WinMax platform and it looks really cool.  That controller cannot be purchased individually though...
> 
> ...



The controller was the OEM supplied, PC based controller that came with the Milltronics machine.  I believed it was called Centurion.  I don't know if it can be purchased individually.  The machine came with a very small, dos (Windows CMD prompt) based program that would fit on a 3.5" diskette very easily.  You could program at your desktop or on the machine.  The program was pretty simple but was all we really needed for the simple operations we performed on the machine.  Other programs could be used of course, but the simple program was enough for the needs we had on our machine.

We mostly programed at the desktop and tweeked the programs at the machine.  We found that the program was simple enough that if you wanted to program a few simple operations to a part, you could generally do it fast enough that it was faster to program the Milltronics and make a part than using the manual knee mill.  If you were making more than one part, the payoff was definetly there.

The website is http://milltronics.net.  I don't know if it is still there, but they used to have a download version of the program so you could evaluate it.  There was a mill and a lathe version.


----------

