2012/5/30 Jon Elson :
>
>> On 30 May 2012 12:10, Viesturs Lācis wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The problem is that, while one stepgen would be disabled,
>>> axis.0.pos-cmd would change its value and, when the stepgen would be
>>> enabled again, it would jump to the axis.0.pos-cmd, which is exactly
>>> what we d
> On 30 May 2012 12:10, Viesturs Lācis wrote:
>
>
>> The problem is that, while one stepgen would be disabled,
>> axis.0.pos-cmd would change its value and, when the stepgen would be
>> enabled again, it would jump to the axis.0.pos-cmd, which is exactly
>> what we do not want it to do.
>>
2012/5/30 andy pugh :
> On 30 May 2012 12:10, Viesturs Lācis wrote:
>
>> The problem is that, while one stepgen would be disabled,
>> axis.0.pos-cmd would change its value and, when the stepgen would be
>> enabled again, it would jump to the axis.0.pos-cmd, which is exactly
>> what we do not want
On 30 May 2012 12:10, Viesturs Lācis wrote:
> The problem is that, while one stepgen would be disabled,
> axis.0.pos-cmd would change its value and, when the stepgen would be
> enabled again, it would jump to the axis.0.pos-cmd, which is exactly
> what we do not want it to do.
I _think_ that is
2012/5/30 andy pugh :
> On 30 May 2012 11:15, Viesturs Lācis wrote:
>
>> I am sure that it would work, if it is done the way I suggest:
>> 1) home gantry with slave connected to a home switch on slave end;
>> 2) when it is stopped; "disconnect" slave step signal and change X
>> home switch to one
On 30 May 2012 11:15, Viesturs Lācis wrote:
> I am sure that it would work, if it is done the way I suggest:
> 1) home gantry with slave connected to a home switch on slave end;
> 2) when it is stopped; "disconnect" slave step signal and change X
> home switch to one on master end of gantry;
> 3)
2012/5/30 andy pugh :
> On 30 May 2012 10:50, Viesturs Lācis wrote:
>> 2012/5/30 andy pugh :
>
>>> I think that one would have to do more than simply interrupt the
>>> steps, as that would cause the motor to slip
>
>> And why would it do so?
>
> Because the motor is spinning and the gantry is movi
On 30 May 2012 10:50, Viesturs Lācis wrote:
> 2012/5/30 andy pugh :
>> I think that one would have to do more than simply interrupt the
>> steps, as that would cause the motor to slip
> And why would it do so?
Because the motor is spinning and the gantry is moving, and the system
can't stop ins
2012/5/30 andy pugh :
> On 30 May 2012 03:42, Jon Elson wrote:
>
>> When the home command is given, both motors are given
>> identical step
>> rates toward the home position. When the first motor trips the home
>> switch, the
>> step pulses are interrupted to that motor.
>
> I think that one woul
On 30 May 2012 03:42, Jon Elson wrote:
> When the home command is given, both motors are given
> identical step
> rates toward the home position. When the first motor trips the home
> switch, the
> step pulses are interrupted to that motor.
I think that one would have to do more than simply int
Bryce Johnson wrote:
> That is true, but then I will lose the ability to square off my gantry when
> I do homing. I suppose what I could open an linuxcnc with one ini in joint
> mode. Close that down and open my slaved one up and home it again in place.
>
Horrors! No, there are other ways to
andy pugh wrote:
> Playing with the gantry sim it seems that your observations are
> correct. The axis MAX_VELOCITY INI file options are ignored in World
> Mode.
>
>
This has been reported sporadically for some time, maybe at least a year.
> This does seem a little unexpected. However, I have be
Bryce,
I would (and did) avoid using Gantrykins. It is rife with bugs (like ignoring
MAX_VELOCITY, or try jogging with keyboard keys in Manual Tab/World Mode and
over 488ipm - gives immediate fault but in Joint Mode/Manual Tab, can jog at
any speed) and/or gotchas (World Mode only supports con
2012/5/29 Bryce Johnson :
> That is true, but then I will lose the ability to square off my gantry when
> I do homing. I suppose what I could open an linuxcnc with one ini in joint
> mode. Close that down and open my slaved one up and home it again in place.
