A central tenet of this series is an acknowledgement that the hobby CNC routers need different numbers for different sorts of paths. Thus far he has done:
I’ve been adding the videos, but I haven’t found time to watch or transcribe the videos (I have a pathological dislike for videos on computers) — if someone would post the numbers from each, I’d be glad to.
I meant to answer this earlier. Maybe since he works for Carbide 3D, Winston should provide you with his F&S instead of someone else who needs to check each videos and transcribe.
I believe that the excerpts from “Why Single Flute Cutters Are Awesome on Desktop CNC’s” provided in the attached file are wrong.Moy 1 vs 2 Flutes.zip (1.6 MB)
Gerald, maybe you should explain why you think it is not correct. I’m not advocating for anything but if you state that something is wrong, you should say why that is.
I also added this comment to the associated YouTube post: “Isn’t it material removal rate, rather than the number of cutter flutes, that dictates cutting power and force requirements?” Do you think that’s sufficient?
Well at least you explained your initial comment, I (and probably most people here did not the comments on the YT video since it is embedded in the thread, the comments are not visible unless you click to go to YT.
@gmack the comment about spindle torque assumes constant chip load, which has higher priority for me than feedrate when I set my S&F in Fusion. MRR and everything else falls out from there.
Improving the way we share feeds and speeds is something we’re definitely thinking about. The old way of making a one page chart with a random sampling of materials for a single endmill per machine isn’t going to cut it. But a single massive chart is also not sustainable, especially when each tool and material combo can be used in different ways (ex. slotting vs pocketing vs adaptive). We know there needs to be a better way, and we’re working on it…
