iMachining tool wear comparison Vs. traditional tool path

[@Tool1717]

@9304622487 The recording was originally to show the load on the tool with a load meter at similar speeds and feeds. Even though this video didn’t have the load meter I thought it was a good example of how the tool can break down when having to take different steps over’s and at times doing full slotting. The iMachining tool path is really asking for more speed and feed since it maintains a nice step over, you can watch other iMachining videos to see how fast it can go.

[@Tool1717]

You could be more specific, but I can start. iMachining uses "moats" to separate islands from the remaining material. When in the moat the break through to "air" occurs only on a short distance. At this break through location you have a "thin wall" where the material will want to push away from the cutter and not cut. In other tool paths this break through occurs on long distances most likely the distance from one island to another. Do I need to explain why thin walls are not good for milling?

[@sinderal227]

In this case, the TrueMill or VoluMill tool path don't need to use "moats". Due to no "thin wall".

[@thebjgj2]

Nothing a larger tool could not handle.

[@Tool1717]

What CAM software are you currently using? Do you have any videos showing you machining better than iMachining?

[@9304622487]

traditional is more smooth....ya bt 1st one is faster no doubt

[@diamantine100]

Can imachining become the best solution of all CAM?

[@Tool1717]

@9304622487 What do you mean about”more smooth”? The iMachining tool path does have more tool path motion but when reducing cycle time and increasing tool live the extra motion isn’t a concern.

[@9304622487]

traditional is more smooth

[@sinderal227]

Both ToolPaths are not good as Surfware's TrueMill or Celeritive's VoluMill

[@Tsripper69]

Truemill is better and Faster