There is an quite simple algorithm, which is used in TinyG firmware. There
is a link to the paper from their github. No NURBS involved.
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 1:23 AM, EBo wrote:
> Since I do not have my references handy I thought I would review some
> of the properties necessary to geometrical
On 07/07/2013 09:34 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
> I have just committed the 2nd piece of the updates I was making to the
> hal_ppmc driver to add driver support for two features I added to
> the PPMC encoder board. I committed these to the v2.5_branch,
> but they should also get merged to master and 2.6.
On Sun, 2013-07-07 at 23:21 -0500, John Morris wrote:
> On 07/06/2013 04:28 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
> > Chris Morley wrote:
> >> I am not an expert, just interested. I don't follow your reasoning.
> >> Jerk limiting is about having the TP ask for movement that is possible
> >> for the machine to act
On 07/06/2013 04:28 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
> Chris Morley wrote:
>> I am not an expert, just interested. I don't follow your reasoning.
>> Jerk limiting is about having the TP ask for movement that is possible
>> for the machine to actually produce.
>> infinite jerk is impossible for a machine to p
Sebastian Kuzminsky wrote:
>
> * Immediately after being selected RM, I will talk to the developer
> community and see what feature branches people are working on that they
> want to get into the 2.6 release, and that they think they can finish in
> the next few weeks.
I have just committed the
Chris Morley wrote:
>
> For instance if your machine could move maximally at 50 inches a minute, why
> would
> you allow the TP to ask it to move 52 while G33.1? Same premise as jerk
> limiting.
> If your machine really can run 52 then why not set the limits to 52?
>
Well, this is the probl
Since I do not have my references handy I thought I would review some
of the properties necessary to geometrically minimize jerk. I found a
couple of references online that might make for a good read:
Smooth trajectory generation for five-axis machine tools:
http://academia.edu/3862221/Smooth_
On Jul 7 2013 12:00 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
> Matt Shaver wrote:
>>
>>
>> Here's what I think Jon is talking about: When in a rigid tapping
>> cycle, the Z axis is "slaved" to the rotational position of the
>> spindle. The spindle will have its own characteristics of motion,
>> but
>> we don't always
> From: bodge...@gmail.com
> Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 20:08:19 +0100
> To: emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] Okuma absolute encoders
>
> On 6 July 2013 16:58, Chris Morley wrote:
> > Linuxcnc would need some changes to be able to use the absolute feedback
> > di
On Jul 7 2013 6:19 AM, Matt Shaver wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Jul 2013 20:23:12 +
> Chris Morley wrote:
>
>> I guess it really comes down to at what performance machine does
>> jerk
>> limitation show real benefits ?
>
> I would guess that almost all machines _we_ deal with would benefit
> from jerk
On 6 July 2013 16:58, Chris Morley wrote:
> Linuxcnc would need some changes to be able to use the absolute feedback
> directly.
> Though maybe a component to convert the absolute to incremental and a home
> pulse
> similar to the BLDC component? Andy - what you think?
If this is for an axis, t
On Sunday 07 July 2013 14:33:40 Dave did opine:
> On 7/7/2013 1:51 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Sunday 07 July 2013 01:20:43 Jon Elson did opine:
> >> Gene Heskett wrote:
> >>>Now I can
> >>>
> >>> write a peck loop wrapping up the G33.1, that can drive a 10-32 tap
> >>> half an inch into a
Matt Shaver wrote:
>
>
> Here's what I think Jon is talking about: When in a rigid tapping
> cycle, the Z axis is "slaved" to the rotational position of the
> spindle. The spindle will have its own characteristics of motion, but
> we don't always have tight servo control over them. For example, at
Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 07 July 2013 01:20:43 Jon Elson did opine:
>
>
>> Gene Heskett wrote:
>>
>>> Now I can
>>>
>>> write a peck loop wrapping up the G33.1, that can drive a 10-32 tap
>>> half an inch into a prepared hole, backing out to clear chips, and do
>>> it in perhaps 45
> Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 08:19:30 -0400
> From: m...@mattshaver.com
> To: emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] "Open" Development
>
> On Sat, 6 Jul 2013 20:23:12 +
> Chris Morley wrote:
>
> > I guess it really comes down to at what performance machine does je
Chris Morley wrote:
>
> So you wouldn't need to turn jerk limiting off for G33.1 then.
> Just as we don't turn acceleration or speed limiting off for G33.1
>
>
Perhaps. What you have to be really careful with is anything
that could cause delay in the trajectory following the spindle.
We had
On 7/7/2013 1:51 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 07 July 2013 01:20:43 Jon Elson did opine:
>
>
>> Gene Heskett wrote:
>>
>>>Now I can
>>>
>>> write a peck loop wrapping up the G33.1, that can drive a 10-32 tap
>>> half an inch into a prepared hole, backing out to clear chips, and
On Sat, 6 Jul 2013 20:23:12 +
Chris Morley wrote:
> I guess it really comes down to at what performance machine does jerk
> limitation show real benefits ?
I would guess that almost all machines _we_ deal with would benefit
from jerk limiting. A machine that might be able to get away withou
On 06/07/13 11:23, emc-developers-request@lists.sourceforge.net wrote:
> Think about what new features you want to get into the 2.6 release, and
> let me know what your plans/desires are. I want to make the new stable
> branch this month some time: anything you can have ready and reasonably
>
19 matches
Mail list logo
