On 03/06/2011 11:23 AM, Jon Elson wrote:
Mark Wendt (Contractor) wrote:
You guys. Stop please! You're making me feel so inadequate... ;-)
You just have to come to terms with it! Somebody, somewhere, always has
a better, faster, bigger tool!
But, in this case, strange pills ordered over
On 3/5/2011 12:54 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
Unforch, I do not have the building nor the foundation to support that
cinci Stuart has. Is that truly big enough Stuart?
I really can't believe you asked Stuart that question, Gene... ;-)
Next to the Cincinnatti 5-axis mill, he has a Giddings
Mark Wendt (Contractor) wrote:
You guys. Stop please! You're making me feel so inadequate... ;-)
You just have to come to terms with it! Somebody, somewhere, always has
a better, faster, bigger tool!
But, in this case, strange pills ordered over the internet can't help.
Even before I
On Sunday, March 06, 2011 11:38:20 AM Jon Elson did opine:
Mark Wendt (Contractor) wrote:
You guys. Stop please! You're making me feel so inadequate... ;-)
You just have to come to terms with it! Somebody, somewhere, always has
a better, faster, bigger tool!
But, in this case, strange
On 3/4/2011 11:07 PM, gene heskett wrote:
Always assume a job will come up that needs more travel!
Yes Jon, I believe there is a corollary about that someplace in the
Murphy's laws collections I've seen. If not, it certainly needs adding
because its a basic truth.
Unforch, I do not have
On 3/5/2011 12:05 AM, Stuart Stevenson wrote:
the corollary is relevant no matter the size of the machine
with 200 inches X travel on the 5 axis bridge one of the first three jobs
was 220 inches long
we had to slide a part to machine the whole thing
See Gene? Toldja so... ;-)
Mark
On Saturday, March 05, 2011 08:30:13 am Mark Wendt (Contractor) did opine:
On 3/5/2011 12:05 AM, Stuart Stevenson wrote:
the corollary is relevant no matter the size of the machine
with 200 inches X travel on the 5 axis bridge one of the first three
jobs was 220 inches long
we had to
Mark Wendt (Contractor) wrote:
On 3/4/2011 11:07 PM, gene heskett wrote:
Always assume a job will come up that needs more travel!
Yes Jon, I believe there is a corollary about that someplace in the
Murphy's laws collections I've seen. If not, it certainly needs adding
because
On 3/4/2011 8:31 AM, Igor Chudov wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 7:27 AM, Przemek Klosowski
przemek.klosow...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/4/11, Igor Chudovichu...@gmail.com wrote:
I re-wrote Andy's function to compare the absolute value of the diff, and
compare that to 1E-07. I know that this is
On 4 March 2011 05:51, Igor Chudov ichu...@gmail.com wrote:
I re-wrote Andy's function to compare the absolute value of the diff, and
compare that to 1E-07. I know that this is crazy, ugly, and stupid.
No, that is perfectly sensible. I should know better by now, it is
never a good idea to
On 3/4/11, Igor Chudov ichu...@gmail.com wrote:
I re-wrote Andy's function to compare the absolute value of the diff, and
compare that to 1E-07. I know that this is crazy, ugly, and stupid. But it
works beautifully.
NO, absolutely not stupid at all. This is in fact the only sane way of
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 7:27 AM, Przemek Klosowski
przemek.klosow...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/4/11, Igor Chudov ichu...@gmail.com wrote:
I re-wrote Andy's function to compare the absolute value of the diff, and
compare that to 1E-07. I know that this is crazy, ugly, and stupid. But
it
works
On Friday, March 04, 2011 10:12:57 am Igor Chudov did opine:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 7:27 AM, Przemek Klosowski
przemek.klosow...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/4/11, Igor Chudov ichu...@gmail.com wrote:
I re-wrote Andy's function to compare the absolute value of the
diff, and compare that to
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 9:25 AM, gene heskett ghesk...@wdtv.com wrote:
On Friday, March 04, 2011 10:12:57 am Igor Chudov did opine:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 7:27 AM, Przemek Klosowski
przemek.klosow...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/4/11, Igor Chudov ichu...@gmail.com wrote:
I re-wrote Andy's
On 4 March 2011 15:38, Igor Chudov ichu...@gmail.com wrote:
No, the comparison is between the previously commanded position and the
currently commanded position.
