Tote blank

[Carl Beckett]

I have a handful of planes that need totes (and knobs). So decided to create a CNC file to run them. Mostly the Lee Valley profile by simply importing it into VCarve - although I did extend the top a bit.

20231204_090618.jpg20231204_090639.jpg20231204_095908.jpg20231204_100942.jpg

[Carl Beckett]

Its the first time I have done a two sided job that needed to match. I used some 1/2" dogs to locate and they werent enough. But required some sanding anyway.

My roundover is a metric cheapie and needs some tuning in on the toolpath. All in all, resulted in a functional piece (one I had made prior the grain was vertical and the thin portion of the base failed - in case anyone was wondering if it matters)

20231204_140318.jpg20231204_140030.jpg20231204_140020.jpg20231204_101017.jpg

[Carl Beckett]

These are cherry for practice. Another practice run or two and I might be brave enough to do some fancy wood. Anyone that wants the file is welcome to a copy just PM me. I wont claim I am using the software 'perfectly', but am learning.

[John TenEyck]

I use dowels in the spoilboard and workpiece, outside the part area, to register 2 sided jobs, and tape and CA glue to hold it from moving. I think your cutting method would be the fastest, but an an alternative approach might be to use a molding toolpath. A stl file would of course do it, too. Both of these methods would allow you to create any profile you want on the rounded over portions.

You can get pretty impressive results with 2-sided machining.



This was done with a stl file. I did no sanding except a little along the perimeter where the two sides met.

John

[Carl Beckett]

I use dowels in the spoilboard and workpiece, outside the part area, to register 2 sided jobs, and tape and CA glue to hold it from moving. I think your cutting method would be the fastest, but an an alternative approach might be to use a molding toolpath. A stl file would of course do it, too. Both of these methods would allow you to create any profile you want on the rounded over portions.

You can get pretty impressive results with 2-sided machining.



This was done with a stl file. I did no sanding except a little along the perimeter where the two sides met.

John

Inspiring John. Those leaves are especially impressive...

[Michael Burnside]

John,

I'd love to get a copy of the vcarve file if you have it handy. Those are very elegant looking.

[Jim Becker]

Very nice work! Two sided work can really kick things up several notches and opens up a whole world of creative work.

[Carl Beckett]

I use dowels in the spoilboard and workpiece, outside the part area, to register 2 sided jobs, and tape and CA glue to hold it from moving. I think your cutting method would be the fastest, but an an alternative approach might be to use a molding toolpath.

John

The molding toolpath shows great promise at least on the screen. Much more flexible than a fixed tool - although it will take multiple passes to run.

Good suggestion I will try the next one this way.

[Jim Becker]

The molding tool path is the bee's knees for many things beyond the obvious. Example, I use it for contouring guitar bodies and am able to avoid cutting 3D models which is quite "slow", even on my very capable machine.

[Carl Beckett]

Closer.
20231205_160726.jpg20231205_160758.jpg20231205_160806.jpg

Useable. Good learning. There is still some mismatch at the parting line. And the profile blended on the first side but seemed to run high on the second side, even though I zero'd between halves. I can not say I understand the molding tool path configuration exactly - it kept wanting to flip which side of the vector it ran on - trying some iterations and got it, but there was a certain amount of guesswork so may be something I am missing about VCarve (although similar thing with offset - I am never quite sure which side it will go to).

I need to count how many of these I need and in what sizes...

[John TenEyck]

That's more like it, Carl. Which side of the line the toolpath actually will run on is sometimes not obvious to me either, so I always make sure to look at the side it actually ran on on the 2D drawing after I hit calculate and move it to the other side if it comes out wrong. One of V-Carve's mysteries, at least to me.

Change your drawing a little to carry that molding all the way to the edge of the handle on both sides. If your registration is perfect when you flip it, and it will be if you use dowels, there should be no ridge like you're getting. You can run the DOC a little beyond the centerline of the workpiece, too, if your molding goes vertical at the edge, and that will eliminate that ridge. Hope this helps. For a first go at it, it looks really promising.

