Відео

Yes, they are 0.05mm apart along the Z-axis of the lathe.

Bearing boys UK. 9000 chrome ball transfer unit 47775

Thanks for watching. Below are links to other burnishing tools on the channel. lathe contour burnishing - ua-cam.com/video/Avgv5uD49rk/v-deo.htmlsi=eR4gMFxJycVfQzpb milling patterns - ua-cam.com/video/X_St-JSrBQw/v-deo.htmlsi=WFy-efIz3AasehHp lathe patterns - ua-cam.com/video/srBk8jEbaOE/v-deo.htmlsi=_ccUBAp5UblN0udn lathe diameter - ua-cam.com/video/C8Smu026128/v-deo.htmlsi=z4Dm02Kf61-IxqRj lathe bump tool manufacture - ua-cam.com/video/YJ73vtAV320/v-deo.htmlsi=ClMGHMBuNa1u0N79 double ball lathe diameter - ua-cam.com/video/Ekd-ELYJo6o/v-deo.htmlsi=hPAtT4U1oqTVnQU5 double ball milling patterns - ua-cam.com/video/PZ7XHXsY_no/v-deo.htmlsi=TgcITOdaScWrfpAh double ball milling mirror flat surfaces - ua-cam.com/video/C0LaHOmrxyM/v-deo.htmlsi=pyAr5YKg8lU4Ry21

They could, I'm sure there are many applications including cosmetics. I was surprised by how easily the blue workshop paper towel scratched the surface.

The water miscible coolant I use is Rhenus TU446. Below is the description copied from their website. ' Milling steel today, drilling aluminium tomorrow; Rhenus TU 446 is suitable for manufacturers that deploy varying processes and different materials on a daily basis. The coolant is also suitable for the processing of non-ferrous metals and other materials susceptible to staining. Daniele Kleinmann, head of product management for coolants, says: “With Rhenus TU 446 we’re demonstrating that versatility and high performance really can go hand-in-hand. Users don’t need to compromise on any feature. In addition, as the coolant has a low water hazard classification of class 1, storage and handling are a lot easier. “With no GHS pictograms, SVHC ingredients or formaldehyde depots, Rhenus TU 446 is an optimum alternative to products based on secondary amines,” she continues. “This means there are no restrictions due to legal requirements and the product is simply a safer option.” Suitable for titanium, steel, stainless steel, non-ferrous metals and cast iron, the product’s specific formulation also makes it suited to stain-prone materials such as copper and aluminium. In addition, Rhenus TU 446 minimises the risk of corrosion and discolouration, and has been successfully tested for compatibility with polyurethanes and paints. '

@@machinists-shortcuts Its NOT suitable for the reasons I listed. I run an anodizing shop. We would not touch aluminum that has been machined using this stuff. Typically machine shops as a rule will not use water based lubricants on aluminum. The water is the issue here, not the lubricant.

@@ptsdchannel Thanks for the info. To be fair, I never promoted my use of coolant The whole thing started when some pratt suggested I was using silicone who was blissfully unaware of white soluble oil type coolants. The part was never quoted as being prepared for anodising. However like virtually all machining channels using water base coolants, we regularly send out anodising without any problems or specific demands from all the anodisers we use. There are countless videos using coolant on Aluminum so you and @onsecondthought4174 have plenty of teaching to do, unless it is just me you are targeting.😉

@@machinists-shortcuts Sounds like you're using the services of hacks. It's well known not to use water based lubricants on aluminum. When our shop is talking to a client we ask them specifically what lubricants they are using and why. We ask them to use to the proper cutting oil for the reasons we listed. If the anodizer you're using doesnt have an issue with this than they simply don't care about the end result of the anodizing. If you don't want to understand that then whatever. Do what makes you happy. Its youtube. YT is full of hacks that think they know what they're doing.

Taking shrooms again? You people with the haters deal need therapy. If there was ever one word that needed cancelling more is that word haters. And the people who use it... Get a clue.

I'm not sure what / where you mean. Thanks for watching.

@@machinists-shortcuts You don't use silicone lubricant on aluminum. Normal oil is supposed to be used.

I was not aware that I had any or used any silicone lubricant.

@@machinists-shortcuts What is that white stuff you are using in the video? ITS SILICONE LUBRICANT!!!!!! You have no clue what you're doing!

It's soluble oil. Rhenus TU 446.

I think the spindle bearings can be overloaded if the tool is asked to do too much work. A smaller number of bearings helps reduce upward load.

