cycle on each cycle..
You could do something like that
julian
On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <200109301010.07784@EO> Bart Kus writes:
> : Right now, I use for() as a timing loop. I calibrate it on program start
> : and can then get very precise tim
Bakul Shah wrote:
>
> > Hrm, I was planning on investigating the RT capabilities of fbsd after
> > I got
> > myself a decent timer mechanism. I was hoping they would be enough to get
> > close to RT. I have an SMP system I can use, so 1 CPU can be dedicated to
> > the task.
>
> I doubt even an
In message <200109301010.07784@EO> Bart Kus writes:
: Right now, I use for() as a timing loop. I calibrate it on program start
: and can then get very precise timing. There are, of course, the intermittent
: interruptions of the multitasker. So this solution is not ideal
On 30-Sep-2001 Bart Kus wrote:
> Right now, I use for() as a timing loop. I calibrate it on program
start
> and can then get very precise timing. There are, of course, the
> intermittent
> interruptions of the multitasker. So this solution is not ideal by any
>
In message <200109301318.44290@EO>, Bart Kus cleopede:
>On Sunday 30 September 2001 12:47, Greg Shenaut wrote:
>> Well, setitimer has a maximum rate of 100 Hz, with a slop factor
>> sometimes much greater than 10 ms. This was the result of some
>> recent testing on a lightly-loaded standard 4.3 s
Devin Butterfield([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2001.09.30 12:33:26 +:
> [...]
> > > was suggested you may want to consider a dedicated cpu based
> > > controller. Thre are a number of solutions for hobbyists
> > > (such as the handyboard, see www.handyboard.com).
> >
> > Unfortunately, money is a b
> Hrm, I was planning on investigating the RT capabilities of fbsd after I got
> myself a decent timer mechanism. I was hoping they would be enough to get
> close to RT. I have an SMP system I can use, so 1 CPU can be dedicated to
> the task.
I doubt even an SMP system would help.
> >
On Sunday 30 September 2001 14:33, Devin Butterfield wrote:
> Atmel AVR microcontrollers are < $10 from distributors like Digikey (and
> Digikey usually has high prices). They're very slick and VERY FAST. You can
> do 12 MIPS with one of their chips.
>
> Of course you'd need to spend some time lea
You definite need to use a microcontroller. Something like the
68HC11F1 is a good single-chip solution (though the F1 only has
512 bytes of E^2). I'm sure Motorola has newer chips with more
on-board E^2.Stepper motors can be manipulated from a PC parallel
port but you will ne
[...]
> > was suggested you may want to consider a dedicated cpu based
> > controller. Thre are a number of solutions for hobbyists
> > (such as the handyboard, see www.handyboard.com).
>
> Unfortunately, money is a big factor. So that's not an option. :/
>
Atmel AVR microcontrollers are
On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 01:10:35PM -0500, Bart Kus wrote:
> On Sunday 30 September 2001 11:03, Bernd Walter wrote:
> > Controlling steppers via lpt is what I explained and showed last
> > tuesday on the cosmo-project meeting.
> > We used nanosleep() which worked fine for the demonstration and
> >
On Sunday 30 September 2001 12:47, Greg Shenaut wrote:
> Well, setitimer has a maximum rate of 100 Hz, with a slop factor
> sometimes much greater than 10 ms. This was the result of some
> recent testing on a lightly-loaded standard 4.3 system.
That's not good enough. :/
> How many step
On Sunday 30 September 2001 12:30, Bakul Shah wrote:
> Are you controlling the rotation speed of the drill or the
> x,y,z position? I'd guess the latter. Don't you also need
I am controlling XYZ.
> guaranteed real time response (which FreeBSD won't provide
> you)? I suppose if you ar
On Sunday 30 September 2001 11:03, Bernd Walter wrote:
> Controlling steppers via lpt is what I explained and showed last
> tuesday on the cosmo-project meeting.
> We used nanosleep() which worked fine for the demonstration and
> playing.
> As long as you don't have troubles with longer than reque
My driver software
>implements a maximum-acceleration control algorithm that ensures that at any
>point in time, any axis will not experience more than X m/s/s of
>acceleration. This keeps the drill from self-destructing. :) Unfortunately,
>it means I need access to a very precise
control algorithm that ensures that at any
> point in time, any axis will not experience more than X m/s/s of
> acceleration. This keeps the drill from self-destructing. :) Unfortunately,
> it means I need access to a very precise timing source to issue the step
> instructions to the
river software
> implements a maximum-acceleration control algorithm that ensures that at any
> point in time, any axis will not experience more than X m/s/s of
> acceleration. This keeps the drill from self-destructing. :) Unfortunately,
> it means I need access to a very precise
that ensures that at any
point in time, any axis will not experience more than X m/s/s of
acceleration. This keeps the drill from self-destructing. :) Unfortunately,
it means I need access to a very precise timing source to issue the step
instructions to the motor control board.
Right n
18 matches
Mail list logo
