Jon Elson wrote: > Do you really NEED 100 nm resolution on the encoders? (My G*D, > how much did you pay for those?) Is there a way to divide down > the encoder resolution? Do these encoders use interpolator > boxes to get higher resolution? These usually have settings to > select from some different resolutions. But, beware that some > interpolators cause a phase shift in the output. Anyway, 100 nm > resolution is less than a wavelength of visible light, > presumably your cutter is using IR, so it seems like useless > resolution. > > Jon
I'm going to respond to the original post in detail a little later (something else going on right now). But I just wanted to comment on the encoder resolution. As Jon says, you MUST be able to count the encoder at the maximum possible speed. However, I would not be so eager to reduce the resolution. To control this motor, you are going to need not only good position feedback, but good velocity feedback. A very fine encoder resolution will greatly reduce the quantization noise when you convert position to velocity. More later, John Kasunich ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
