Traditional Machining of a Pocket Vs. iMachining of a Pocket

This video compares the milling of a pocket with a traditional 2.5D tool path vs. an iMachining tool path. The traditional pocketing is shown on the left with simulation up top and live cutting on the bottom. This traditional tool path has a "Racetrack" pattern, resulting in sharp corner change of direction points throughout the operation. iMachining, shown on the right, uses a dramatically different pattern for tool path, resulting in no sharp corners anywhere in an operation. iMachining is revolutionary, taking only 2 minutes and 51 seconds to machine this pocket; whereas, the traditional machining of the same pocket took 11 minutes and 16 seconds. Take note of the time stamps comparing the elapsed times.

[Spikenipple]

@LinuksGuru - You wouldn't get away with the cuts taken with the 'traditional' method at 12000rpm. The tool would fail very quickly.
@Travis Pena - The key of this cutting method is maintaining uniform and consistent load on the tool. Notice in the info image at the start of the video how the Traditional Method lists a consistent feedrate. The iMachining method lists a consistent chip thickness, which is maintained by adjusting the feedrate based on the approach of the cutter. Lack of coolant means no thermal shock on the carbide, which causes edges to chip very very quickly. Air blast is used to remove the swarf to keep the cutting area clear.

[harrelsontrumpets]

After countless hours of trying to get imachining to do what is shown in this video, I have reverted back to the old "faster" way of machining. I cannot get SolidCAM to create tool paths that save time.

[uchiha]

how does that work, the imachining isnt running coolant, goes faster, and doesnt show any wear on the tool? i dont understand that the way its programmed changes that much.

[LinuksGuru]

Traditional pocket milling - 4500 rpm, iMachining - 12000 rpm. IMHO rpm should be equal or at least comparable.