On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 5:04 AM, Jon Elson <el...@pico-systems.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:57:47 +0800, Yishin Li wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> IMHO, there's no technical limitations for implementing the spindle
> >>>> synchronization. The only problem would be finding out a contract
> >>>> to
> >>>> support our living while we were busy developing this feature.
> >>>>
> Well, I don't know this part of the code, but I don't see the real
> conflict.
> When in control of the motion system, meaning the G-code is explicitly
> commanding all aspects of the motion, then the S-curve should be in
> force. When in spindle-synchronized motion, all the trajectory planning
> stuff is on hold, and the spindle rotation programs the movement of the
> synchronized axis. So, the S-curve code of the trajectory planner would
> not be in control of the motion. This is the way it is done now, as
> far as I know.
>
> I don't think our modification breaks the existing spindle
synchronization. And, I have no intention to do so. The comment for this
issue was from the LinuxCNC community. Possibly because I put an assertion
to tpAddRigidTap(). The reason that I have not deny this comment is because
we do not have a platform to verify this with our USB/FPGA control board.
We are thinking of setup a platform to verify Rigid Tapping, and need
advice for selecting spindle.
Here are 3 options, which one should we better choose?
1. Inner Motor Spindle
2. Belt Spindle with Servo Motor
3. Customized tool holder with Servo Motor
Thanks in advance,
Yishin Li
--
ARAIS ROBOT TECHNOLOGY
www.araisrobo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF email is sponsosred by:
Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure
_______________________________________________
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
