On Saturday 12 April 2014 00:10:38 Jon Elson did opine:
> On 04/11/2014 09:35 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > I agree Jon, but I think its me that needs to learn how
> > more than LCNC needs to be trained.
>
> I had the capability of putting home switches on my machine from
> the VERY beginning, but
On 04/11/2014 10:00 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> All that Jon, may get done, but ATM I am out of I/O pins, waiting on a low
> profile back plate for a 5i25. Then the fun begins, trying to re-create in
> the 5i25, what I have now with a normal, but single parport.
>
And, I think home switches are mo
On 04/11/2014 09:35 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> I agree Jon, but I think its me that needs to learn how
> more than LCNC needs to be trained.
I had the capability of putting home switches on my machine from
the VERY beginning, but I was lazy, didn't quite know how it
was supposed to work, etc. etc.
On Friday 11 April 2014 22:53:00 Jon Elson did opine:
> Gene,
>
> Anyway, I strongly suggest you set up home switches and
> establish
> axis limits from the home position. I didn't do this for a LONG
> time on my mill, and was VERY happy with the result when I
> finally got around to doing it!
On Friday 11 April 2014 22:36:19 Jon Elson did opine:
> On 04/11/2014 12:07 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > In actual practice, at least here Jon, hitting the +Z
> > limit is astronomically unlikely, assume +Z is to the
> > right when viewing the lathe from the normal, spindle on
> > the left, perspec
On Friday 11 April 2014 22:21:53 Jon Elson did opine:
> On 04/11/2014 01:35 PM, John Kasunich wrote:
> > I'm pretty sure that Gene doesn't "touch off" in the way
> > we think of it. If I've followed past conversations correctly,
> > he actually homes the machine using contact between
> > tool and
Gene,
Anyway, I strongly suggest you set up home switches and
establish
axis limits from the home position. I didn't do this for a LONG
time on my mill, and was VERY happy with the result when I
finally got around to doing it! I use the touch-off button in
Axis to set the offsets for various wo
On 04/11/2014 12:07 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> In actual practice, at least here Jon, hitting the +Z
> limit is astronomically unlikely, assume +Z is to the
> right when viewing the lathe from the normal, spindle on
> the left, perspective. But my homing procedure, sets Z0.0
> at the face of the
On 04/11/2014 01:35 PM, John Kasunich wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that Gene doesn't "touch off" in the way
> we think of it. If I've followed past conversations correctly,
> he actually homes the machine using contact between
> tool and work (or tool and a widget that gives him a
> reference point).
> Minor complexity: we have a freaky result due to
> http://www.linuxcnc.org/docs/html/gcode/overview.html#sec:Order-of-
> Execution
>
> consider:
> G20
> F5
> G1 X1
> G21 F125 X100
>
> according to NGC the F125 is taken as inches while the destination is
taken as
> mm! I hate this special case
On Friday 11 April 2014 16:25:14 John Kasunich did opine:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014, at 12:11 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
> > On 04/11/2014 12:41 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > And I haven't checked (I have to think about this stuff &
> > > then go back & check) as to whether the soft limits move
> > > with
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014, at 12:11 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
> On 04/11/2014 12:41 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > And I haven't checked (I have to think about this stuff &
> > then go back & check) as to whether the soft limits move
> > with the touchoff or not.
> The soft limits are in machine coordinate
On Friday 11 April 2014 12:37:38 Jon Elson did opine:
> On 04/11/2014 12:41 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > The main reason I was concentrating on the limits, using
> > the same code, was that I had written a peck cycle wrapped
> > around a G33.1, which advanced half a turn per run in. I
> > had moved
On 04/11/2014 10:46 AM, Chris Radek wrote:
>
> Minor complexity: we have a freaky result due to
> http://www.linuxcnc.org/docs/html/gcode/overview.html#sec:Order-of-Execution
>
> consider:
> G20
> F5
> G1 X1
> G21 F125 X100
>
> according to NGC the F125 is taken as inches while the destination
> is
On 04/11/2014 12:41 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> The main reason I was concentrating on the limits, using
> the same code, was that I had written a peck cycle wrapped
> around a G33.1, which advanced half a turn per run in. I
> had moved the code back away from the workpiece, basically
> cutting a
Hi
A user has a strange error when using probing subs
He gets a 'Unknown operation' error, but only when probing in particular
directions, others work perfectly well
This is described fully in this forum thread
http://www.linuxcnc.org/index.php/english/forum/10-advanced-configuration/27658-qunkn
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:38:19AM -0500, Chris Radek wrote:
>
> What do you think of the much bigger proposal of converting to
> internal units very early (like how diameter conversion is handled
> in Interp::read_x) and removing units twiddling from all the
Minor complexity: we have a freaky re
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 08:48:42AM -0400, Robert Ellenberg wrote:
> Me too, I've only had time to email a bit due to schoolwork. To answer your
> main question: it could make the C++ portions of the code simpler and
> easier to maintain.
I see, I was thinking of a bigger goal, which is to eliminat
well - it seems to go a bit over when they are all equal also.. (vel and
acc)
here is with the velocities all the same (2.2in/s^2)
http://imagebin.org/305052
here is with velocities and acc all the same
http://imagebin.org/305054
sam
On 04/10/2014 10:21 PM, Robert Ellenberg wrote:
> Hmm, I'
Me too, I've only had time to email a bit due to schoolwork. To answer your
main question: it could make the C++ portions of the code simpler and
easier to maintain.
For example, there are many functions that pass each axis value as a
separate argument, then have blocks of 9 lines for copying and
On Friday 11 April 2014 08:22:36 John Thornton did opine:
> This is another example of why you should always have a preamble to set
> up the conditions you expect to have before the code runs.
>
> http://gnipsel.com/linuxcnc/g-code/gen01.html
Precisely John, and I am learning that, belatedly but
This is another example of why you should always have a preamble to set
up the conditions you expect to have before the code runs.
http://gnipsel.com/linuxcnc/g-code/gen01.html
JT
On 4/10/2014 11:14 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> If I load some code that expects to run in G20, and before I exec it,
22 matches
Mail list logo
