On 10 July 2013 02:29, Gene Heskett ghesk...@wdtv.com 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
On Jul 10 2013 3:07 AM, andy pugh wrote:
On 10 July 2013 02:29, Gene Heskett ghesk...@wdtv.com 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
On 10 July 2013 11:34, EBo e...@sandien.com 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
On Wednesday 10 July 2013 07:08:23 andy pugh did opine:
On 10 July 2013 02:29, Gene Heskett ghesk...@wdtv.com 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.
On Jul 10 2013 4:50 AM, andy pugh wrote:
On 10 July 2013 11:34, EBo e...@sandien.com 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
On 10 July 2013 12:20, EBo e...@sandien.com 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
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
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. I
On 10 July 2013 18:46, Jon Elson el...@pico-systems.com 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
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013, at 02:06 PM, andy pugh wrote:
On 10 July 2013 18:46, Jon Elson el...@pico-systems.com 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
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 way to make a
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 the spindle
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 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 with a gain
On 9 July 2013 19:10, Gene Heskett ghesk...@wdtv.com 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
Now that's cool!
Ian
On Jul 9, 2013, at 3:03 PM, andy pugh bodge...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 July 2013 19:10, Gene Heskett ghesk...@wdtv.com 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
On Tuesday 09 July 2013 21:28:13 andy pugh did opine:
On 9 July 2013 19:10, Gene Heskett ghesk...@wdtv.com 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
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 normal
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, the
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 that is
On 8 July 2013 05:21, John Morris j...@zultron.com 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
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 produce.
infinite
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 the limits to
On Monday 08 July 2013 10:57:36 andy pugh did opine:
On 8 July 2013 05:21, John Morris j...@zultron.com 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
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 j...@zultron.com wrote:
Also,
spindle acceleration and reversal control is not as precise as other
motion components. Nothing we can do
On Sat, 6 Jul 2013 20:23:12 +
Chris Morley chrisinnana...@hotmail.com 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
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 do
it in perhaps
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 a
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 chrisinnana...@hotmail.com wrote:
I guess it really comes down to at what performance
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 to 60 seconds. Each
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 the
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 prepared hole,
On Jul 7 2013 6:19 AM, Matt Shaver wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2013 20:23:12 +
Chris Morley chrisinnana...@hotmail.com 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
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 have tight
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 problem.
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 produce
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 actually
On Jul 5 2013 2:18 PM, Viesturs Lācis wrote:
2013/7/5 EBo e...@sandien.com
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
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
Am 05.07.2013 um 22:18 schrieb Viesturs Lācis viesturs.la...@gmail.com:
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.
On Jul 6 2013 8:24 AM, Michael Haberler wrote:
Am 05.07.2013 um 22:18 schrieb Viesturs Lācis
viesturs.la...@gmail.com:
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
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
Am 06.07.2013 um 17:15 schrieb Lars Segerlund lars.segerl...@gmail.com:
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
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
Date: 2013/07/06 10:15 (GMT-06:00)
To: EMC developers emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
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
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
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.
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 think
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 code and add spindle synchronized.
Well, it is pretty
On 6 July 2013 20:32, Chris Morley chrisinnana...@hotmail.com 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
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
EBo wrote:
Seriously though, we should
be able to merge
On Sat, 6 Jul 2013, andy pugh wrote:
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 20:43:53 +0100
From: andy pugh bodge...@gmail.com
Reply-To: EMC developers emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
To: EMC developers emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] Open Development
On 6 July 2013
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 chrisinnana...@hotmail.com wrote:
infinite jerk is impossible for a machine to produce movement
2013/7/6 Chris Morley chrisinnana...@hotmail.com
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
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 chrisinnana...@hotmail.com
infinite jerk is impossible for a machine to produce movement
2013/7/6 Chris Morley chrisinnana...@hotmail.com
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.
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 chrisinnana...@hotmail.com
Well I guess it depends on your definition of infinite jerk. (practical
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 in
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 received
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 reasoning.
Jerk limiting is about having the TP ask
On Saturday 06 July 2013 18:23:42 Viesturs Lācis did opine:
2013/7/6 Chris Morley chrisinnana...@hotmail.com
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
On 6 July 2013 23:28, Gene Heskett ghesk...@wdtv.com 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
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 for a
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 limiting
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
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, and
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 reversal or maybe
not badly because the
spindle
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 change, at 300
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 often
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 not
2013/7/5 EBo e...@sandien.com
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
-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 these
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
2013/7/5 Charles Steinkuehler char...@steinkuehler.net
-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
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
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/2/2013 11:05 AM, Steve Stallings wrote:
snip 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
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 without
-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
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 char...@steinkuehler.net
wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I am referring to the RepRap 3D
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 up with $32
-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/sample source
82 matches
Mail list logo