I don't know any manufacturer or hobbyist that uses this simple robust principle. Usually the balls are pushed round, this tool allows them to freely roll at their own pace. They are supported above by the profiled track instead of on a point to distribute the load.

The example in the video was Aluminium with a coarse finish which allowed the peaks to be crushed easily. The burnishing tool was set 0.02mm below the flycutter.

Thanks for watching.

I also never said anything about under 10 minutes. I asked if it was believed that doing this manually could be done faster than using a probe in the machine.

I was responding to the challenge you posted telling me to replicate Adam's video content.

@@machinists-shortcuts "Ok. Now do a whole video that you present on UA-cam and let’s see how fast you do it.". Present being the key word. To talk through. To explain what you are doing. To educate the audience.

@@MechanicalAdvantage The comment relating to doing it manually & probe was in response to the comment posted by @RicksterX-92fs. I suggested 10 minutes, your challenge was in response to that comment. I'll edit my earlier comment.

@@MechanicalAdvantage Drilling holes is pretty self explanatory. The education came from showing that there are machines out there specifically for the type of job that Adam was attempting, that are far faster than manual or cnc. Watching the whole job completely finished in 5 minutes shows what is happening in job shops everywhere and deserved a mention, especially those considering purchasing a CNC.

Assuming the extra work does not flex the machine, then all the balls will remain at the same height performing the same as with less balls. So either a finer finish or a faster finish.

@@machinists-shortcuts In a perfect world, sure. But there are limiting factors. They are at the same height, some part of the variable has to change. And that is the load per ball, how much pressure is on the balls and how much is on the workpiece because of that. More balls means less weight per ball for the same amount of spindle downward pressure. So now you have 2 things that change - how much the ball can crush the workpiece as it rolls over it based on per-ball pressure, and how much the spindle/machine flexes. For more balls to have the same amount of work, you'd need twice the spindle pressure so the per-ball pressure (and workpiece ball travel path) sees the same force.. but mills are not infinitely stiff. A machine flexing would make the spindle to workpiece tramming move, which means one side of the tool would be deeper than the trailing side (or alternatively front/back).. Just saying, everything is a spring, and doubling the balls wouldn't automatically mean for all the variables staying the same besides that, that you would get twice the speed or better finish. It could, just the same, do no work what so ever, and that .2mm depth just flex the spindle up .2mm, because the per-ball loading is below the plastic deformation strain of the workpiece. Because that's the key factor - the ball pressure (and hardness) is above the workpiece plastic deformation strain, so that the ball rolling over workpiece deforms the workpiece crushing peaks into the valley, leaving a smoother finish. Same reason why setting it 0.001mm depth of 'cut', would not give you an atomically fine finish regardless of travel/spindle speed, the pressure is below that required to smoosh the workpiece flat.. That being said, great video and I am very pleased you got such good results from it! I haven't watched the other vids in the description but definitely plan to! I bet there could be some sort of 'a-ha!' moment if you start doing math about ball diameter versus depth of crush to work out the angle of impingement (or i guess it would be ratio of exsecant over tangent? i ain't been in school for decades!) per depth of cut. Heh, typing out the word 'exsecant' triggered an unknown ptsd event. College trig marks our souls, it seems! Anyhow, thanks for sharing, it came out great!

@@dogsarebest7107 Thanks for the comments, there are lots of variables that makes setting a bit of trial and error. I'm sure this extremely simple principle can be further refined.

@@machinists-shortcuts It really did come out great! And you're not kidding about how many variables there are! On lathes they normally run 1 large ball for burnishing, i wonder if you could do that for mill also. You'd have 2 choices, either the ball is in line with spindle and the mill drives the ball around, or a single ball mounted to a holder, going into a boring bar holder or flycutter, so the single ball moves around much faster. I think the latter would be a great video and experiment! Single ball like how it's done on a lathe, mounted to a boring bar head, to adjust the diameter of the sweep.. it would be much faster than trying to run a single ball in the spindle. Thanks for the reply, have a good one

@@dogsarebest7107 Check out my other videos on burnishing with a single ball. One for patterns on a steel block in the mill & the other creating patterns on the lathe. The links are in the description. This tool is allows a larger ball to roll in ALL directions as it sits on a bed of smaller balls allowing it to follow conplex shapes. Please let me know what you think.

Good point. Generally there are two types of this style of arbor. Traditionally the saw is located on the body and held on with a cap. This style allows for a key as the key is in the body which is directly driven by the spindle. This more contemporary style locates the saw on the cap and the cap in turn locates in the body. Although the cap is solid where the saw locates, a key will still depend on how tight it is clamped as the cap is not directly driven. I hoped to solve this by making it possible to exert a lot of clamping pressure using a large screw with a large hexagon drive.

