On Monday, May 07, 2012 02:17:18 AM Jon Elson did opine:
> gene heskett wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 06, 2012 09:15:18 PM Jon Elson did opine:
> >> you should be able to set up X and
> >> Z offsets for each tool in the tool table.
> >
> > That would require I get at least 3 or 4 more QC toolholders.
On May 6, 2012, at 9:55 PM, Jeshua Lacock wrote:
>>> Can anyone recommend some cards that are known to work with your or Kirk
>>> Wallace's utilities?
>> Siig definitely work, although I have only used their PCI cards, not PCI-e.
>> Older NetMos-containing cards mostly do NOT work, although
>>
On May 6, 2012, at 9:16 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
> Jeshua Lacock wrote:
>>
>> I have never written to an EEPROM before, so I think I would rather order
>> another card to spare the expense of small pci card.
> You don't have to know what you are doing, if you can get the config
> utility for
> tha
gene heskett wrote:
> On Sunday, May 06, 2012 09:15:18 PM Jon Elson did opine:
>
>
>
>> you should be able to set up X and
>> Z offsets for each tool in the tool table.
>>
>
> That would require I get at least 3 or 4 more QC toolholders. But then I
> am reminded that the QC post must be r
Ed wrote:
> I'm finally getting up my CHNC wired up a piece at a time and am
> wondering which way to go on the Ubu. version?
>
> I have played with 8.04 and it seems to be faster than 10.04, probably
> because of bloat. The install is in a 2.6Gh machine running Pico Systems
> hardware so I do
Jeshua Lacock wrote:
>
> I have never written to an EEPROM before, so I think I would rather order
> another card to spare the expense of small pci card.
You don't have to know what you are doing, if you can get the config
utility for
that card, you just set the options you want and hit "go".
>
On Sunday, May 06, 2012 09:15:18 PM Jon Elson did opine:
> gene heskett wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 06, 2012 02:33:08 PM Jon Elson did opine:
> >
> >
> >
> > What is the best practice to establish the X zero on a lathe? I am
> > making a test cut, measuring it and dividing that by half to enter
I'm finally getting up my CHNC wired up a piece at a time and am
wondering which way to go on the Ubu. version?
I have played with 8.04 and it seems to be faster than 10.04, probably
because of bloat. The install is in a 2.6Gh machine running Pico Systems
hardware so I don't think the latency
On May 6, 2012, at 5:02 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
> OK, in this badly trashed document (at least on my browser) :
> http://www.soiseek.com/OXFORD/OX16PCI954-TQC60-A1/56.htm
> It mentions there is a Windows utility to reprogram the options EEPROM
> available from Oxford Semi. No link is provided.
> Pa
On Sun, 6 May 2012, Jon Elson wrote:
> Date: Sun, 06 May 2012 18:02:16 -0500
> From: Jon Elson
> Reply-To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
>
> To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
> Subject: Re: [Emc-users] Setting EPP Mode
>
> jeshua wrote:
>
> OK, in this badly trashed document (a
gene heskett wrote:
> On Sunday, May 06, 2012 02:33:08 PM Jon Elson did opine:
>
>
>
> What is the best practice to establish the X zero on a lathe? I am making
> a test cut, measuring it and dividing that by half to enter in a Touch Off.
>
>
If you have a quick-change toolpost, you should
jeshua wrote:
OK, in this badly trashed document (at least on my browser) :
http://www.soiseek.com/OXFORD/OX16PCI954-TQC60-A1/56.htm
It mentions there is a Windows utility to reprogram the options EEPROM
available from Oxford Semi. No link is provided.
Page 72 of that doc has some email addresses
Kirk Wallace wrote:
> I believe the EEPROM programs the chip pin-out or rather tells the PCI
> chip what product it's on, and probably is not meant to be changed after
> the chip is soldered to a board. Also the datasheet seems to indicate
> that the chip follows the Microsoft interface spec.:
> ht
Dave wrote:
> Jon,
>
> Why would they do that? So it is stuck in SPP mode?
>
> Is this an attempt to idiot proof the card so it works for most people
> out of the box?
