[Geof]

Subtitled: 'Is It Valid To Pick Out Just One'

In this thread I made the comment about advances in endmill technology over the last 30 years and philbur responded that it was not really a major technology jump.

http://www.cnczone.com/forums/showth...371#post626371

This got me involved in a dangerous activity; thinking. What could be defined as a major technology jump and have there been several, one or none during the last 50 years.

I didn't make it a poll because I think it is more interesting to read opinions rather than a list of choices. Also I am thinking only about milling machines and lathes; I don't think lasers or water jet cutters existed 50 years ago.

I think the Big Three in technology improvements have been: Machines with servos and control systems that allow complex cutting motions at speeds that would have been unbelievable a few decades ago; CAD/CAM software that allows complex motions to be programmed and Cutting Tool Technology in the form of tool material, tool geometry and coatings which allow the other two to be used to their full (?) extent.

Even though I placed it last I still think the advances in tool technology are the most significant because even in the absence of the other two these enormously increase tool life and metal removal rate.

[littlerob]

Maybe axis advances, 30 years ago one watching three axes run at the same time would be interesting but now 5 6 7 axes in a mill is pretty impressive.

And Mill Turn machines eliminating a mill op is very helpful considering GD and T.

Swiss CNC is pretty impressive I think.

I know you said single most but I thought I would add discussion material

Robert

[Geof]

I am biased of course because I want my choice, cutting tool technology, to win out.

But you are correct multi axis movement was a big thing; being able to do a circle instead of four quadrants and being able to do a helix never mind the four, five, etc axis capabilities.

Years ago I had this idea that CNC technology, both the machine structure and the control programming, have leap-frogged over each other. In the early days (really early) with steppers and tapes things poked along more or less in synch although I think it might have been the case that a tape could be read faster than steppers could do their thing so the limitation was mechanical.

Then servos and Computer Numerical Control came on the scene and now the machine could go faster but the 1 megaherz processor in the computer could not keep up especially with complex macro calculations and maybe even with simple circular interpolation. Now the machines were processor limited and I think this persisted for many years.

Then computers got faster and they started being able to read the G-code program and process complex stuff even faster than the machine could keep up with simple DC brushed servos. But fancy brushless AC servos with much lower inertai and much higher power came on the scene until now the mechanical and digital are fairly evenly matched.

I wonder if anyone has written a book detailing the full history of CNC.

[littlerob]

I wonder if anyone has written a book detailing the full history of CNC.

Not a bad idea for a guy who has witnessed it all, I'm just a kid:idea:

[handlewanker]

Hi all, anyone know when the first actual CNC machines hit the floor, I mean those that took over from the manual repetition cam set, peg board whatever type as in capstans and key blank cutting mills?

This would be around the 1960 era, before computers were even a houshold name, and Bill Gates was just a twinkle in his father's eye, (I assume, unless he's mor'n 50 years old).

But to answer your question Geof, I reckon it's the advances in the computer industry, but more so the advances in transistor design, and even more so the advances in large scale integrated circuit technology, for without those advances we would not have CNC today in any form, unless you are thinking of a room sized 286 with a powerhouse to supply the valves, so it has to be LSI, large scale integration or IC's.

Another knotty question, which came first the computer or the software? (definition of computer is the deciding point), could a Jacquard loom encoder disc of the 1700's looms be a form of hard software????

Without the simplest software, even the most sophisticated computer is just a pile of good looking electronoic components and cabinet work.

I think ultimately I'd cast my vote for the software, as anyone who gets a glitch at the wrong moment using an El Cheapo software program, and makes a round chuck square in the blink of an eye, will no doubt relate to.

I'll qualify this, you can use carbides from the 50's in todays CNC's, even if only just, but software from as late as 4 years ago will not talk to most CNC's of today.
Ian.

[flick]

I'll qualify this, you can use carbides from the 50's in todays CNC's, even if only just, but software from as late as 4 years ago will not talk to most CNC's of today.
Ian.

That's just because interface standards in computing are more complex, and frequently ignored, whereas a round shank on a carbide endmill is a hard interface to get wrong.

Moving beyond old interfaces in computing might imply significant advances, but it certainly doesn't qualitatively prove it. It is more compellingly evidence of significant internal complexity.

[Geof]

......Another knotty question, which came first the computer or the software? (definition of computer is the deciding point), could a Jacquard loom encoder disc of the 1700's looms be a form of hard software????.......Ian.

I think it is valid to consider the Jacquard control cards as software because they were created by hand to control the machine in making a particular pattern and the patterns could vary. They were the, more or less, immediate precursor of punched tapes used in Numerical Control (NC) machines. They were not discs but cards strung in a long chain.

Regarding the question regarding software versus computer which came first I think the answer is software.

