On Jul 10 2013 11:45 AM, Jon Elson wrote:
> EBo wrote:
>> I had been wondering about dragging the point back through the part
>> --
>> causing extra/excessive ware on the tip). I wonder if you do, or
>> could
>> have, backed the tool out a little from contact, on the reverse.
>>
> If you can get
On Jul 10 2013 11:46 AM, Jon Elson wrote:
> EBo wrote:
>> I had been wondering about dragging the point back through the part
>> --
>> causing extra/excessive ware on the tip). I wonder if you do, or
>> could
>> have, backed the tool out a little from contact, on the reverse.
>>
> Oh, the IDEAL
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013, at 02:06 PM, andy pugh wrote:
> On 10 July 2013 18:46, Jon Elson wrote:
>
> > Oh, the IDEAL way to make a thread like that is by thread milling. I
> > have a single-row thread mill that would be perfect for that job.
>
> Indeed. However as that is my X-axis motor mount,
On 10 July 2013 18:46, Jon Elson wrote:
> Oh, the IDEAL way to make a thread like that is by thread milling. I
> have a single-row thread mill that would be perfect for that job.
Indeed. However as that is my X-axis motor mount, circular
interpolation is something of a challenge.
That cutter i
EBo wrote:
> I had been wondering about dragging the point back through the part --
> causing extra/excessive ware on the tip). I wonder if you do, or could
> have, backed the tool out a little from contact, on the reverse.
>
Oh, the IDEAL way to make a thread like that is by thread milling.
EBo wrote:
> I had been wondering about dragging the point back through the part --
> causing extra/excessive ware on the tip). I wonder if you do, or could
> have, backed the tool out a little from contact, on the reverse.
>
If you can get the spindle to stop at a known angle, you can then o
On 10 July 2013 12:20, EBo wrote:
> I do not follow the comment on "handily, the reverse action means that
> just gripping the adjuster ring backs out the cutter..."
It is an automatic boring/facing head. You can see me add a tweak more
cut part way through the video. When the spindle is in reve
On Jul 10 2013 4:50 AM, andy pugh wrote:
> On 10 July 2013 11:34, EBo wrote:
>
>> I had been wondering about dragging the point back through the part
>> --
>> causing extra/excessive ware on the tip). I wonder if you do, or
>> could
>> have, backed the tool out a little from contact, on the rev
On Wednesday 10 July 2013 07:08:23 andy pugh did opine:
> On 10 July 2013 02:29, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >> http://youtu.be/i4fTythQj5s?t=1m
> >
> > Now thats kewl. But I don't have that sort of spindle power in my toy
> > mill, darnit.
>
> That mill, in the lowest gear, does 2hp @ 47rpm. I don
On 10 July 2013 11:34, EBo wrote:
> I had been wondering about dragging the point back through the part --
> causing extra/excessive ware on the tip). I wonder if you do, or could
> have, backed the tool out a little from contact, on the reverse.
This was a one-off job, and in theory the tool d
On Jul 10 2013 3:07 AM, andy pugh wrote:
> On 10 July 2013 02:29, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
>>> http://youtu.be/i4fTythQj5s?t=1m
>>
>> Now thats kewl. But I don't have that sort of spindle power in my
>> toy
>> mill, darnit.
>
> That mill, in the lowest gear, does 2hp @ 47rpm. I don't even know
> w
On 10 July 2013 02:29, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> http://youtu.be/i4fTythQj5s?t=1m
>
> Now thats kewl. But I don't have that sort of spindle power in my toy
> mill, darnit.
That mill, in the lowest gear, does 2hp @ 47rpm. I don't even know
what that gear was for.
--
atp
If you can't fix it, you
On Tuesday 09 July 2013 23:13:46 Jon Elson did opine:
> Gene Heskett wrote:
> > But if I do that, the switch mode stuff itself will run reasonably
> > cool, so where does the heat actually go? Its got to go someplace, I
> > just haven't thought it through.
>
> Using the inductance of the motor,
Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> But if I do that, the switch mode stuff itself will run reasonably cool, so
> where does the heat actually go? Its got to go someplace, I just haven't
> thought it through.
>
Using the inductance of the motor, the switching supply changes from a
buck converter in norma
On Tuesday 09 July 2013 21:28:13 andy pugh did opine:
> On 9 July 2013 19:10, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > Chuckle. Yup, makes me feel pretty good when I actually hit a lick
> > that works. I didn't run my loop code for peck tapping using g33.1
> > yet as I suspect I had better find a higher power h
Now that's cool!
