Asymmetric vee blocks?- Excellent for squaring up parts.

[@ED_T]

I swear you have that best ideas, another thing to add to the list 👌

[@machinists-shortcuts]

Thanks, I hope you try them and find them useful.

[@matter9]

Brilliant as always! Thanks for taking the time to post 👌✋🤙

[@machinists-shortcuts]

Thanks for following my channel.

[@HexenzirkelZuluhed]

Great idea (and execution)!

[@machinists-shortcuts]

Thanks

[@sunday.nobody]

Super cool! Could you explain why this method is prefer to just sticking the piece of stock in the vise length wise?

[@machinists-shortcuts]

Do you mean laying the part flat on parallels and using the side of an endmill?

[@UncleKennysPlace]

@@machinists-shortcuts Which is my _least_ favorite way to do that job!

[@DKNguyen3.1415]

I'm assuming that when you say "piece of stock in the vise length wise" you mean sticking a piece of stock between the jaws of a vice opening upwards and facing the top: You can't square a part like that. That gets you parallel sides but parallel isn't square. It's fooling your mind's eye because you're thinking an already squarish piece of stock and making false assumptions by treating it as square (which if it were you obviously wouldn't need to square it). But when stock is not square, you cannot be sure the part is sitting flat at the bottom of the vice or that it is sitting flat against both jaws. Neither may be true and even if one of them is, you can't be sure which one is the case and you need to know for when you rotate the part to face another side. I suppose you could manage to square four of the faces if you rotate the part 90 degrees each time to face sides that are 90 degrees apart one after another (not 180 degrees which would be facing opposite sides one after another) but you won't be able to get the last two opposing faces (see next section). It won't be obvious in your mind's eye if you think about squaring squareish stock. It's much more obvious if you think about sticking a monstrously unsquare into a vise and rotating it after each facing operation. Something like a trapezoidal prism but unprism-like in how the two trapezoidal faces differ in size. --- If you mean squaring the last two opposing faces of a part with 4 squared faces, which is what the video is about: Then the problem is that you need to locate against at least two of the perpendicular squared to square the last two faces. The only way a regular vise can do that is against the jaw and bottom which means the faces to be squared point sideways which means you need an endmill. But endmills deflect a lot more than a shell mill. Might be good enough if you don't need to inspect the part but not good enough for metrology square, especially for bigger parts that would require an unreasonably long endmill.

[@agsystems8220]

I think you are missing the difficulty. Suppose you want to machine a sphere into a cube. First face is easy, just clamp it and mill anywhere flat. Opposite is also easy, because now you can put the flat face down, and they are guaranteed to be parallel. For the 3rd face you can put your two flat faces against the vice and the face you mill will definitely be at 90' to it. Opposite is easy too, because it just needs to be parallel to the one you just did so if it is down things just work. The 5th face is hard though. The opposite side is still ball shaped, so cannot be used as a reference, while the vice can only guarantee you a 90' angle to one pair of faces. Your cut can (and probably would) be at an angle to the sides not held in the vice. To make the 5th side of a cube you need a jig that has 2 reference planes, and neither of them can be the base.

[@matthewchastain136]

this process is for squaring the "ends" i guess you would call it. The remaining 2 sides after you squared up a piece of stock on the 4 sides easily done in the vise traditionally with parallels. Side milling works for smaller stock but quickly becomes problematic with larger work pieces where deflection and tool stickout become a problem.

[@miguelcastaneda445]

Great idea, did you make them in a EDM?

[@machinists-shortcuts]

I milled and ground them

[@improviseddiy]

I suppose that the thickness needs to be machined first.

[@machinists-shortcuts]

Usually the thickness and width are machined first, this is for the ends which need to be square to the 4 machined faces.

[@johnharlow486]

Seems a bit like a solution in search of a problem. Or I’m too dumb to appreciate it

[@machinists-shortcuts]

Thanks for the question John. I've always preferred to use vee blocks when possible. I find it easier to just pop the part between them and tighten the vise. Using a square against the side can be a bit awkward as you have to hold the part against it + hold the square firmly and with your third hand tighten the vise. There are limitations with vee blocks, I don't like to hold parts that are too thin compared to the length, if the ratio is too high the part can twist. This solution allows a larger ratio to be securely clamped. In hindsight I should have spent time showing the disadvantages of all the other methods but I chose to concentrate on this product. You may find my earlier two videos interesting. Double your metal removal rate ( almost ) free!! - kzbin.info/www/bejne/a6KVkHZ4ndqgkMksi=foiei5HvmOuXLgI5 or Quickly squaring up multiple parts. - kzbin.info/www/bejne/nWSlhIGPZa2Kfa8si=rPRXM28E2jbh74ul