Tom Easterday wrote:
> On Oct 17, 2011, at 3:58 PM, Peter C. Wallace wrote:
>
>> That simply looks untuned, have you varied FF1, added some P term etc etc
>>
>
> I am having a really hard time finding any EMC PID values that make it better
> then the graph I sent before. I can make it muc
On 10/16/2011 7:41 PM, Peter C. Wallace wrote:
>>>
>> Peter,
>>
>> Is there any reason not to open up the stepgen limits on accel and
>> velocity so they cannot possibly be a limiting factor? Make them
>> 1.0EE6 or so?
>>
>> Dave
>>
> Yes, in some very specific situations, the curre
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011, andy pugh wrote:
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 22:16:50 +0100
From: andy pugh
Reply-To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
Subject: Re: [Emc-users] config without encoders
On 17 October 2011 22:08, Tom Easterda
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011, Tom Easterday wrote:
> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:08:09 -0400
> From: Tom Easterday
> Reply-To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
>
> To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
> Subject: Re: [Emc-users] config without encoders
>
...And just to let you know what 3120 ipm at an "extreme" acceleration looks
like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5uz9q4GykQ
:-)
-Tom
--
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a
definit
On Oct 17, 2011, at 5:16 PM, andy pugh wrote:
> On 17 October 2011 22:08, Tom Easterday wrote:
>
>> I can't get anything that has lower following error than having everything
>> set to 0 and FF1=1.
>
> If anything is going to work I would expect it to be FF1=1, P=0, I =
> very small.
I just
On 17 October 2011 22:08, Tom Easterday wrote:
> I can't get anything that has lower following error than having everything
>set to 0 and FF1=1.
If anything is going to work I would expect it to be FF1=1, P=0, I =
very small.
--
atp
"Torque wrenches are for the obedience of fools and the guid
On Oct 17, 2011, at 3:58 PM, Peter C. Wallace wrote:
> That simply looks untuned, have you varied FF1, added some P term etc etc
I am having a really hard time finding any EMC PID values that make it better
then the graph I sent before. I can make it much worse by adding even just a
little P i
On Oct 17, 2011, at 4:00 PM, andy pugh wrote:
> On 17 October 2011 20:53, Tom Easterday wrote:
>
>> So, I assume you are saying I would need something like below. It does
>> seem to work, though (unfortunately) it makes no improvement in the issue at
>> hand…
> ...
>> MAX_VELOCITY = 75
>> M
On Oct 17, 2011, at 3:58 PM, Peter C. Wallace wrote:
> That simply looks untuned, have you varied FF1, added some P term etc etc
>
Heh, no. I am laughing because I have been tuning endlessly on the Granite
drive (for a different reason). I will now begin the labor of tuning EMC. :-O
-Tom
On 17 October 2011 20:53, Tom Easterday wrote:
> So, I assume you are saying I would need something like below. It does seem
> to work, though (unfortunately) it makes no improvement in the issue at hand…
...
> MAX_VELOCITY = 75
> MAX_ACCELERATION = 360
>
> MMAX_VELOCITY = 75
> MMAX_ACCELERATI
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011, Tom Easterday wrote:
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:44:38 -0400
From: Tom Easterday
Reply-To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
Subject: Re: [Emc-users] config without encoders
On Oct 17, 2011, at 3:18 PM, Pe
On Oct 17, 2011, at 3:41 PM, andy pugh wrote:
> On 17 October 2011 20:12, Tom Easterday wrote:
>> I take this all back. This doesn't seem to work. I am not sure what I was
>> seeing last night, but it was late. I just tried this again and I can't get
>> it to use these values if I name the
On Oct 17, 2011, at 3:18 PM, Peter C. Wallace wrote:
> Well its not optomized for extremely fast acceleration (300 IPS/S is FAST)
What do you consider less than extreme that we might try?
We like fast by the way. It gets to it's business faster that way :-)
> I dont think you understood what I
On 17 October 2011 20:12, Tom Easterday wrote:
> I take this all back. This doesn't seem to work. I am not sure what I was
> seeing last night, but it was late. I just tried this again and I can't get
> it to use these values if I name them anything other than MAX_ACCELERATION
> (and MAX_VE
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011, Tom Easterday wrote:
> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:07:07 -0400
> From: Tom Easterday
> Reply-To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
>
> To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
> Subject: Re: [Emc-users] config without encoders
>
I take this all back. This doesn't seem to work. I am not sure what I was
seeing last night, but it was late. I just tried this again and I can't get it
to use these values if I name them anything other than MAX_ACCELERATION (and
MAX_VELOCITY). It just moves really really slow, and I can't
On 17 October 2011 19:07, Tom Easterday wrote:
> I don't currently have a base thread, but I could. Could I put it in the
> base thread, at a much faster rate, rather then in the servo thread (since I
> don't seem to be able to set the servo thread down)?