Ian
On Jul 9, 2013, at 3:03 PM, andy pugh wrote:
> On 9 July 2013 19:10, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
>> Chuckle. Yup, makes me feel pretty good when I actually hit a lick that
>> works. I didn't run my loop code for peck tapping using g33.1 yet as I
>> suspect I had better find a
On 9 July 2013 19:10, Gene Heskett wrote:
> Chuckle. Yup, makes me feel pretty good when I actually hit a lick that
> works. I didn't run my loop code for peck tapping using g33.1 yet as I
> suspect I had better find a higher power handling method of stopping the
> motor in an equal amount of t
On Tuesday 09 July 2013 13:56:33 Jon Elson did opine:
> Gene Heskett wrote:
> > To continue this thread, I went out and whacked at the hal file,
> > converting the limit2 module that was controlling the rate of rise
> > and fall of the requested spindle speed, to a lowpass module.
> >
> > Setup w
Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> To continue this thread, I went out and whacked at the hal file, converting
> the limit2 module that was controlling the rate of rise and fall of the
> requested spindle speed, to a lowpass module.
>
> Setup with a gain of 0.005, and with an s1000m3 in effect, typing an m4
On Tuesday 09 July 2013 00:11:10 Gene Heskett did opine:
> On Monday 08 July 2013 10:57:36 andy pugh did opine:
> > On 8 July 2013 05:21, John Morris wrote:
> > > Also,
> > >
> > > spindle acceleration and reversal control is not as precise as other
> > > motion components. Nothing we can do a
On Monday 08 July 2013 10:57:36 andy pugh did opine:
> On 8 July 2013 05:21, John Morris wrote:
> > Also,
> >
> > spindle acceleration and reversal control is not as precise as other
> > motion components. Nothing we can do about the uncontrollable!
>
> My feeling is that spindle reversal is
On Jul 7 2013 9:24 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
> 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 t
On Jul 7 2013 10:21 PM, 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 actually produc
On 8 July 2013 05:21, John Morris wrote:
> Also,
> spindle acceleration and reversal control is not as precise as other
> motion components. Nothing we can do about the uncontrollable!
My feeling is that spindle reversal is very nearly a zero-jerk motion,
so isn't a problem.
The jerk is at sp
On Jul 7 2013 10:45 PM, dave wrote:
> 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
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
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
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
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 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
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 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 to 60 seconds. Each direction chan
> Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 22:15:26 -0500
> From: el...@pico-systems.com
> To: emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] "Open" Development
>
> Chris Morley wrote:
> >
> > I bet there is a following error spike right when you do
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 to 60 seconds. Each direction change, at 300 revs, takes a bit less
> than 3 seconds for the stop,
Chris Morley wrote:
>
> I bet there is a following error spike right when you do reversal or maybe
> not badly because the
> spindle does not react with infinite jerk either.
>
Yes, and that''s why you want to control the rate of spindle reversal so
the following axis has a better change of ke
On Jul 6 2013 12:23 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
> EBo wrote:
>> Seriously though, we should
>> be able to merge Araisrobo's code and add spindle synchronized.
>>
> Well, it is pretty obvious to me that jerk limiting and having the Z
> axis
> follow the spindle are in conflict. So, I think the jerk lim
On Saturday 06 July 2013 18:29:25 Jon Elson did opine:
> 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 f
On 6 July 2013 23:28, Gene Heskett wrote:
> Depends on what you use to measure it. The strain gauge, epoxied to the
> barrel can give you extremely accurate snapshots that if done twice, one on
> down the barrel about a foot from the one on the chamber, can be computer
> processed to recover the
On Saturday 06 July 2013 18:23:42 Viesturs Lācis did opine:
> 2013/7/6 Chris Morley
>
> > Well I guess it depends on your definition of infinite jerk.
> > (practical approximation or theoretical absolute)
> >
> > In your example acceleration does not actually jump to zero in a large
> > step.
>
> Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 16:28:00 -0500
> From: el...@pico-systems.com
> To: emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] "Open" Development
>
> Chris Morley wrote:
> > I am not an expert, just interested. I don't follow your reason
Gene Heskett wrote:
>
>
> I know for a fact that in the G76 situation, the actual lock phase of
> spindle vs z is a function of spindle speed, caused by the finite time to
> accelerate the z to a speed whereby it can then remain locked. That
> doesn't start until the index signal has been recei
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 produce movement for.
> While we can ignore it i
> From: viesturs.la...@gmail.com
> Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 23:52:28 +0300
> To: emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] "Open" Development
>
> 2013/7/6 Chris Morley
> >
> >
> > Well I guess it depends on your definition
2013/7/6 Chris Morley
>
>
> Well I guess it depends on your definition of infinite jerk. (practical
> approximation or theoretical absolute)
>
> In your example acceleration does not actually jump to zero in a large
> step.
> so I think it's just very very high, not infinite.
