Amana catalog dimensions don't match the catalog cutter profile

[Chuck Keysor]

Hello Shopbot Friends:

I need to create some "form tool" profiles in Aspire, and in doing so, I got the dimensions of Amana bit, 56108 from their website, and what they called an "exact profile". I copied the "exact profile" and imported it into Aspire.

But when I drew on the 4 dimensions from their catalog, I could not get even two dimensions to simultaneously map onto the "exact profile". (Illustrated in attachment). The two radii I can get kind of close to matching, but B and D are way out of whack. Even B and D are nowhere near close to matching the "exact profile".

I want to model a number of these artistic cutters so the customer can select which they like best. But I don't want to model something that may not be right, because then the customers may not get what they want.

I can't even make a complete model based upon the Amana catalog dimensions, because they don't give enough data.

How do I get a correct model of this Amana tool for my Aspire for my tool library? (Use their "exact" profile image and throw the dice in picking one catalog dimension to scale it to?????? :confused:)

Thank you, Chuck

[maverickx50]

Take the cutter to any local tool & die shop. They will have an optical comparator which for a few bucks will give you all the real dimensions within +-.001 or so.

[Brady Watson]

How do I get a correct model of this Amana tool for my Aspire for my tool library?

Chuck it up and run the bit into some material. HDU is a good choice just to capture the true shape. Take your digital calipers to measure the key features and draw it up. I see a big rectangle with incised corners and a circle at the tip. It should be pretty easy to draw.

-B

[Chuck Keysor]

Thanks for the replies. But I don't have the bit. There are a bunch of bits that I want to make simulated cuts with, so I can show them to the customer, and let them choose what they want. And I figured I need a tool library of basic ogee profiles in my Aspire forming bit library, again, for design work only, so that if I make a design work right with a particular profile, then I would go and buy the bit.

I guess I'll just have to use the image that Amana provided, and scale off of one dimension, then hope for the best.

I was just disappointed that Amana's supplied dimensions did NOT match their supplied profile image. I should be able to know what I am going to get before I buy the bit, in my fantasy world anyway! :p Thanks, Chuck

[Brady Watson]

If you go to Amana directly and search that bit number, you can dl this PDF, which should be printed 1:1 for scale: http://www.amanatool.com/media/custom/upload/File-1407521869.pdf

Pull it into Aspire/VCP via Import Vectors. Extract the 'good part' - toss the rest. You'll see that their numbers are off - compared to the dimensions listed on this page: http://www.amanatool.com/56108-carbide-tipped-plunging-classical-3-32-radius-x-1-2-dia-x.html If you draw the geometry from scratch.

However...the deviations aren't larger than .015 or so...So unless you are building the 16th Chapel for NASA, I think you might be OK with that little bit of fudge factor...especially when standing 3 feet away from whatever you make ;)

-B

[Chuck Keysor]

Thank you Brady! I'll do this Amana importing tonight. Thanks, Chuck

[Chuck Keysor]

Thanks again Brady. I imported this first tool per your directions and it worked.

When I had gone to the Amana site before making my first post on this, I had treated their drawing of this bit as a raster image. Then I edited it in Photoshop, then imported it into Aspire as a JPEG.

I know I got carried away at the inconsistencies which exist between the Amana profile and their printed dimensions. This makes me think of my college days back in the 1970s. I tended to find errors and inconsistencies in my engineering text books. Not due to brilliance, but because I had to look at them so long and struggle to figure out what I was reading. And so with such intense staring, I would find errors, though usually insignificant. And then I would feel compelled to tell the professor. The first time, the prof would say, "Wow, I never noticed that". Next time it was, "Gee, that is really not important". Then it got to be, "Oh, not you again....." I guess I haven't changed after all these years.

Thanks again, Chuck

[Brady Watson]

There is nothing wrong with striving for perfection or seeking clarity and understanding. I think that is a sign of good character.

I've learned to remind myself to step back once in a while and see the big picture with this work. It is easy to be so 'zoomed in' while your brain is concentrating 'in the computer' while doing CAD work, that you forget the realities of 'tolerance' and the fact that perfection is only a concept.

Quite often people send me things to scan that they think are perfectly symmetrical, true or periodic. However when the 'as designed' data is analyzed, it is anything but true to form with blemishes, twists and non-planar 'flat' areas that need to be massaged in software to bring them up to declared spec.

Maybe Amana would be inclined to clean up some of their drawings if you sent them a letter informing them of their sloppy drawings. I am wondering if they think that 'stupid woodworkers' only work in fractions and that their referenced fractional dimensions deviate enough from their true decimal dimensions to cause 'stack up' - throwing off the overall specs. They have a CNC line of tools...they should have a CAD friendly profile that is accurately drawn.

-B