2017-03-30 8:12 GMT+03:00 Erik Christiansen:
> This one makes claims:
> http://hackaday.com/2017/03/25/mrrf-17-e3d-introduces-combin
> ation-extruder-and-hotend/
>
> Dunno how well the performance matches the sales spiel, though.
>
Titan first, then Aero... and they're almost back to the origins
If you have a part with a large bore through the middle, how do you
set up to machine a hole exactly perpendicular to the axis of that
bore?
I imagine that this is quite a common problem, so must have a common solution?
My particular setup puzzle is analagous to this, except that I will be
using
Why not swap 2&3? Machine base flat and machine keyway for the table.
Then mount to the table and indicate off the table slot to bore the hole
exactly on center? By default they will be parallel.
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 7:02 AM, andy pugh wrote:
> If you have a part with a large bore through t
On 30 March 2017 at 12:38, Stephen Dubovsky wrote:
> Why not swap 2&3? Machine base flat and machine keyway for the table.
> Then mount to the table and indicate off the table slot to bore the hole
> exactly on center? By default they will be parallel.
The slots run the wrong way for this to wo
When you bore the hole can you machine some flats on either side as a
reference?
JT
On 3/30/2017 6:02 AM, andy pugh wrote:
> If you have a part with a large bore through the middle, how do you
> set up to machine a hole exactly perpendicular to the axis of that
> bore?
>
> I imagine that this is
On 30.03.17 12:02, andy pugh wrote:
> My particular setup puzzle is analagous to this, except that I will be
> using the horizontal spindle.
>
> Machining this casting: https://goo.gl/photos/6QhNnqjzRuSJJpva7
>
> The order of operations will be, starting with the raw casting:
> 1) with the large
On 30.03.17 12:53, andy pugh wrote:
> I have been wondering about machining the keyway slot as part of the
> first step and making it deep enough at the front face to be able to
> probe it. However, I would prefer the freedom to centre the main
> mounting bore in the semi-machined casting at step 2
Hello
You could turn a cylinder that fits snugly in the large hole.
Bolt it to the machine table, somewehere to the front (towards you), so that
the part will fit over it.
Indicate its sides so that the cutter's axis is dead-centered on it.
Lock the table, put the part over the cylinder, indicate
On 30 March 2017 at 13:41, Cristian Bontas wrote:
> You could turn a cylinder that fits snugly in the large hole.
Certainly a possibility, but at 120mm quite a big chunk of material to
use just as a jig.
--
atp
"A motorcycle is a bicycle with a pandemonium attachment and is
designed for the esp
On 30 March 2017 at 13:20, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> Implicit in my other post is that the bore is machined first, and the
> keyway (partially) machined wherever that ends up, with just a knee
> elevation to get there. Once aligned, it can be widened or deepened in a
> subsequent operation, I fig
I think I would put at least two small holes in the face during 2).
I might even add an operation at the end to put a small hole in an
advantageous location depending on the application and tooling available.
This would give you features to align/check whenever you desired.
It has been my experienc
Hello all,
I built a gantry type router a year or so ago and was more interested in
getting it running than anything else. My gantry runs along the Y axis and has
2 motors (joints). I am running the Axis GUI on LinuxCNC 2.6.x.
My current setup has the ystep and ydir signals driving two motors
The current Master branch (2.8-pre) is a descendant of JA14, and would be the
preferred method for a gantry with independent parallel joints on a single
axis.
- Original Message -
From: "Joe Hildreth"
To: "emc-users"
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 11:40:12 AM
Subject: [Emc-users] Look
The gantry component was a work around for 2.7. The JA branch has been
merged into Master for some time now. Master is the development branch
and when 2.8 is released it will contain most if not all of the things
currently in master.
JT
On 3/30/2017 10:40 AM, Joe Hildreth wrote:
> Hello all,
Todd,
Thank you for the feedback. Can you point me to some information on how to get
the 2.8-pre installed on my debian wheezy box?
Thanks,
Joe Hildreth
- On Mar 30, 2017, at 11:05 AM, Todd Zuercher zuerc...@embarqmail.com wrote:
> The current Master branch (2.8-pre) is a descendant of
John,
Thank you for the information. Todd mentioned that I could run the 2.8-pre
version, but I am unsure how to get it to my wheezy box. Are there software
sources I need to point to to do this, or something else. I would be happy
with a link to some instructions.
Also, is there a time lin
It is possible to download with git, I do not have link but it should be rather
simple to find.
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:21:42 -0500 (CDT)
Joe Hildreth wrote:
> John,
>
> Thank you for the information. Todd mentioned that I could run the 2.8-pre
> version, but I am unsure how to get it to my
Hi Joe,
http://buildbot.linuxcnc.org/
You just need to change the deb line in the synaptic package manager to
point to:
deb http://buildbot.linuxcnc.org/ precise master-rtpreempt
and
deb-src http://buildbot.linuxcnc.org/ precise master-rtpreempt
and follow the instructions to add the key.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the release of 2.8. (And there is no
release schedule.)
But Master is relatively safe to run, and lots of people use it to run real
machinery.
