Peter Homann wrote:
> Hi Jon,
>
> You may want to ask Art to have another look. These days there are plug-ins
> that are written that talk to various type of hardware. You would probably
> have to write the plug-in yourself with Arts help.
I talked to him at the CNC Workshop, and he sounded pret
Ray Henry wrote:
>On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 20:29 -0400, Stephen Wille Padnos wrote:
>
>
>
>>It may be better to
>>leave closed loop out of it altogether, because a lot of people don't
>>really know what it is, and will claim closed loop operation when it
>>really isn't.
>>
>>
>As an old time
- Original Message -
From: "Steve Blackmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 2:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Emc-users] Desktop CNC Website Information
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 20:57:37 -0500, you wrote:
On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 20:29 -0400, Stephen Wille Padnos wrote:
> It may be better to
> leave closed loop out of it altogether, because a lot of people don't
> really know what it is, and will claim closed loop operation when it
> really isn't.
As an old time user/repairer of machines that use
Hi Jon,
You may want to ask Art to have another look. These days there are plug-ins
that are written that talk to various type of hardware. You would probably
have to write the plug-in yourself with Arts help.
It may be worth considering.
Cheers,
Peter.
Jon Elson wrote:
> Stephen Wille Padno
Stephen Wille Padnos wrote:
> Peter,
>
> I think the idea is to correct the EMC2-related information, since
> that's what we know about. It would make sense for someone who knows
> more about Mach to correct that information. I believe I'm the only one
> of the EMC developers who has ever ins
Kirk Wallace wrote:
> I would like to finalize the information in this table such that it
> represents the general capabilities of EMC 2.2.
>
> http://www.wallacecompany.com/cnc_lathe/control_table-kw1a.htm
I have never had a problem installing the Ubuntu 6.06-based EMC2
with 256 MB of memory. B
Great job of updating information.
In hindsight I think "Linux" should probably be "Linux with rt
extensions"
or something equivalent.
" It is always easier to edit than to do the original copy"
Thanks for taking the effort.
Dave
On Oct 3, 2007, at 2:29 PM, Kirk Wallace wrote:
> I would li
Kirk Wallace wrote:
>[snip]
>
>Also changed:
>"Both simultaneously,
>closed loop optional for steppers"
>
>
I'd leave the steppers thing out of closed loop. It may be better to
leave closed loop out of it altogether, because a lot of people don't
really know what it is, and will claim closed
On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 18:22 -0400, Stephen Wille Padnos wrote:
... snip
> Kirk,
>
> It might be good to add a "closed loop" column. That probably used to
> be implicit in the "stepper vs. servo" column, but it isn't any more
> because of step-to-servo drives like the Geckos.
It's not my table
Peter,
I think the idea is to correct the EMC2-related information, since
that's what we know about. It would make sense for someone who knows
more about Mach to correct that information. I believe I'm the only one
of the EMC developers who has ever installed or evaluated Mach, since
I'm one
Thanks for the reply, but I am only concerned about the EMC 2.2 data. I
just happened to come across this table at:
http://desktopcnc.com/control_table.htm
and wanted to make sure EMC was properly represented. I know nothing
about any other programs.
Kirk Wallace
Hi Kirk,
Nice table. The data for Mach3 is incorrect in many columns. You really need
to compare it to the releases version 2.48 as the 1.48 is quite old and out of
date.
It does 100K steps/sec on the parallel port. Using TCP/IP add on hardware
(Gecko G100) it can do 4M step/second.
Using USB
I would like to finalize the information in this table such that it
represents the general capabilities of EMC 2.2.
http://www.wallacecompany.com/cnc_lathe/control_table-kw1a.htm
Then, I need someone (on the board) to authorize it by sending:
Jerry Gold
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
a message to that effec
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 13:39:35 -0400, you wrote:
>What is being claimed for Mach is that it can do rigid tapping
>IF the spindle is a controlled C axis rather than just a free
>running spindle. Under these conditions any CNC control
>that can do two axis coordinated motion can do rigid tapping.
>Rath
s of folks do it.