And this is why I am slightly concerned with this approach.
Does moving the old_pos=pos_command_in line into the first if
On Friday, March 04, 2011 10:56:42 am Igor Chudov did opine:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 9:25 AM, gene heskett ghesk...@wdtv.com wrote:
On Friday, March 04, 2011 10:12:57 am Igor Chudov did opine:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 7:27 AM, Przemek Klosowski
przemek.klosow...@gmail.com wrote:
On
On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 14:48 -0600, Igor Chudov wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 2:40 PM, dave dengv...@charter.net wrote:
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 21:41 -0600, Igor Chudov wrote:
I really think it is a bad idea, as the position will be uncontrolled
when not moving.
Jon, this is a ACME
After some thinking, I changed the comp source code, to update old commanded
position with new one, ONLY if the difference between the old commanded
position and the new one is material.
This will let me move at glacial speed, too.
Thanks for making me think about it. And thanks to Andy Pugh
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Igor Chudov ichu...@gmail.com wrote:
After some thinking,
snip
Thanks for making me think about it. And thanks to Andy Pugh too.
I love EMC and what I can do with it!
the beauty of EMC is revealed in these comments
--
dos centavos
On 4 March 2011 16:47, Igor Chudov ichu...@gmail.com wrote:
if( diff 0 )
diff = -diff;
if (diff 1E-7){
You can use absf() in HAL modules:
if (absf(diff) 1E-7){
--
atp
Torque wrenches are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men
Igor Chudov wrote:
Whils I kind of agree in general (I do numerical modeling too, for a
living), here we are essentially comparing a == a and it fails. See my
another post in this thread about GCC bug 323.
My concern with doing what I am doing, is that if I wanted the knee to move
at
gene heskett wrote:
But, would it not come back on and move accordingly if the diff between
shutoff position (saved) and present requested position exceeded that
1E-07?
No, I think it would not. It is evaluating for motion every servo
cycle. Now, you COULD extend the code
a bit to record
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Jon Elson el...@pico-systems.com wrote:
Igor Chudov wrote:
Whils I kind of agree in general (I do numerical modeling too, for a
living), here we are essentially comparing a == a and it fails. See my
another post in this thread about GCC bug 323.
My
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Jon Elson el...@pico-systems.com wrote:
gene heskett wrote:
But, would it not come back on and move accordingly if the diff between
shutoff position (saved) and present requested position exceeded that
1E-07?
No, I think it would not. It is evaluating for
Cinci is a monstrosity!
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:07 PM, gene heskett ghesk...@wdtv.com wrote:
On Friday, March 04, 2011 11:02:38 pm Jon Elson did opine:
gene heskett wrote:
But, would it not come back on and move accordingly if the diff
between shutoff position (saved) and present
On Friday, March 04, 2011 11:39:19 pm Igor Chudov did opine:
Cinci is a monstrosity!
Maybe, but I'd almost bet it could carve a new balance wheel for your old
Elgin pocket watch. If it had to... ;-)
[...]
Always assume a job will come up that needs more travel!
Yes Jon, I believe
the corollary is relevant no matter the size of the machine
with 200 inches X travel on the 5 axis bridge one of the first three jobs
was 220 inches long
we had to slide a part to machine the whole thing
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:07 PM, gene heskett ghesk...@wdtv.com wrote:
On Friday, March 04,
On Saturday, March 05, 2011 01:03:56 am Stuart Stevenson did opine:
the corollary is relevant no matter the size of the machine
with 200 inches X travel on the 5 axis bridge one of the first three
jobs was 220 inches long
we had to slide a part to machine the whole thing
Chuckle, I knew you
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 21:41:45 -0600, you wrote:
Jon, this is a ACME type screw that moves the knee, not a ballscrew. It is
100% self locking.
Replace the servo with a stepper. There are also stepper drives
available that will drop the current supplied by half when no steps
received for some time.
Igor Chudov wrote:
Jon, if I could have that, it would be perfect. Say, no commanded move in 10
seconds, shut down the motor.
I STILL don't like it. You need a HAL component that looks at commanded
position
(comes from axis.8.motor-pos-cmd, I think) and compares current to last
Steve Blackmore wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 21:41:45 -0600, you wrote:
Jon, this is a ACME type screw that moves the knee, not a ballscrew. It is
100% self locking.