>
Yes, very likely. Perhaps Windows drivers reset this with some of the
PCI setup
registers. I suspect there is a setup ut
On Sunday, May 06, 2012 06:38:05 PM Dave did opine:
> On 5/6/2012 3:02 PM, gene heskett wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 06, 2012 03:01:18 PM Dave did opine:
> >> On 5/6/2012 2:31 PM, gene heskett wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, May 06, 2012 02:12:18 PM John Prentice did opine:
> Gene - greetings
>
>
On 5/6/2012 3:02 PM, gene heskett wrote:
> On Sunday, May 06, 2012 03:01:18 PM Dave did opine:
>
>
>> On 5/6/2012 2:31 PM, gene heskett wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, May 06, 2012 02:12:18 PM John Prentice did opine:
>>>
Gene - greetings
>> As an aside, as m
On Sunday, May 06, 2012 03:01:18 PM Dave did opine:
> On 5/6/2012 2:31 PM, gene heskett wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 06, 2012 02:12:18 PM John Prentice did opine:
> >> Gene - greetings
> >>
> As an aside, as many nets are best written on one line, inventing
> the signal name is tedious. It
On Sunday, May 06, 2012 02:33:08 PM Jon Elson did opine:
> gene heskett wrote:
> > Thanks to all who helped, I cut another thread this evening, wrong of
> > course but at least I now know why it was wrong. Hopefully the next
> > one will be right. ;-)
>
> Progress comes in small steps, but as l
... snip
> Yup, this looks like the problem, the EEPROM has been set to disable the
> ECR registers, so you can't set it to EPP. There must be a utility program
> that can rewrite the EEPROM to change the default config. Did you
> get a mini-CD with it? You might have a program on it to do thi
On 5/6/2012 2:31 PM, gene heskett wrote:
> On Sunday, May 06, 2012 02:12:18 PM John Prentice did opine:
>
>
>> Gene - greetings
>>
>>
As an aside, as many nets are best written on one line, inventing the
signal name is tedious. It would suit me to allow a wildcard, "*" or
w
On Sunday, May 06, 2012 02:12:18 PM John Prentice did opine:
> Gene - greetings
>
> >> As an aside, as many nets are best written on one line, inventing the
> >> signal name is tedious. It would suit me to allow a wildcard, "*" or
> >> whatever, as signalname and HAL would invent a unique interna
Jon,
Why would they do that? So it is stuck in SPP mode?
Is this an attempt to idiot proof the card so it works for most people
out of the box?
Dave
On 5/6/2012 1:50 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
> Jeshua Lacock wrote:
>
>> Actually it looks like the UARTs show up as a separate device:
>>
>> 08:0
Jeshua Lacock wrote:
>
> Actually it looks like the UARTs show up as a separate device:
>
> 08:00.0 Serial controller: Oxford Semiconductor Ltd OX16PCI954 (Quad 16950
> UART) function 0 (Disabled) (rev 01) (prog-if 06)
> Subsystem: Oxford Semiconductor Ltd Device
> Flags: medium d
Thanks Andy
On 6 May 2012, at 13:23, Andy Pugh wrote:
>
>
> On 6 May 2012, at 08:25, Mike Bennett wrote:
>
>> 1. What is the scope of a signal name. Is it machine wide or limited to the
>> Hal file it appears in?
>
> They are system-wide and are the only practical way to share data betw
gene heskett wrote:
>
> Thanks to all who helped, I cut another thread this evening, wrong of
> course but at least I now know why it was wrong. Hopefully the next one
> will be right. ;-)
>
Progress comes in small steps, but as long as each step moves in the right
direction, that is good!
jeshua wrote:
> I am looking at the data sheet for that chip:
>
> http://www.datasheetarchive.com/OX16PCI952-datasheet.html#
>
> It states on page 52:
>
> To use the Enhanced Parallel Port (‘EPP’) mode, the mode
> field of the Extended Control Register (ECR[7:5]) must be
> set to ‘100’ using the ne
On Sun, 2012-05-06 at 02:06 -0600, Jeshua Lacock wrote:
... snip
> I tried pretty much every possible combination of C040, C050 and C00 that I
> could think of.
>
> Here is as you suggest:
>
> sudo ./showport C040 C050 e
> ~
> Base @ 0xc040
> Extended @ 0xc050
> DPR: 144
> DSR: 64
> DCR: 149
Gene - greetings
>>
>> As an aside, as many nets are best written on one line, inventing the
>> signal name is tedious. It would suit me to allow a wildcard, "*" or
>> whatever, as signalname and HAL would invent a unique internal name for
>> its own purposes.
>>
>> John Prentice
>
> While that mig
On 6 May 2012, at 08:25, Mike Bennett wrote:
> 1. What is the scope of a signal name. Is it machine wide or limited to the
> Hal file it appears in?
They are system-wide and are the only practical way to share data between HAL
files.
> 2. If machine wide, are there existing signal names i
Is there a chance to block this email address, so that it cannot post
messages on the mailing list?
Thanks!
Viesturs
2012/5/6 rob c :
>
> For a Windows Software Solution try http://whatisacnc.com/sprinter/
>
> How does EMC control a 3D Printer? I love the software for Milling!!
>
>
> ---
On May 6, 2012, at 1:38 AM, Kirk Wallace wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-05-05 at 23:06 -0600, jeshua wrote:
>> On May 5, 2012, at 8:14 PM, jeshua wrote:
>>
>>> 'pcils -v' reveals:
>>>
>>> 08:00.1 Non-VGA unclassified device: Oxford Semiconductor Ltd OX16PCI954
>>> (Quad 16950 UART) function 1 (parallel
On Sat, 2012-05-05 at 23:06 -0600, jeshua wrote:
> On May 5, 2012, at 8:14 PM, jeshua wrote:
>
> > 'pcils -v' reveals:
> >
> > 08:00.1 Non-VGA unclassified device: Oxford Semiconductor Ltd OX16PCI954
> > (Quad 16950 UART) function 1 (parallel port) (rev 01)
> > Subsystem: Oxford Semiconducto
As a new user I've been following this thread with interest. My only questions
are:
1. What is the scope of a signal name. Is it machine wide or limited to the
Hal file it appears in.
2. If machine wide, are there existing signal names in existence that I have to
avoid re-declaring?
Mike
33 matches
Mail list logo