It can be installed relatively easily on a system already running a standard
Linuxcnc Debian Wheezy install.
Simp
John,
Thank you again for the help and information. I will try this out when I get
home. One last question, when 2.8 is released, is it a matter then of just
changing the software sources to be on that release or would it be best to just
keep on the buildbot sources?
Thank you again for your
Once 2.8 is released I would switch to it _unless_ you need some feature
in the new Master. This way you get bug fixes only and nothing that
could be a show stopper... or a surprise.
JT
On 3/30/2017 11:45 AM, Joe Hildreth wrote:
> John,
>
> Thank you again for the help and information. I will
John,
Todd,
Nicklas,
Just wanted to thank you gentlemen one more time for the help. I really
appreciate it.
Regards,
Joe Hildreth
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites
On Thursday 30 March 2017 07:02:14 andy pugh wrote:
> If you have a part with a large bore through the middle, how do you
> set up to machine a hole exactly perpendicular to the axis of that
> bore?
>
Similar problem with this taperlock hub I've made, it could tip enough
that the shaft it rides o
On 30 March 2017 at 18:56, Gene Heskett wrote:
> I would mount the shaft in the hole, or make something that fits snugly,
> and could serve as something to indicate for verticality.
There is no shaft, there is a 250mm register for the harmonic drive unit.
And I can't bolt it down and indicate of
There was a time (in the late 1990's to early 2000's) when LinuxCNC (EMC back
then) had three realtime threads. What we now know as the base and servo
threads, and a third slower thread for the trajectory planner. Back in the
day, computers couldn't necessarily do all the trajectory planner (a
Why can't it be as 120mm diameter x 5mm thick disk?
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017, at 09:00 AM, andy pugh wrote:
> On 30 March 2017 at 13:41, Cristian Bontas wrote:
> > You could turn a cylinder that fits snugly in the large hole.
>
> Certainly a possibility, but at 120mm quite a big chunk of material t
Elaborating on my own post:
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017, at 03:21 PM, John Kasunich wrote:
> Why can't it be as 120mm diameter x 5mm thick disk?
Turn said disk on the lathe, and bore a concentric but much smaller hole in the
center. Then you can indicate to either the hole or a dowel inserted in the
You can comment them out and LinuxCNC runs just fine, that tells me they
are leftover bit rot.
JT
On 3/30/2017 2:07 PM, John Kasunich wrote:
> There was a time (in the late 1990's to early 2000's) when LinuxCNC (EMC back
> then) had three realtime threads. What we now know as the base and ser
Yet another possibility: two pieces of matched diameter stock somewhere
between 25-50mm diameter (non-critical)
and 25-75mm long. Non-critical hole down the center of each one to fit a
clamping stud.
Put two t-nuts in the center t-slot, bolt one cylinder down using one of the
nuts in a arbi
John,
These entries were generated with stepconf, should stepconf be updated so as
not to include them. Also, just to verify, all three variable can be removed
from these two sections?
[EMCMOT] section
COMM_TIMEOUT = 1.0
COMM_WAIT = 0.010
[TRAJ] section
CYCLE_TIME = 0.010
Joe Hildreth
It might be slightly more accurate to use a tooling ball in the centre of the
120mm disc rather than a dowel pin. They have a shoulder so tilt would not be
an issue.
> -Original Message-
> From: John Kasunich [mailto:jmkasun...@fastmail.fm]
> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:27 PM
> To:
On 30 March 2017 at 20:38, John Kasunich wrote:
> Put two t-nuts in the center t-slot, bolt one cylinder down using one of the
> nuts in a arbitrary location. Set the part over the cylinder, insert the
> second cylinder and slide them apart until the two cylinders are touching the
> inside of
I would comment them out and test, I tested the first two... and yes the
StepConf maintainer should remove ini items that are not used. You
should start a issue on this, the issue tracker is the correct place to
report things like this.
https://github.com/LinuxCNC/linuxcnc/issues
JT
On 3/30/
On 30 March 2017 at 20:07, John Kasunich wrote:
> I'm not in a position to do it, but I wonder how hard it would be to grep
> thru the code to see if those parameters are used? If they're not, they
> should be deleted from the sample configs.
Checked here:
https://github.com/LinuxCNC/linuxcnc/
On Thursday 30 March 2017 15:07:41 John Kasunich wrote:
> There was a time (in the late 1990's to early 2000's) when LinuxCNC
> (EMC back then) had three realtime threads. What we now know as the
> base and servo threads, and a third slower thread for the trajectory
> planner. Back in the day, c
On Thursday 30 March 2017 15:21:48 John Kasunich wrote:
> Why can't it be as 120mm diameter x 5mm thick disk?
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017, at 09:00 AM, andy pugh wrote:
> > On 30 March 2017 at 13:41, Cristian Bontas
wrote:
> > > You could turn a cylinder that fits snugly in the large hole.
> >
> >
I would:
place the part on the base and machine large face
place part on large face and machine the base and the t-slot. This means that
the base and long dim. of the t-slot are perpendicular to the face
place part on base and indicate large face to be perpendicular to spindle. This
also mea
37 matches
Mail list logo