Here is a link that backs up the answer:

http://www.myfavoriteezines.com/arti...rogrammer.html

It would require a trip to a museum in London for me to confirm it but I think Ada Lovelace wrote her analysis of Babbages machine before he actually got it running.

Maybe I will, grudgingly (), accept your software as being equal in importance to the cutting tool technology because each makes possible the full utilization of the other.

[flick]

After considering this question a little bit I'd have to answer that I'm not sure which single factor has made the biggest advance in machining, but I'm certain that it's not cutting tools. There may be an argument for cutting tools if we are just talking about productivity in terms of MRR in simple parts, but when you consider that CAD/CAM and Control Technology together allow us to almost casually design and machine extremely complex parts and assemblies with geometry that was utterly impossible 60 years ago, then it's pretty hard to seriously argue for cutting tools.

[Geof]

..... CAD/CAM and Control Technology together allow us to almost casually design and machine extremely complex parts and assemblies with geometry that was utterly impossible 60 years ago, then it's pretty hard to seriously argue for cutting tools.

I don't find it hard to argue in favor of cutting tools and I addressed your point in the first post. Without modern cutting tools to remove large amounts of material very quickly much of the fancy geometry that is possible with the other two in my 'Big Three' would not be economically feasible because the time to machine many of these shapes would be too long.

[flick]

I don't find it hard to argue in favor of cutting tools and I addressed your point in the first post. Without modern cutting tools to remove large amounts of material very quickly much of the fancy geometry that is possible with the other two in my 'Big Three' would not be economically feasible because the time to machine many of these shapes would be too long.

Well, what factor of improvement do you suppose that modern cutting tools achieve, when compared to cutting tools from 50 years ago? Because being able to create geometry that was not possible before is a productivity improvement on the order of infinity, and that's pretty hard to compete with.

Also, to state that, "much of the fancy geometry... would not be economically feasible," is to pre-suppose knowledge of prevailing economic conditions in a made-up universe.

I would submit that any part incorporating "fancy geometry" in our made up universe is either an alternative to a part that performs the same function (albeit less well... for whatever reason) without such "fancy geometry", in which case the same productivity penalty for lack of newer cutting tools applies equally to the simpler part, resulting in a wash, or else it's a part that fulfills a new role, it's new technology that would not exist without our ability to create "fancy geometry", and therefore the productivity increase is truly infinite.

[RICHARD ZASTROW]

See if you can find a reference to "Parsons" .

I believe he could be regarded as the father of alpha numeric machine control.

At the end of the second world war he and others were involved in developing a method to automatically machine helicopter rotors. The method then being used was to call out co-ordinates which were then manually dialed to produce the tool path.

Parsons, I believe, developed a method to use the "ENIAC" or "MANIAC" computer with, punched card input, to control the machine (a G&L mill of some sort???)

So, If that's true, the first unit was a CNC not an NC.

But, then this could be one of those "senior moments". LOL

Dick Z

[jlanelines]

I think that requires us to look at what we were doing in the shop 50 years ago. Men were machining parts one at a time on Cincinnati Mills with plain milling cutters spaced on an arbor with an outboard support. If your workpiece was CI, You might get 150 SFM and .015 chipload if you were lucky. Every time the tool got dull, one would have to setup all over with a regrind. Parts were shuttled down the line on tables from one press/machine to another where men stood and did one op at a time. If you were lucky enough to have a machine like a Natco, you could drill and tap more than one hole at a time. Otherwise, you were swinging a Carlton from one hole to another playing the "drift" as you locked up the column. Machinists were skilled men who turned cranks on machines that they knew better than their own wives! They made all their own setups and ground their own tools. They were craftsmen, but the work was painfully slow.

The transfer machine brought about a revolution in production. For instance, a workpiece could be transfered down a line through tunnel broaches, gun drills, line boring tools, milling cutters, and multi-spindled drills. Indexable carbide tools, quick-change tools and other tooling innovations made it possible to increase production dramatically.

The NC machine made it possible to do things that the old-timers could only dream of. They were tricky at first. Humidity and thunderstorms played the devil with the controls. Paper tape and Remex readers were real high-tech in those days! Coated carbides, Ceramics, Composites, and PolyC Diamonds made speeds and feeds unthought of before. 390 Aluminum used to almost grind off boring tools. Diamonds could now bore 100s of thousands of pin-bores with almost no wear. High-Helical ground Ti coated drills made spotdrills unnecessary on most ops., and lasted much longer.

Then came the CNC, CAD, and CAM. The first Computer Vision hardware filled a whole room. Now the same stuff fits in a shoe box. AutoCad, MasterCam and all the CNC equipment has come of age.

As you can probably tell, I am an old fart who made the transition from cranks to buttons. I would have to say that the combination of tooling and CNC have made the biggest mark on machining. I do look however in fondness at the old men in their demin aprons, smoking a pipe and fussing over a Jigmill. My own Pop was such a guy.