>
> just as shooting
> From: viesturs.la...@gmail.com
> Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 23:23:22 +0300
> To: emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] "Open" Development
>
> 2013/7/6 Chris Morley
>
> >
> > infinite jerk is impossible for a machine to pr
2013/7/6 Chris Morley
>
> infinite jerk is impossible for a machine to produce movement for.
>
It is possible with the example from car driving - when slowing down and
velocity reaches zero, acceleration immediately jumps to zero, so jerk is
infinite. In the start of the motion - yes, it is impo
> From: bodge...@gmail.com
> Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 20:43:53 +0100
> To: emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] "Open" Development
>
> On 6 July 2013 20:32, Chris Morley wrote:
>
> > infinite jerk is impossible for a machine t
On Sat, 6 Jul 2013, andy pugh wrote:
> Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 20:43:53 +0100
> From: andy pugh
> Reply-To: EMC developers
> To: EMC developers
> Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] "Open" Development
>
> On 6 July 2013 20:32, Chris Morley wrote:
>
>> infi
On Saturday 06 July 2013 15:53:41 Chris Morley did opine:
> > Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 13:23:15 -0500
> > From: el...@pico-systems.com
> > To: emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> > Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] "Open" Development
> >
> >
On 6 July 2013 20:32, Chris Morley wrote:
> infinite jerk is impossible for a machine to produce movement for.
I am not sure that is necessarily true. (unless you really are talking
about elastic deformation of the machine parts)
--
atp
If you can't fix it, you don't own it.
http://www.ifixit.
> Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 13:23:15 -0500
> From: el...@pico-systems.com
> To: emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] "Open" Development
>
> EBo wrote:
> > Seriously though, we should
> > be able to merge Araisrobo's cod
On Saturday 06 July 2013 15:01:10 Jon Elson did opine:
> EBo wrote:
> > Seriously though, we should
> >
> > be able to merge Araisrobo's code and add spindle synchronized.
>
> Well, it is pretty obvious to me that jerk limiting and having the Z
> axis follow the spindle are in conflict. So, I
On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 04:24:07PM +0200, Michael Haberler wrote:
>
> I do support the idea of the araisrobo tp code be brought into linuxCNC
Have you found that it works properly now? Unless I have missed
something, last we heard of this it was not yet working properly.
http://thread.gmane.org
(GMT-06:00)
To: EMC developers
Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] "Open" Development
Hmmm, I think you are better at words than I am, I generally come out
a bit rough :-D ... when I was running 15 ns latency, I was running on
the NMI and had disabled half the cache for the microcontro
EBo wrote:
> ooo... I like where you are going with this. It is also good to know
> that araisrobo's code does in fact implement spindle sync.
>
And, putting the spindle sync after the jerk-limited TP makes a lot
of sense, too!
Jon
---
EBo wrote:
> Seriously though, we should
> be able to merge Araisrobo's code and add spindle synchronized.
>
Well, it is pretty obvious to me that jerk limiting and having the Z axis
follow the spindle are in conflict. So, I think the jerk limiting may need
to be turned off when in a spindle
Am 06.07.2013 um 17:15 schrieb Lars Segerlund :
> It would be nice to use the arduino as backend, stepgenerator or so,
> and linuxcnc as frontend for heavy stuff
that has in fact been done already several times for steppers
see picnc which will be integrated going forward, although it uses
Hmmm, I think you are better at words than I am, I generally come out
a bit rough :-D ... when I was running 15 ns latency, I was running on
the NMI and had disabled half the cache for the microcontroller, this
one made it possible to disable and memory map it, so I had plenty of
space to stuff th
On Jul 6 2013 8:24 AM, Michael Haberler wrote:
> Am 05.07.2013 um 22:18 schrieb Viesturs Lācis
> :
>>
>> I do not want to be the smart-pants, but velocity is 1st,
>> acceleration is
>> 2nd and jerk is 3rd derivative of position. Anyway, it is already in
>> Araisrobo code, AFAIK their code lacks s
Am 05.07.2013 um 22:18 schrieb Viesturs Lācis :
>
> I do not want to be the smart-pants, but velocity is 1st, acceleration is
> 2nd and jerk is 3rd derivative of position. Anyway, it is already in
> Araisrobo code, AFAIK their code lacks spindle synchronized motion.
Spindle-sync in fact is impl
I agree. If you can stuff your entire calculation into fixed point
then you can do some wicked cool stuff -- I worked on a project where we
embedded a 4-level wavelet decomposition and filter into an FPGA that
processed ultrasonic scans of train rail tracks at 35MPH in real-time
(we were scann
On Jul 5 2013 2:18 PM, Viesturs Lācis wrote:
> 2013/7/5 EBo
>>
>>
>> With LCNC-3.0 I would also like to see if we can add minimization of
>> jerk (the 4'th order derivative of position, so you end up taking
>> the
>> derivative of acceleration and smooth it).