John

[John TenEyck]

John,

I'd love to get a copy of the vcarve file if you have it handy. Those are very elegant looking.

The bird is on Vectric's website. Here's a link to it: https://portal.vectric.com/content/p/Bird

I think the bird on the left is the actual size of the model. The one on the right I scaled up a little. And I'm not kidding, I did no sanding except for a little around the perimeter. Those cheap SpeTool bits cut beautifully. Enjoy.

John

[Carl Beckett]

That's more like it, Carl. Which side of the line the toolpath actually will run on is sometimes not obvious to me either, so I always make sure to look at the side it actually ran on on the 2D drawing after I hit calculate and move it to the other side if it comes out wrong. One of V-Carve's mysteries, at least to me.

Change your drawing a little to carry that molding all the way to the edge of the handle on both sides. If your registration is perfect when you flip it, and it will be if you use dowels, there should be no ridge like you're getting. You can run the DOC a little beyond the centerline of the workpiece, too, if your molding goes vertical at the edge, and that will eliminate that ridge. Hope this helps. For a first go at it, it looks really promising.

John

Yes.

The second side zero may have slipped the bit, is all I can think of. If I were 'experienced' I would have known enough to move to z zero after the run and simply observe whether it came down on the material or not.

But the 'gap above toolpath' allowance should let me cut the full profile and clean up the face (if I choose - I am one of those guys that doesnt necessarily shoot for 'perfect' right off the machine).

The mismatch where it meets vertical may be tool geometry matching.

The mirror line mismatch has to be movement. I do have two 1/2" locating pins, although they are not deep they seemed to do the job when I flipped. The piece is held down by 4 Kreg pocket hole screws. A prior poster pointed out that the lateral forces can be pretty high.

I am going to switch cutters and beef up the locating pin registration on the next one. And I might reduce my overall blank size simply to save material.

OR.... I might put the plane back together and get on with the original project.

[John TenEyck]

Yes.

The second side zero may have slipped the bit, is all I can think of. If I were 'experienced' I would have known enough to move to z zero after the run and simply observe whether it came down on the material or not.

But the 'gap above toolpath' allowance should let me cut the full profile and clean up the face (if I choose - I am one of those guys that doesnt necessarily shoot for 'perfect' right off the machine).

The mismatch where it meets vertical may be tool geometry matching.

The mirror line mismatch has to be movement. I do have two 1/2" locating pins, although they are not deep they seemed to do the job when I flipped. The piece is held down by 4 Kreg pocket hole screws. A prior poster pointed out that the lateral forces can be pretty high.

I am going to switch cutters and beef up the locating pin registration on the next one. And I might reduce my overall blank size simply to save material.

OR.... I might put the plane back together and get on with the original project.

I doubt tool geometry is responsible. If you pick the tool from the manufacturer's database it should be perfect enough for almost any requirement. I use the generic 1/4" ballnose endmill inputs for my 1F with excellent results no matter who's tool I use.

The locating pins in one of your earlier photos look suspect to me for keeping perfect registration. I use a secondary spoilboard into which I mill 1/4" dowel holes, 3 as a minimum. No other holding is needed although adding screws around the perimeter is never bad as long as you do it in different spots after you flip the workpiece.

Forget the original project. You're too deep into this now to turn back!

John

[Carl Beckett]

I doubt tool geometry is responsible. If you pick the tool from the manufacturer's database it should be perfect enough for almost any requirement. I use the generic 1/4" ballnose endmill inputs for my 1F with excellent results no matter who's tool I use.
John

Yes. The molding profile is an arc, trimmed from a circle. So a pure quarter circle.

The start point node is put on the vector start point node and swept (is my understanding). This one is a 1/2" roundover which made me wonder if it stopped short of full depth for some reason (not obvious)

But if you look closely where the profile blends to the vertical cut (same vector used to cut out the overall shape), you see a small shoulder with a radius where the ball nose bit cuts into it.

I can offset a vector and run off that. But.... it doesnt seem like it should be happening.

Location is just a thing to figure out. Unless some play in the machine I dont know about. Will just beef that up a bit.