Posted by Steviegtr on 17/03/2020 02:01:37:.
…May be I am dumb but surely 6 cutters Vs 1 equals 6 times less divided into to the driving force would be the same or less than using a fly cutter which is acceptable. Am I missing something. …
Steve.
Not dumb at all, but much depends on how the operator uses the tool. A multi-cutters design purpose is to remove metal quickly. To do that it's pushed at high feed-rate into the metal. To get the intended metal removal rate, a fast powerful rigid machine is needed. That's what's industry have. A fly-cutter does the same job more slowly and is suited to small bendy machines.
But there's no law saying tools must be used exactly as their designer intended. Due to the limitations of home workshops, a Model Engineer probably won't be able to drive a multi-cutter to it's full potential. It still cuts at reduced speed and power but it won't remove metal as well as it might. Could be 'good enough'.
Hence the apparent contradictions. A Tool Catalogue will describe the conditions under which industry will get the best out of a cutter; their goal is making items as cheaply as possible, which means carefully balancing metal-removal rate, tool-life, and power-consumption. That generally means carbide cutters making very fast deep cuts with rigid powerful machines.
But an amateur can put the same cutter in his relatively weedy machine and still get reasonable results from it. Or not!
How the tool behaves at a particular time in a particular workshop depends on a multitude of factors that are rarely explained by home users. What machine, how much power, depth of cut, feed-rate, material all left in the fog. We don't know what inserts are fitted to your cutter. So reports of the same tool vary from 'complete rubbish' to 'excellent' because, when used off-specification, performance isn't predictable. It depends. It's more obviously unfruitful to compare the performance of a family hatchback with a Farm Tractor or a Formula 1 Race Car without mentioning how they will be used!
The same issue applies to machine tools. For example, Stevies Tom Senior mill was aimed at the precision end of the market. It features high-rigidity with a smallish motor in order to improve basic accuracy, a good thing. It was never intended to hack metal in the shortest possible time, and, although the machine could be up-motored to do that, may not be an improvement.
To find out how well your cutter works on your machine, it's necessary to try it. Depending on context it may or may not be suitable. If bought to remove metal at high-speed, it will disappoint because a ½HP motor simply isn't powerful enough to drive it. However, run gently within the limitations of slow or small machines, some report they produce a better finish than a fly-cutter.
All this is liable to confuse the beginner! I found the best approach was to read books, ask questions, and then use tools to make things. I found using tools to be absolutely essential, because it's so easy to miss important hints in books and forum answers. Experience + Theory = Understanding.
Fortunately, getting a feel for tools and materials isn't Rocket Science. Pragmatism works too, it just takes longer and may form bad habits. Start points can often be decided by rule of thumb, and then adjusted up or down for best results. For example, I determine RPM by dividing 10000 by the diameter in millimetres. The answer is about right for HSS and Mild-Steel. Double or triple RPM for carbide, and increase or decrease by a factor to suit the metal relative to steel. Then, on the machine, tweak RPM for best results. It soon becomes second nature, and – knowing how ordinary materials behave – makes it much easier to deal with hardened or otherwise awkward metals. And experience revealing what the machine can do makes it much easier to decide on modifications and tooling.
Dave