>
>
> I do not want to be the smart-p
Why even try to get people to switch their currently working Arduinos to
Linuxcnc? You'll find that most of the strong opinions on this matter
come from those already selling the hardware and software kits to the
open developers. FDM/GGG has limited applications in additive
manufacturing since
2013/7/5 Charles Steinkuehler
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 7/5/2013 3:18 PM, Viesturs Lācis wrote:
> > And I just came up with a theory that jerk-limited motion would
> > actually allow to push stepper performance higher as servos can
> > recover from any position erro
Hi guys,
Floating point is moot, if you use fixed point in machine coordinates
and add a 2^x bits to that, and you can do a lot of things on simple
hardware :-D
Linuxcnc flaunts a lot of hardware, but I think a microcontroller can
beat it any day, I did 14.7 ns jitter on one once :-D ... go fi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/5/2013 3:18 PM, Viesturs Lācis wrote:
> And I just came up with a theory that jerk-limited motion would
> actually allow to push stepper performance higher as servos can
> recover from any position error, but stepper simply will lose steps
> in th
2013/7/5 EBo
>
>
> With LCNC-3.0 I would also like to see if we can add minimization of
> jerk (the 4'th order derivative of position, so you end up taking the
> derivative of acceleration and smooth it).
I do not want to be the smart-pants, but velocity is 1st, acceleration is
2nd and jerk is 3
On Jul 5 2013 1:45 PM, EBo wrote:
> On Jul 5 2013 1:19 PM, Charles Steinkuehler wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 7/5/2013 1:59 PM, EBo wrote:
>>> I've given this a bit of a sit and still have to disagree. Granted
>>> the Lasersaur and Makerbot groups/company have
On Jul 5 2013 1:19 PM, Charles Steinkuehler wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 7/5/2013 1:59 PM, EBo wrote:
>> I've given this a bit of a sit and still have to disagree. Granted
>> the Lasersaur and Makerbot groups/company have not necessarily
>> played nice, but most
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/5/2013 1:59 PM, EBo wrote:
> I've given this a bit of a sit and still have to disagree. Granted
> the Lasersaur and Makerbot groups/company have not necessarily
> played nice, but most of the stuff is open source. After letting
> it settle and g
I've given this a bit of a sit and still have to disagree. Granted the
Lasersaur and Makerbot groups/company have not necessarily played nice,
but most of the stuff is open source. After letting it settle and
giving it a rethink, I guess what you ment by "...minimum barrier for
entry" is ofte
He can hire a programmer and pay him to fix it ... as long as it's
nice enough to go in the distribution.
It's more likely that there is a problem that crap is not accepted
look at the linux kernel ...
Even google is trying to play nice with main line after the brain dead
crap they produced
On 3 July 2013 01:03, Charles Steinkuehler wrote:
> The main point I am trying to make is the "hackerspace folk" have a
> different perspective on the world than the industrial machine control
> market where LinuxCNC is typically used, and if you want to engage
> these people (which I think is a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/2/2013 6:56 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 July 2013 19:55:44 Dave did opine:
>
>> A lot of industrial "open" standards are like that.. Send us
>> $495 and we will give you the open standards/interface
>> specifications/protocol/sampl
On Tuesday 02 July 2013 19:55:44 Dave did opine:
> A lot of industrial "open" standards are like that.. Send us $495 and
> we will give you the open standards/interface
> specifications/protocol/sample source code, etc.
>
> So "Open" does not necessarily mean free.
>
> I wonder how they came u
A lot of industrial "open" standards are like that.. Send us $495 and
we will give you the open standards/interface
specifications/protocol/sample source code, etc.
So "Open" does not necessarily mean free.
I wonder how they came up with $32 ? That seems like an odd amount.
Dave
On 7/2/201
Not sure lasersaur is a great example of "open" development, when their model
is "give us $32 and we'll give you our 'open' source"
On Jul 2, 2013, at 3:58 PM, Charles Steinkuehler
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I am referring to the RepRap 3D printer crowd, as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I am referring to the RepRap 3D printer crowd, as well as people
building things like the Lasersaur:
http://labs.nortd.com/lasersaur/
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/nortd/lasersaur-open-source-laser-cutter-0
I do not mean "maker" as a general t
I would have to disagree with the "...but in the maker community, being
open-source isn't a plus, it's more like a minimum barrier for entry."
I have never seen this at all. Where did you run into this? The only
people I have run into that had a problem with it wanted to sell
machines withou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/2/2013 11:05 AM, Steve Stallings wrote:
> Thanks Seb, this is concrete progress. I would like for the
> current efforts at improvement of developer support and governance
> to be more visible. How do people feel about showing more current
> event
86 matches
Mail list logo