Steve Stallings
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sam Sokolik
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 11:03 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)
> Subject: Re: [Emc-users] Desktop CNC
: "Steve Blackmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 2:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Emc-users] Desktop CNC Website Information
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 20:57:37 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>sam sokolik wrote:
>>>
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 20:57:37 -0500, you wrote:
>sam sokolik wrote:
>> really - I was in on a converstion with art at the cncworkshop - he had said
>> he thought mach would probably never do rigid tapping.
He's known to be wrong on occasion .
>> Could you explain? I could see if you had the sp
Stephen Wille Padnos wrote:
> Dean Hedin wrote:
>
>
>>I am surprized that Mach under Windows could out perform EMC in steps/sec
>>since EMC is built on a realtime kernel.
>>
>>I presume it is therefore that it is the "quality of steps" that EMC is
>>better at? In otherowrds EMC produces more a
sam sokolik wrote:
> really - I was in on a converstion with art at the cncworkshop - he had said
> he thought mach would probably never do rigid tapping.
>
> Could you explain? I could see if you had the spindle setup as a rotory
> axis... but other than that I have no clue. Maybe some exter
CTED]>
> To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 3:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [Emc-users] Desktop CNC Website Information
>
>
> > the only other thing I can think of is that the max step/sec is a bit on
> > the
> > low side
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 02:20:26PM -0500, Sam Sokolik wrote:
> the only other thing I can think of is that the max step/sec is a bit on the
> low side. But I don't know a good safe step rate to put on paper. (~20k/s
> w/Parport) - expecially because 2.2 will have doublefreq which will increase
Dean Hedin wrote:
>I am surprized that Mach under Windows could out perform EMC in steps/sec
>since EMC is built on a realtime kernel.
>
>I presume it is therefore that it is the "quality of steps" that EMC is
>better at? In otherowrds EMC produces more accurate and precise steps.
>
>
I haven
ot; that EMC is
> better at? In otherowrds EMC produces more accurate and precise steps.
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Sam Sokolik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 3:20 PM
&
From: "Sam Sokolik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Emc-users] Desktop CNC Website Information
> the only other thing I can think of is that the max step/sec is a bit on
> the
outside of mach?(I am not a mach person).
sam
- Original Message -
From: "Steve Blackmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)" ou
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Emc-users] Desktop CNC Website Information
> On T
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 14:27:49 -0500, you wrote:
>oh - and maybe a rigid tapping column.. The threading lathe/mill is a bit
>odd.. Mach does not do rigid tapping which I would concider the mill
>threading (it has yes/yes in that column).
Mach will do rigid tapping..
Steve Blackmore
--
---
ed Machine Controller (EMC)"
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Emc-users] Desktop CNC Website Information
> the only other thing I can think of is that the max step/sec is a bit on
> the
> low side. But I don't know a good safe step rate to put on paper.
>
From: "Kirk Wallace" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Emc-users] Desktop CNC Website Information
> Updated here:
>
> http://www.wallacecompany.com/cnc
Updated here:
http://www.wallacecompany.com/cnc_lathe/control_table-kw1a.htm
Kirk Wallace
~~
On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 13:36 -0400, Stephen Wille Padnos wrote:
> Cool.
>
> A few changes though:
>
> Name: EMC2
> Additional Hardware: optio
Cool.
A few changes though:
Name: EMC2
Additional Hardware: optional
Max Axes: 9 (XYZ linear, ABC angular, UVW linear)
stepper/servo: both, simultaneously
Number of G-codes: 63 (I looked at interp_internal.hh to see that)
Limit Switches: well, this is an interesting one. you get 3 inputs p
I put a first pass edit of this table here:
http://www.wallacecompany.com/cnc_lathe/control_table-kw1.htm
Kirk Wallace
~~
On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 08:31 -0700, Kirk Wallace wrote:
> The information on this website:
>
> http://desktopcnc.com/co
The information on this website:
http://desktopcnc.com/control_table.htm
seems to be out of date. I don't feel fully qualified to update this
information, so I wonder if someone would be interested in pursuing it.
If not, I can take a stab at it, but I can't guarantee accuracy
(+/- .010" maybe).
33 matches
Mail list logo