Replace the servo with a stepper. There are also stepper drives
available that will drop the current supplied by half
On 3 March 2011 16:53, Jon Elson el...@pico-systems.com wrote:
I STILL don't like it. You need a HAL component that looks at commanded
position
(comes from axis.8.motor-pos-cmd, I think) and compares current to last
position.
Whilst also not liking it, this custom HAL component would do the
Andy, this is REALLY AWESOME.
I just totally LOVE this mailing list!
I will definitely try to get it to work, I figure a 10 second timeout should
do it.
To use it, I would
- instantiate this comp
- connect its motor-pos-cmd input to motor-pos-cmd of the corresponding pid
- connect the comp's
On 3 March 2011 20:12, Igor Chudov ichu...@gmail.com wrote:
- instantiate this comp
- connect its motor-pos-cmd input to motor-pos-cmd of the corresponding pid
- connect the comp's current-in input to the output of the PID
- Connect the current-out output to the DAC
Right?
Exactly.
loadrt
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 21:41 -0600, Igor Chudov wrote:
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Jon Elson el...@pico-systems.com wrote:
Igor Chudov wrote:
I do think that the motor is underpowered for the axis, if I had to move
the
axis continuously. However, if I only need to use it
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 2:40 PM, dave dengv...@charter.net wrote:
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 21:41 -0600, Igor Chudov wrote:
I really think it is a bad idea, as the position will be uncontrolled
when not moving.
Jon, this is a ACME type screw that moves the knee, not a ballscrew. It
is
On 3 March 2011 19:45, andy pugh bodge...@gmail.com wrote:
current_out = default_current;
On reflection:
current_out = default_current * current_in;
might make more sense, so you can reduce the current by a factor.
--
atp
Torque wrenches are for the obedience of fools and the guidance
Thanks. I logged on to the milling machine from work, compiled and installed
your comp.
I will give it a good try!
i
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 3:15 PM, andy pugh bodge...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 March 2011 19:45, andy pugh bodge...@gmail.com wrote:
current_out = default_current;
On
andy pugh wrote:
On 3 March 2011 20:12, Igor Chudov ichu...@gmail.com wrote:
- instantiate this comp
- connect its motor-pos-cmd input to motor-pos-cmd of the corresponding pid
- connect the comp's current-in input to the output of the PID
- Connect the current-out output to the DAC
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Jon Elson el...@pico-systems.com wrote:
andy pugh wrote:
On 3 March 2011 20:12, Igor Chudov ichu...@gmail.com wrote:
- instantiate this comp
- connect its motor-pos-cmd input to motor-pos-cmd of the corresponding
pid
- connect the comp's current-in
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 1:45 PM, andy pugh bodge...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 March 2011 16:53, Jon Elson el...@pico-systems.com wrote:
I STILL don't like it. You need a HAL component that looks at commanded
position
(comes from axis.8.motor-pos-cmd, I think) and compares current to last
No, the issue and the reason why it does not work, is that old_pos and
position_command_in are always different, even if by 1 billionth.
I am rewriting some stuff.
i
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Igor Chudov ichu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 1:45 PM, andy pugh
Just a little update.
I think that this is a weird issue of float math or something. Difference
between old pos input and new pos input is often nonzero in a very crazy
way, the value seemingly does not change, but there is always a difference.
I re-wrote Andy's function to compare the absolute
On 3/1/11, Igor Chudov ichu...@gmail.com wrote:
The knee ACME screw is self locking.
How can I make EMC do the same, just let go after it gets to the right
place?
I think 'letting go' in EMC speak would mean either specifying a
deadband wide enough so that it covers your expected end
Igor Chudov wrote:
Think about it this way: the way I worked with a MANUAL crank is, when I
needed to move the knee, I would crank it, watch the dial, and stop where
appropriate.
After this, I let go of the crank. I do not obsessively hold the crank,
trying to prevent any movevent (like EMC
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Przemek Klosowski
przemek.klosow...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/1/11, Igor Chudov ichu...@gmail.com wrote:
The knee ACME screw is self locking.
How can I make EMC do the same, just let go after it gets to the right
place?
I think 'letting go' in EMC speak
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Jon Elson el...@pico-systems.com wrote:
Igor Chudov wrote:
Think about it this way: the way I worked with a MANUAL crank is, when I
needed to move the knee, I would crank it, watch the dial, and stop where
appropriate.
