Re: [Emc-users] block processing speed

2008-04-23 Thread Anders Wallin
> I think G64 without a tolerance can only blend moves that are exactly > tangent - that would mostly apply to paths made up of lines joined by arcs. I thought G61 ('exact path' mode) did this already? G61.1 is 'exact stop' mode which will stop at the beginning and end of each move. The Pxxx fo

Re: [Emc-users] Very low PRM system.

2008-04-23 Thread amtb
Hi I want to describe my understanding for low feed system. I will use direct drive mounting and that mean 5 revolutions for 1 inch of travel per minute. 5 revolution times 360 degree is 1800 degree per 1 inch per minute. 0.0001 travel per minute means system will have 1.8 degree per minute. My sys

Re: [Emc-users] Very low PRM system.

2008-04-23 Thread Roland Jollivet
Hi I (we?) have no idea of the application, but if the system is always going to operate at low speeds, what about a fat flywheel on the drive motor to smooth things out? Regards Roland On 23/04/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi > I want to describe my understanding for

Re: [Emc-users] block processing speed

2008-04-23 Thread Jon Elson
John Kasunich wrote: > Jon Elson wrote: > >>John Kasunich wrote: >> >>>Jon Elson wrote: >>> > I have no idea how hard it is to do better with this lookahead, >>> >>>It's hard. :-( >>> >>>That's the rub - if there is a discontinuity the machine has to slow >>>down. But it doesn't know there is a

Re: [Emc-users] block processing speed

2008-04-23 Thread Jon Elson
Anders Wallin wrote: >>I think G64 without a tolerance can only blend moves that are exactly >>tangent - that would mostly apply to paths made up of lines joined by arcs. > > > I thought G61 ('exact path' mode) did this already? > G61.1 is 'exact stop' mode which will stop at the beginning and en

Re: [Emc-users] Very low PRM system.

2008-04-23 Thread Peter C. Wallace
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:14:49 -0600 (MDT) > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Reply-To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)" > > To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)" > Subject: Re: [Emc-users] Very low PRM system. > > Hi > I want to describe my und

Re: [Emc-users] Very low PRM system.

2008-04-23 Thread amtb
hi i will use that setting for grinding, tool grinding and slow feed is should be there to make grinding process work. everage feed 0.001 inch per minute. But i want to system be stable at 0.0001 inch per minute to machine work stable. i want to find all possobilities on this matter, before any bu

Re: [Emc-users] Very low PRM system.

2008-04-23 Thread Peter C. Wallace
> > Enough for what? At that slow rate (with n o dynamic load) the servo system > will basically step one count at a time at the 2.7 Hz rate but each step will > only advance 600 nano inches, Are your mechanics good enough that this > matters? > > Even with a variable load +-10 counts should be eas

[Emc-users] conv-float-u32

2008-04-23 Thread Kirk Wallace
Just a minor note. I think the conv-float-u32 behavior might have changed. I run my spindle speed through conv-float-u32 to get a number to send to my serial DAC. It used to remove the negative for reverse direction, but now faults to zero. I just added abs to the input to fix it. It took me a whil

Re: [Emc-users] conv-float-u32

2008-04-23 Thread Jeff Epler
conv-float-u32 has never taken the absolute value of its input. Through and including version 2.1.7, there *was* a bug in conv-float-u32 which caused a negative value (e.g., -1) to output as a very large value (e.g., 4294967295 or 0x) when 'clamp' is TRUE. In 2.2.0 and newer, negative val

Re: [Emc-users] Very low PRM system.

2008-04-23 Thread Jon Elson
Roland Jollivet wrote: > Hi > > I (we?) have no idea of the application, but if the system is always > going to operate at low speeds, what about a fat flywheel on the drive > motor to smooth things out? You'd need an incredible flywheel to smooth out a motor movong at 1.8 degrees per minute!

Re: [Emc-users] conv-float-u32

2008-04-23 Thread Kirk Wallace
On Wed, 2008-04-23 at 15:29 -0500, Jeff Epler wrote: > If you have specific examples of input and output values (along with the > value of the 'clamp' parameter) that have changed between emc versions > (please note which versions!), I'd be happy to tell you if it's a result > of this bugfix, or a