[Geof]

....So, If that's true, the first unit was a CNC not an NC.

But, then this could be one of those "senior moments". LOL

Dick Z

No I don't think it is a 'senior's moment' I recall reading something about this; have you Googled?

jlanelines could almost have been describing my transition over the past (almost) fifty years; back in the early 1960's I even smoked a pipe but I drew the line at denim aprons.

[tobyaxis]

Cutting Tool Coatings

[RICHARD ZASTROW]

Geof, jlanelines could be one of us old farts. He described the erlier shop experience I grew up with. LOL

Dick Z

[jlanelines]

Dick, Pop drug me into the shop with him on Saturdays almost before I could walk (OSHA would faint now!). When other kids were out playing ball, I was learning how to read Mics and identify fastners! I wasn't thrilled, but Pop thought I ought to know. Pop started setting up screw machines and chuckers right after the war. When he retired from Cummins Engine Co., this man without a degree was flying all over the world consulting. He was the smartest man I ever knew. When I got into manufacturing, I would call him with questions. Many times he made me look like a wizard. We lost him the day before 911.

Over these many years it has been a joy to get to know many wonderful "old farts". Sadly, we lose many of them every day. Wonder what we will every do if we have to "tool up" for another big war? We don't have the manufacturing base left. Many of the basic skills are resting in graves.

I guess now after all, I REALLY AM an old fart. I do so love the smell of resulferized cutting oil in the morning.

Please excuse the sappiness.

[handlewanker]

Jl, you bring back memories, something I try to avoid nowadays, too much living in the past makes me moody.

I will concede that the smell of cutting oil always invokes a memory of starting a night shift in the 70's and the first waft of cutting oil that hit you as you clocked in and went into the factory.

In some ways it also brings a shudder, of long hours on manual lathes and mills when it took all you had to beat the wear and tear the boss couldn't be bothered to properly maintain.

I came across my first experience of CNC capability in 1976, when the firm I was working for bought a couple of NC lathes to replace the Herbert hydro copy lathe.

I was quite amazed at the ability to produce a complex part, and on inspection scrap it without so much as a "sorry boss", but make another within minutes, with the due offsets reprogrammed in to get the tolerances right.

The writing was on the wall as far as I was concerned.

The same part with all the tight tolerences would have taken a couple of hours each on manual lathes, mills and grinders.

Never before in the field of human endurance was so much performed by so few with so great a finesse.

Old Winston will no doubt wag a bony finger, but also nod in agreement.

Like Hansom cab lamp fitters, the day of the centre lathe turner has finally been eclipsed by the new kid on the block who at a press of a button make parts that previously were impossible to market due to labour rates and time to make them.

I would venture to further say that the EDM wire cutter has made more toolrooms close their doors than any credit squeeze or foreign import.

The last firm I worked for reduced it's toolroom personnel by 90%, and sold off all of it's ten Bridgeports except for two, in case some tool maintenance were needed, and that with a work force of two toolmakers and a foreman.
Ian.

[RICHARD ZASTROW]

Our first N/C machine knocked out a line of 32 drill presses and tapping machines, paid for itself in 3 months, all $29,000 of it. 1963 Cincinnati Vertical called a "cintimatic". Manual tool change, drum cam/micro switch controlled Z-axis, manual spindle speed control via variable speed belt thingy (tapping can be tricky), 40 ipm x-y feed, 100 ipm rapid traverse.

You could use "axis offset" to move (correct) the machine a total of +/-.005".

Been known to mill Alum. @ rapid traverse.

Fun stuff!!!

Dick Z

[Nzoldun]

Sorry Guys,
Have to disagree with all of you.

The single biggest advance in machining over the last 50 years has to be the Personal Computer!

I started my apprenticeship in the days of the slide rule (mid 50's) and acquired my first scientific calcualtor in my mid to late 20's at a cost of a nearly two months salary. Since then, having moved on to professional engineering, but still maintaining a home workshop, the spetacular advances in machining have all depended on the advances in computing power.

[TomB]

There are two subtle ambiguities in the tread title. Is ‘machining’ limited to the process of removing metal from stock? Although we have in the past thought that was the case and implicitly thought that was synonymous with making parts it is no longer the case. There are industrial processes that make parts by adding ‘plasma’ to the stock. Its not widespread now and I don’t think anybody full appreciates how the properties of parts and materials can be advantageously manipulated during the growth but leading manufacturing ‘scientists’ i.e. the guy that are out ahead of the manufacturing engineers of the world, are making progress. They have made parts that can not otherwise be manufactured.

I expect it will replace many traditional machining processes in the future and thus it may become the ‘biggest advance on machining technology’. Thus the second ambiguity in the title; Does the advance have to be ‘past tense’ or does something half born now count?

Tom B