ok.. Here is some oddness......

If I use the original pitch of P.059055 I get the error saying the 
spindle should be running at 237rpm (the error I always get).

pitch of .05 I don't get the error .06 I don't get the error.... .07 I 
do get the error (but it threads at 19ish ipm) same error saying spindle 
should be running at 237

sam

On 11/26/2016 11:19 AM, sam sokolik wrote:
> Here are 2 screenshots showing the threading at 15ipm and the shuttle at 30.
>
> http://electronicsam.com/images/KandT/testing/robthreading/threading.png
> http://electronicsam.com/images/KandT/testing/robthreading/shuttle.png
>
> So I am not understanding why the threading would think that 237 is the
> maximum feed.
>
> Side note - this is running rt_preempt and uspace.  A base thread of
> 50us seems to work fine with the printer port.
>
> sam
>
>
> On 11/25/2016 09:24 PM, sam sokolik wrote:
>> that is odd because the threading is done at about 16ipm - and the max
>> velocity of the axis is 30ipm...  (you can see the z velocity goes
>> higher than 16ipm in the plots)
>>
>> If there is anything else that would help to plot - let me know
>>
>> sam
>>
>> On 11/25/2016 08:25 PM, Robert Ellenberg wrote:
>>> Nice work! The message you're getting in axis is a new feature I added. It
>>> warns you if the combination of spindle speed and thread pitch would
>>> require more than 90% of your maximum axis velocity. If so, it slows the
>>> spindle down to a safe maximum speed before starting the thread (in this
>>> case 230RPM). The 90% value is arbitrary, I just wanted to have some safety
>>> factor in there.
>>>
>>> Comparing the two acceleration plots, it seems like the acceleration during
>>> the start of the thread is higher in stock 2.7 than with my branch/ The
>>> high initial acceleration is good, though, since it settles in about 120ms,
>>> whereas the new branch takes about 200ms. I'll run the same program in
>>> simulation tomorrow and see if I can reproduce the effect. It may be worth
>>> trying the same comparison in G61 (in case blending is causing it).
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Rob
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 8:37 PM sam sokolik <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ok - I finally did some testing on the emco using this branch..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/robEllenberg/linuxcnc-mirror/commits/feature/nominal-vel-during-sync
>>>>
>>>> This is a thread using this program
>>>> http://electronicsam.com/images/KandT/testing/robthreading/test.ngc
>>>>
>>>> This is the current 2.7 behavior
>>>> http://electronicsam.com/images/KandT/testing/robthreading/current.png
>>>>
>>>> This is with robs fixes
>>>> http://electronicsam.com/images/KandT/testing/robthreading/robnew1.png
>>>>
>>>> It looks like the acceleration spike are defiantly smaller.
>>>>
>>>> I did find an oddity on both branches - quite often it seemed to
>>>> overshoot initially and then slow back down.  I don't know if it is an
>>>> artifact of my config (100 line single channel encoder + index. never
>>>> seemed to effect the threading I have done.
>>>>
>>>> http://electronicsam.com/images/KandT/testing/robthreading/current1.png
>>>> http://electronicsam.com/images/KandT/testing/robthreading/robnew.png
>>>>
>>>> Also - rob - it prints in axis every pass velocity at line 8 is 230rpm
>>>> or such.. (paraphrasing..)
>>>>
>>>> sam
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 09/25/2016 07:47 AM, Robert Ellenberg wrote:
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> Recently, I found a way to reduce the acceleration / velocity jitter
>>>> during
>>>>> threading and tapping motions (see this issue on github
>>>>> <https://github.com/LinuxCNC/linuxcnc/issues/164> and the
>>>>> feature/spindle-sync-jiiter-fix branch
>>>>> <
>>>> https://github.com/robEllenberg/linuxcnc-mirror/tree/feature/spindle-sync-jitter-fix
>>>>> ).
>>>>> The effect looks significant on the HALscope, but I'm not sure how much
>>>> of
>>>>> a difference it would make on a real machine. Is anyone interested in
>>>> doing
>>>>> a before and after test on real hardware?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>> Rob
>>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Emc-developers mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
>>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Emc-developers mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
>>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Emc-developers mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
>>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> Emc-developers mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Emc-developers mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Emc-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Reply via email to