I looked at the Siemen website and they only go back to the Sinumerik 8T. I've deal with some of the hardware that the 8T used and it was very difficult to make that hardware reliable. Unless you can get that control to operate properly and find documentation (unlikely) I'd replace it. I've spent days working on old controllers like that and sometimes they end up working ok for a while, but when you are done, the best you have is a very old control that is living on the edge. If it goes down, it tends to stay down and simply become a time eater.
Dave On 3/24/2012 7:14 PM, Roger Holmquist wrote: > Well, Peter, after 12 hours close encounter : It might be a version > of the machine without cover, this CNC is built on a tradtional lathe > setup, just adding servos and a better spindle engline, some sensors > and this Sinumerik/FANUC 6 control and that's it ! > On the other hand, your machine seems to lack the revolver, so it it > different anyway. > > Johnny (my coming boss) told me there is a version without metal > sheets and that may contribute to the lesser weight as the lack of > revolver certainly do. > > Anyway, I have written a memo because there is of course a number of > issues on such an old machine. > It's put in my dedicated place for this project so i don't litter > this list more than necessary. > http://abcnc.se/projects/storebro260.html > > Ok, then, a few points: > The main problem right now is to establish a reliable part-reference > point and make it running in a non-singlestepping mode. > It would also be nice if the Shift-key worked ! > There is a funny thing about the shiftkey: In some versions of > FANUC6 /Sinumerik 6T it looks like the shiftkey is absent. > In my machine the key is present but the functionality is absent! > The manual is lousy too, it's a Sinumerik version translated to > Swedish with almost no code examples. > Any link to some Sinumerik 6t / FANUC 6T manuals would be > appreciated, I have searched for it over internet extensively with no > real hits, just scam sites who want my credit card number. > > / Roger > > > > > > > > > 19 mar 2012 kl. 14:20 Peter wrote: > > >> >> The machine pictured has the same name and number but loks completely >> different. Its mass is specified as 1.7 tons while the mass of the >> machine in the tech spec you mailed was more than 3 tons. The >> production >> time as of 1980 is about the same as your in paper. Are there >> different >> machines with the same name on the market? >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This SF email is sponsosred by: > Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here > http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure > _______________________________________________ > Emc-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF email is sponsosred by: Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