No, the base thread can't do floating
On Oct 17, 2011, at 1:07 PM, Peter C. Wallace wrote:
> Actually that sounds very good!
>
> You have an acceleration of 300 IPS/S and a slew velocity of 50 IPS (that is
> .050" per servo thread) I would not be at all surprised that the following
> error can not be improved
I clearly don't unders
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011, Tom Easterday wrote:
> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 08:40:24 -0400
> From: Tom Easterday
> Reply-To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
>
> To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
> Subject: Re: [Emc-users] config without encoders
&
On 17 October 2011 14:57, Tom Easterday wrote:
> Ok, as I mentioned I have tried this to no avail:
> MMAX_VELOCITY = 75
> MMAX_ACCELERATION = 360
That was what I was meaning, yes. What were the settings for
MAX)VELOCITY and MAX_ACCELERATION that you used with those values?
Overshoot-and-return
On Oct 17, 2011, at 9:07 AM, andy pugh wrote:
> Can I suggest you hand-edit the values in lines 247 and 248 of you HAL
> file? (Or, alternatively, add a new tag to the INI file stanza and use
> that)
Ok, as I mentioned I have tried this to no avail:
.hal
setp hm2_7i43.0.stepgen.01.maxaccel
On Oct 17, 2011, at 9:07 AM, andy pugh wrote:
> On 17 October 2011 13:40, Tom Easterday wrote:
>
>> We have tried many combinations of max_acceleration and max_velocity for
>> both EMC (TRAJ section) and in the Axis (Y in our case) we are jogging. The
>> last settings we were using are pas
On 17 October 2011 13:40, Tom Easterday wrote:
> We have tried many combinations of max_acceleration and max_velocity for both
> EMC (TRAJ section) and in the Axis (Y in our case) we are jogging. The last
> settings we were using are pastebin'd below - but keep in mind we have tried
> a wide
This really appears to be a bug in either the Mesa stepgen or EMC, or both.
Anyone with a Mesa card ought to be able to reproduce this.
I went to the shop last night to work on it some more. It turns out this
happens without the Granite's involved at all. We have them turned off - no
motors
On 16 October 2011 15:20, Andy Pugh wrote:
> I would be looking at the position loop in the drive for that problem. As far
> as EMC2 is concerned it is driving an open-loop stepper system.
(waves hand)
I still think this is a problem with the Granite tuning...
Does stepgen ever overshoot then
On Oct 16, 2011, at 8:47 PM, Peter C. Wallace wrote:
> Its not a fixed value:
> Reasonable is perhaps 20 % greater than the machine (EMCs limits) so there is
> always headroom for the hardware
>
> If these numbers are less than the machine (EMCs) limits you will get
> following errors
We have
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011, Tom Easterday wrote:
> Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 20:43:21 -0400
> From: Tom Easterday
> Reply-To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
>
> To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
> Subject: Re: [Emc-users] config without encoders
>
On Oct 16, 2011, at 7:41 PM, Peter C. Wallace wrote:
>>>
>> Peter,
>>
>> Is there any reason not to open up the stepgen limits on accel and
>> velocity so they cannot possibly be a limiting factor? Make them
>> 1.0EE6 or so?
>>
>> Dave
>
> Yes, in some very specific situations, the current
>>
> Peter,
>
> Is there any reason not to open up the stepgen limits on accel and
> velocity so they cannot possibly be a limiting factor? Make them
> 1.0EE6 or so?
>
> Dave
Yes, in some very specific situations, the current stepgen driver has
some pathologies when its has unlimited accelerati
On 10/15/2011 9:46 PM, Peter C. Wallace wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011, Tom Easterday wrote:
>
>
>> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 20:53:44 -0400
>> From: Tom Easterday
>> Reply-To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
>>
>> To: "Enhanced Machin
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011, Peter C. Wallace wrote:
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 09:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Peter C. Wallace
Reply-To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
Subject: Re: [Emc-users] config without encoders
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011,
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011, Tom Easterday wrote:
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 10:45:34 -0400
From: Tom Easterday
Reply-To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
Subject: Re: [Emc-users] config without encoders
Well, apparently the problem
On Sunday, October 16, 2011 11:37:29 AM Tom Easterday did opine:
> Well, apparently the problem didn't get resolved with the jog velocity
> vs axis velocity thing….