The pattern burnishing was at 0.2mm deep on Aluminum.

I believe so. Cogsdill have a lot of information on their website.

The balls I used were 7mm diameter. I think you are correct that less quantity of smaller balls should work better.

Thanks, I do try to post original ideas.

The burnishing tool was set 0.02mm lower than the flycutter. The initial finish was deliberately coarse which allowed the peaks to be easily crushed. I would assume the thickness reduced by less than 0.02mm.

The demo was on a CNC mill. This ball assembly is solid but I have tested a single ball unit with belleville washers acting as a spring. On this demo the balls were -0.02mm offset from the coarse diamond finish. If the initial finish is finer, then less offset will probably be required.

@@machinists-shortcuts Thank you for the quick reply. I think I would be more comfortable with the disc spring (Schnorr) washers. This way the applied force would be predictable. For just improving surface finish, do you think a modified full-complement ball thrust bearing work?

I would certainly consider a thrust bearing. More balls will allow a faster feedrate, the demonstration unit was predominantly for pattern burnishing so only had two balls. I would look to spring the whole tool instead of individual balls. There is a link added to the description showing the manufacture of the tool which may help with your design.

@@machinists-shortcuts Thank you!!

A thrust bearing would be ideal. I'm considering a larger unit now the principle has been established and will certainly consider a thrust bearing, no need to reinvent the wheel.

Thank you! Cheers!

Two simple machined pieces, worth having a go. Let me know how you get on.

Glad you like it!

It's surprising how often jobs come in for drilling into the ends that are too long for the lathe or mill. For larger diameters I can use my 3 jaw chuck with a 5c mount, but any small 3 jaw will work.

Here are a couple of short video links links using magnetic rotating rollers with a non marking flat on them. drive.google.com/file/d/1B_tPAOlvVQfDqgTwQBJpDxfW_598oZ9d/view?usp=sharing drive.google.com/file/d/1I7JXrSf_DCAR4xKKN-n6P8z0PAqeTT4w/view?usp=sharing

To get the best finish with the flycutter I had to run the feed at 75mm/min at 0.1mm depth of cut. The CCGT insert has a 0.8mm corner radius but the 100 degree corners are far sharper. This demonstration hopefully shows that I can get a better finish with the button insert face mill running over 20x the feedrate of the flycutter and could easily take a 4mm depth of cut.

The toolholder is a stock left handed steel boring bar, I kept it deliberately buried in the body to minimize any protrusions for safety. There is an image just showing the boring bar. The test piece was Aluminum which I thought would be ok for the demonstration, I did not want to make a really long video showing lots of other materials being cut. The body is also Aluminium as it only carries the steel toolholder that holds the insert. The cutting is performed by a polished high shear insert, specifically for machining Aluminium. It has very low cutting forces to transfer to the cutter body.

@@machinists-shortcuts Aluminum for the body is fine for a proof of concept, but if you are going to keep it around I'd remake it in steel. Even with the lower tool pressure you'll still get measurable material deformation with aluminum just from the rotational stress of spinning. And by switching to steel you won't have to worry about galvanic corrosion, not to mention thermal expansion problems and "oops" moments having a higher chance of catastrophe.

@@skwerlz I won't use it again, even this cutter is just too slow to make me any money. The video was intended to demonstrate that I can get far better finishes with button insert face mills far, far quicker. The original idea was to auction it off for charity, but your sales pitch may change that lol. I should get it anodized & I'm sure it will be a nice addition to someones tool collection. If I need a uniform finish I use scotchbrite pads on a random orbital sander - see my video - ua-cam.com/video/HfX3zSDTySE/v-deo.htmlsi=mu2Yq1PJw0jj0jEh thanks for the comments.

i have use industry 20 years aluminium made cutting tools. It was many different aluminium alloys, and best alloys are strong like steel

@@juhavuorinen3945 Yes the Aluminium is easily fit for purpose, I've been at this for 50 years when the tools were in black and white.

Thanks

I did a comparison at the end showing the different finishes together.

Glad it works for you. I have found button insert face mills better for my applications as shown in the video. A random orbital sander & various grades of scotchbrite offer further satin finish options.

Thanks I hope you liked the tips at the end. I can only find one other method for finding the center of the end of a round bar without a DRO or DTI using just an edgefinder. It also needs two indicators to work which sort of defeats the object if you already have an indicator or two..

Yes, but I can't get it to work. My phone camera must have been on the wrong setting.