>
And how will You ensure that machin
On 29 May 2012 19:45, Bryce Johnson wrote:
> That is true, but then I will lose the ability to square off my gantry when
> I do homing.
You could just unpower the drives with F2 and push to end-stops.
I imagine (with no evidence) that the JA3 branch of LinuxCNC (which
attempts to de-couple joint
That is true, but then I will lose the ability to square off my gantry when
I do homing. I suppose what I could open an linuxcnc with one ini in joint
mode. Close that down and open my slaved one up and home it again in place.
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 1:11 PM, andy pugh wrote:
> On 28 May 2012
On 28 May 2012 20:34, Bryce Johnson wrote:
> I am using gantrykins with XYZX. I am trying to set up my limits for for
> speed on my Z axis of 180ipm. In joint mode, jogging around, it seems to
> obey this. When I switch to world it doesn't listen to that limit anymore
Playing with the gantr
2012/5/29 Bryce Johnson :
> Viesturs,
> I'll grab the code and give it a try. So is Gantrykins just a trivkins
> that someone compiled for those changes?
>
Oh, no, far from it! Gantrykins allows any combination. You can assign
5 joints to 1 axis, if You want. It is generalised, so that user can
d
Viesturs,
I'll grab the code and give it a try. So is Gantrykins just a trivkins
that someone compiled for those changes?
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Viesturs Lācis wrote:
> 2012/5/29 Bryce Johnson :
> >
> > If I remember correctly on my previous machine (3axis 3 motors), even if
> > the jo
2012/5/29 Bryce Johnson :
>
> If I remember correctly on my previous machine (3axis 3 motors), even if
> the jog speed was high, it would get limited by the axis speed in the ini.
> This was nice so I could jog my x and y at high speed and then my z was
> limited. If on my new machine (XYZX) if I
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 2:55 PM, andy pugh wrote:
> On 28 May 2012 20:34, Bryce Johnson wrote:
>
> > It seems like I lose some flexibility when using gantrykins vs just
> slaving
> > the drives together (although I would like to be able to home both X1 and
> > X2 independently). Is there a way
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Viesturs Lācis wrote:
> 2012/5/28 Bryce Johnson :
> > I've just been trying to tune my gantry setup and I have had a few
> > problems. I am using 2.5.
> >
> > I am using gantrykins with XYZX. I am trying to set up my limits for for
> > speed on my Z axis of 180ip
On 28 May 2012 22:08, Peter C. Wallace wrote:
> Probably a C10 config is no big deal I would just need to know when inputs and
> outputs are, and if there is a chargepump, preferred step/dir pins etc
It looks to be an "uncommitted" breakout, so the physical wires could
be arranged to suit the fi
On Mon, 28 May 2012, andy pugh wrote:
> Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 20:55:47 +0100
> From: andy pugh
> Reply-To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
>
> To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
> Subject: Re: [Emc-
2012/5/28 Bryce Johnson :
> I've just been trying to tune my gantry setup and I have had a few
> problems. I am using 2.5.
>
> I am using gantrykins with XYZX. I am trying to set up my limits for for
> speed on my Z axis of 180ipm. In joint mode, jogging around, it seems to
> obey this. When
On 28 May 2012 20:34, Bryce Johnson wrote:
> It seems like I lose some flexibility when using gantrykins vs just slaving
> the drives together (although I would like to be able to home both X1 and
> X2 independently). Is there a way to home the drives and then run it as if
> they were slaved?
N
I've just been trying to tune my gantry setup and I have had a few
problems. I am using 2.5.
I am using gantrykins with XYZX. I am trying to set up my limits for for
speed on my Z axis of 180ipm. In joint mode, jogging around, it seems to
obey this. When I switch to world it doesn't listen t
27 matches
Mail list logo
