## 5 Conclusions  
A new controlled cutting fluid impinging supply system (Cut-list) was designed, manufactured, and tested for machining Ti-6 Al-4V using a vegetable oil-based cutting fluid. The new system performed favourably when compared to the conventional flood supply system. Based on the analysis of the experimental results, the following conclusions can be drawn:  
* A total reduction of 42% in cutting fluid was achieved when the new system was employed.
* The Cut-list enabled a significant reduction in cutting force up to 16.41%.
* No substantial differences were found between the two systems in workpiece temperate, although there was a significant reduction in cutting fluid consumption.
* The new system reduced tool flank wear by 46.77% compared to the tool wear measured for the conventional system at higher cutting conditions.
* Burr formation was reduced by 31.70% when employing the Cut-list.
* Ra values were relatively smaller with the use of the new system.  
Precision of the collected data was checked by repeating 11 tests and measuring all key process indicators. A summary of the errors (maximum and minimum) for cutting force, workpiece temperature and tool wear responses based on the repeated tests is presented in Table 5.  
**Acknowledgments:** All The authors would like to thank the Department of Mechanical and Construction Engineering at Northumbria University in Newcastle for the technical support to carry out this research. The authors would also like to thank the Libyan government for financial support.  
**Author Contributions:** [PERSON] and [PERSON] conceived and designed the experimental work as well as planned all measurements. [PERSON] performed the experiments. Measurements and analysis of results were performed by [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] and [PERSON]. [PERSON] wrote the initial draft of the paper and [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] participated in writing the results and discussion section and revised the whole paper.  
**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.  
**Nomenclature**  
\begin{tabular}{l l} \(a_{p}\) & Axial depth of cut (mm) \\ \(a_{e}\) & Radial depth of cut (mm) \\ \(V_{f}\) & Table speed (mm/min) \\ \(f\) & Feed rate (mm/rev) \\ \(N\) & Spindle speed (RPM) \\ \(D_{\mathrm{c}}\) & Cutter diameter (mm) \\ \(\mathrm{K_{1}}\) & Compensation factor as function of (\(\frac{D_{c}}{a_{e}}\)) \\ \(Z\) & Number of teeth \\ \(U\) & Specific cutting energy (\(\mathrm{W.s/mm^{3}}\)) \\ MRR & Material removal rate (\(\mathrm{mm^{3}/min}\)) \\ \(P_{c}\) & Cutting energy (Watt) \\ \(Q_{acc}\) & Accurate flow rate (L/min) \\ \(C\) & Heat Capacity of the cutting fluid (\(\mathrm{cal/g\cdot^{\mathrm{o}}C}\)) \\ \(\rho\) & Mass density of the cutting fluid (\(\mathrm{g/cm^{3}}\)) \\ \(\eta_{nozzle}\) & Coherent round nozzle efficiency \\ \end{tabular}  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Experimental Error** & **Cutting Force** & **Workpiece Temperature** & **Tool Wear** \\ \hline Maximum & 0.34\% & 4.5\% & 7.16\% \\ Minimum & 0.03\% & 0.59\% & 0.8\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Maximum and minimum error for cutting force, workpiece temperature and tool wear.