>
> Begin forwarded message:
> > From: Peter Jensen
> > Subject: Screenshots
> > Date: October 16, 2011 2:19:43 AM EDT
> > To: Tom
Well, apparently the problem didn't get resolved with the jog velocity vs axis
velocity thing….
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Peter Jensen
> Subject: Screenshots
> Date: October 16, 2011 2:19:43 AM EDT
> To: Tom Easterday
> Reply-To: Peter Jensen
>
>
> Ok, you know how I said I fixed the
On 15 Oct 2011, at 06:12, Tom Easterday wrote:
> When we run above 2000ipm we have significant following error and the motor
> overshoots it's mark by a decent amount (say, an inch or so) and then comes
> back.
I would be looking at the position loop in the drive for that problem. As far
On Oct 15, 2011, at 9:46 PM, Peter C. Wallace wrote:
> Setting steplen or stepspace longer can only make the stepgens maximum
> velocity _lower_ not higher, so that cannot help (unless you have an
> interface
> speed problem but this would not show up as a following error but rather as
> misse
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011, Tom Easterday wrote:
> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 20:53:44 -0400
> From: Tom Easterday
> Reply-To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
>
> To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
> Subject: Re: [Emc-users] config without encoders
>
On Oct 15, 2011, at 8:46 PM, Peter C. Wallace wrote:
>
> I would check carefully that you do not have something, likely a velocity or
> steplen/stepspace setting that limits the maximum stepgen speed.
>
> at your scale and speed you have a fairly slow step rate (82 KHz) which is
> less than 1%
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011, Tom Easterday wrote:
> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 19:58:44 -0400
> From: Tom Easterday
> Reply-To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
>
> To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
> Cc: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
&g
nhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
>> Subject: Re: [Emc-users] config without encoders
>>
>>
>> On Oct 15, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Dave wrote:
>>
>>> Tom,
>>>
>>> I'm running a couple of stepgens via a 5i20 card on one machine and it
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011, Tom Easterday wrote:
> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 15:28:19 -0400
> From: Tom Easterday
> Reply-To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
>
> To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
> Subject: Re: [Emc-users] config without encoders
>
On Oct 15, 2011, at 1:33 PM, Peter C. Wallace wrote:
>
> Will your step length/step space/maxvel parameters allow any (say 10 %
> minimum) headroom at your maximum speed?
>
> This sounds exactly like what would happen when you run out of headroom
Hmm, we will try playing with those. We were u
On Oct 15, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Dave wrote:
> Tom,
>
> I'm running a couple of stepgens via a 5i20 card on one machine and it
> is running much faster than what you are and I am not seeing overshoot
> problems.
>
> I suspect your Max_accel below is lower than the accel values you have
> set in
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011, Tom Easterday wrote:
> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 01:12:39 -0400
> From: Tom Easterday
> Reply-To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
>
> To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
> Subject: [Emc-users] config without encoders
>
&g
Tom,
I'm running a couple of stepgens via a 5i20 card on one machine and it
is running much faster than what you are and I am not seeing overshoot
problems.
I suspect your Max_accel below is lower than the accel values you have
set in the INI file so you are telling the stepgen to go faster th
On Sat, 2011-10-15 at 01:12 -0400, Tom Easterday wrote:
> We are having some issues turning a servo motor with a Granite Devices
> drive and in the process accidentally fried our homemade differential
> to single ended conversion boards. We ordered some parts to repair
> them and in the mean time
On Oct 15, 2011, at 3:53 AM, Viesturs Lācis wrote:
> 2011/10/15 Tom Easterday :
>> When we run above 2000ipm we have significant following error
>>
>> Could our Mesa cards be doing something wrong?
>
> 2000 ipm = 50m/min and for me that is really fast.
> Are You sure that stepgens on Mesa card
On Oct 15, 2011, at 3:53 AM, Viesturs Lācis wrote:
> 2011/10/15 Tom Easterday :
>> When we run above 2000ipm we have significant following error
>>
>> Could our Mesa cards be doing something wrong?
>
> 2000 ipm = 50m/min and for me that is really fast.
> Are You sure that stepgens on Mesa card ar
2011/10/15 Tom Easterday :
> When we run above 2000ipm we have significant following error
>
> Could our Mesa cards be doing something wrong?
2000 ipm = 50m/min and for me that is really fast.
Are You sure that stepgens on Mesa card are capable to produce steps
at such a high frequency to keep up
We are having some issues turning a servo motor with a Granite Devices drive
and in the process accidentally fried our homemade differential to single ended
conversion boards. We ordered some parts to repair them and in the mean time I
modified my hal config to ignore encoder feedback so we cou
51 matches
Mail list logo