After this, I let go of the crank.
On 2 March 2011 13:10, Igor Chudov ichu...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but how do I de-energize the motor in EMC?
You could do it explicitly in the G-code. (via a digital output),
though that seems inelegant.
What might work would be a ddt hal function on motor position command,
such that when the
Igor Chudov wrote:
I do think that the motor is underpowered for the axis, if I had to move the
axis continuously. However, if I only need to use it occasionally to adjust
for tool height changes, it is OK.
Right, I understand what you WANT to do, and it does make some sense,
but EMC is
andy pugh wrote:
On 2 March 2011 13:10, Igor Chudov ichu...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but how do I de-energize the motor in EMC?
You could do it explicitly in the G-code. (via a digital output),
though that seems inelegant.
Yes, I think it is so inelegant that I refused to suggest
On Wednesday, March 02, 2011 10:13:47 pm Jon Elson did opine:
Igor Chudov wrote:
I do think that the motor is underpowered for the axis, if I had to
move the axis continuously. However, if I only need to use it
occasionally to adjust for tool height changes, it is OK.
Right, I
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Jon Elson el...@pico-systems.com wrote:
andy pugh wrote:
On 2 March 2011 13:10, Igor Chudov ichu...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but how do I de-energize the motor in EMC?
You could do it explicitly in the G-code. (via a digital output),
though that seems
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Jon Elson el...@pico-systems.com wrote:
Igor Chudov wrote:
I do think that the motor is underpowered for the axis, if I had to move
the
axis continuously. However, if I only need to use it occasionally to
adjust
for tool height changes, it is OK.
gene heskett wrote:
Oh my, Jon. Anyway I run that through this aged wet ram, I still get 4
watts for that 1 amp 4 ohms. I squared, where I=1, 1*1 is still 1, times
4 ohms=4 watts. 2 amps should be 16 watts. Or is my wet ram going away?
I hope not. ;-D
OOps, I was thinking when
Igor Chudov wrote:
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Jon Elson el...@pico-systems.com wrote:
Jon, this is a ACME type screw that moves the knee, not a ballscrew. It is
100% self locking.
Right, I was not meaning in the sense of it moving when the servo is
shut off, but that the
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Jon Elson el...@pico-systems.com wrote:
Igor Chudov wrote:
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Jon Elson el...@pico-systems.com
wrote:
Jon, this is a ACME type screw that moves the knee, not a ballscrew. It
is
100% self locking.
Right, I was not
On Thursday, March 03, 2011 12:16:31 am Jon Elson did opine:
gene heskett wrote:
Oh my, Jon. Anyway I run that through this aged wet ram, I still get
4 watts for that 1 amp 4 ohms. I squared, where I=1, 1*1 is still
1, times 4 ohms=4 watts. 2 amps should be 16 watts. Or is my wet
On 1 March 2011 06:11, Igor Chudov ichu...@gmail.com wrote:
So. How would I somehow configure EMC to stop providing any current to W,
when not really moving it?
I can think of two ways, either of which might work.
More I term might might allow the current to build up to a high
enough level to
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:56 AM, andy pugh bodge...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 March 2011 06:11, Igor Chudov ichu...@gmail.com wrote:
So. How would I somehow configure EMC to stop providing any current to
W,
when not really moving it?
I can think of two ways, either of which might work.
More
Igor Chudov wrote:
I have the W axis working.
There is one problem, however: after the motion stops, ppmc.0.DAC.3 does not
go down to zero, and instead stays high, while the system is not moving. I
explain this by remaining under power to move one more hair distance
against friction,
On 3/1/2011 1:11 AM, Igor Chudov wrote:
I have the W axis working.
http://www.chudov.com/projects/Bridgeport-Series-II-Interact-2-CNC-Mill/34-Adding-Servo-Control-to-Knee/
When commanded, the W axis moves up and down, roughly as instructed,
according to my G0 W... commands.
It is not super
I have the W axis working.
http://www.chudov.com/projects/Bridgeport-Series-II-Interact-2-CNC-Mill/34-Adding-Servo-Control-to-Knee/
When commanded, the W axis moves up and down, roughly as instructed,
according to my G0 W... commands.
It is not super precise or well tuned, yet, but really not
62 matches
Mail list logo
