The BBB would be the master for my use case, with devices such as servomotor drivers as slaves in a dual-redundant topology. I use the BBB Wireless, and thus don't have the onboard RJ-45.
The other industrial connections would also be necessary, particularly in a push-connector form factor, rather than screw terminals (additional points if they can be accessed when on a *DIN rail* <https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07DS2G78J/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1> ). Isn't the BBB a 'popular MCU'? The thread is intended to take suggestions for a new machinekit cape design, not alternative MCUs. But if an EtherCAT cape is as trivial as you describe, send me a production sample and I'll pay a lot more than 2 cents. On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 4:25:43 PM UTC-4, Juha Heikkila wrote: > > Hmm out of curiosity why would you require 2 separate EtherCat ports or is > it just for a ring topology? > > If you can settle for just one, you could run the igh EtherCat master > stack on the BBB and use available LAN port. So if one is enough, no need > to mixup the cape with the EtherCat stuff. > > ”Ideally” for an industrial approach you could do ”minimal” setup on the > cape and then (I think someone suggested this in the past) make a bunch of > EtherCat slaves. Using a microchip LAN9252 coupled with a microcontoller is > relatively simple to make and somewhat cheap. From the top of my head ill > say the 9252 requires some 50 components around it and most just resistors > and capacitors. The EtherCat slave license ”comes with” the LAN9252 so no > issues > > If you pair the slave controller with a popular mcu I think the community > could do a lot in the EtherCat slave world. > > Just my 2 cents. > > tiistai 9. kesäkuuta 2020 Stephen Bell <bell.s...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > kirjoitti: > >> Agreed on the massive requirements disparity. In my view, given how >> saturated the market is for stepper-motor based control boards >> (particularly the Duet 3, which can be controlled by a BBB/RPi) I'd prefer >> a more Break-out-Board style cape to make industrial-level control more >> accessible. >> >> My ideal cape would have dual etherCAT RJ45 ports, an RS422 or 485 header >> with voltage selection for PLC/spindle vfd control, UART headers, dual CAN >> headers and a small array of optoisloators for the other GPIO. Biggest >> problem for this is the ethercat license, which is somewhat of a pain... >> >> I also prefer the web-based GUIs locally hosted on the device, which can >> be accessed across the network and use less resources than a driven display >> and a native GUI, so I'd prefer a cape NOT be limited by a desire to have a >> screen/monitor from the BBB. >> >> just my 2C >> >> On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 12:46:01 AM UTC-4, Malte Schmidt wrote: >>> >>> I think the issue is always that the requirements with these machines >>> are very different and that you never quite get what is needed. >>> >>> When I build the cape I use on my lathe I sort of used a modular design. >>> I based this on a prototype cape and used those small optocoupler and level >>> shift modules that you get from China for the maker scene. It looks quite >>> like a hack but you might see the three opto modules in the back and the >>> two level shifters here: >>> https://forum.zerspanungsbude.net/download/file.php?id=188366&mode=view >>> There is an external pwm-> 0-10V module as well (not shown) for spindle >>> control >>> >>> I always thought about making this nicer. I would have done it this way: >>> A cape that: >>> - Make PRU and GPIO Pins available in sets of 4? pins on standardized >>> PIN headers + power. >>> - Makes the terminals for connecting the cables available >>> >>> PLUS >>> >>> Small modules for level shift, opto isolation , spindle control (as >>> desired). These would use the standardized connectors on the cape. >>> For this I would actually rely on stuff that is already available (if >>> so). >>> >>> -- >> website: http://www.machinekit.io blog: http://blog.machinekit.io >> github: https://github.com/machinekit >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Machinekit" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to machi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/machinekit/4e75a7ba-b13f-4579-a7f1-09211ff4cbd7o%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/machinekit/4e75a7ba-b13f-4579-a7f1-09211ff4cbd7o%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > -- website: http://www.machinekit.io blog: http://blog.machinekit.io github: https://github.com/machinekit --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Machinekit" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to machinekit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/machinekit/61c7c2b7-e1bb-4c2c-8556-355bf16645b2o%40googlegroups.com.
