Hello Guest it is June 09, 2024, 10:54:46 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - rcaffin

571
Unfortunately, the hardware behind macros I posted has one deficiency (that I know of), which I now have to rectify.

The selection of Mill or Lathe operation uses TWO off DPDT relays for safety reasons, instead of the original one DPDT relay. Why?
Because I had found with just one relay that an eStop while in Mill mode would drop out the Mill-select relay, which meant power was transferred to the Lathe spindle. This had been a bit too exciting for me. There are also some logic gates which should prevent both Mill and Lathe being asserted at the same time.

The reversing operation was done with a DPDT reversing relay, driven off the M4 line. That seemed fine at the time. However, if the program executed M5 while the spindle was in reverse mode, the reversing relay would drop back to FWDs, and the spindle would do an extremely fast stop as the remains of the power supply output were applied in the other direction. This seemed a bit too exciting as well.

So I have had to use the same two-off double-throw relay system for direction. M3 will activate one relay, M4 will activate the other relay, and M5 will deactivate both relays. A power resistor across the NC terminals brings the spindle to a halt, but is NOT in circuit the rest of the time.

Ah, but what if both M3 and M4 are issued? The short simple answer is a dead short across the spindle power supply, followed by a repair bill. So the macros will be expanded to check to see whether the system is in the 'other' state, and to kill that first with a short time delay to allow the mechanical world to catch up with the electric world. I will also use a logic gate lockout as was done for the Mill/Lathe selection.

But what about a wiring error? Powering both mill and lathe at once is not a calamity: one hits eStop and fixes the electronics. But the reversing section is another matter.
Instead of using a DPDT relay for each direction, I will use a 3PDT relay. The 3rd pole for the M3 relay will be in the coil circuit for the M4 relay, and vice versa. So if M3 is asserted, you can NOT assert the M4 relay as well, and vice versa.

What if you try to assert both M3 and M4 simultaneously? The system could chatter. However, the logic gates should prevent that from happening, and part of that circuit will detect a simultaneous M3+M4 assertion - and activate the eStop. Short of really gross wiring errors, that should suffice.

M5 will drop both outputs regardless of course, but it will do it in sequence. If M3 is asserted, it will first make sure M4 is NOT asserted, before it clears M3, and vice versa.

Cheers
Roger


572
General Mach Discussion / Re: Help Can't get steppers to move!!!
« on: January 30, 2016, 05:35:25 AM »
Hi Dave

A microswitch might work fine if 0.1 mm is sufficient accuracy.
But you need something a shade better if you are looking for 0.01 mm or 10 um. For me, that would be the worst case.
Going below that (to under 5 um) gets even more $$$. I would be looking for this.

Cheers
Roger

573
General Mach Discussion / Re: Help Can't get steppers to move!!!
« on: January 29, 2016, 05:52:56 PM »
Conductive touch probes? That idea has been in use for ... I dunno, maybe 50 years or more. I really haven't a clue when it was first invented. Does not work on insulators of course.

Conductive touch plates for the  axis? Yeah, just as ancient.

It might be amusing to do a patent search on the idea, to see how many times it has been patented. Probably would not put the PO in a good light, but I have not bothered.

cheers
Roger

574
General Mach Discussion / Re: Help Can't get steppers to move!!!
« on: January 29, 2016, 03:24:32 PM »
All of those require actual deflection of the sensing tip, either to get piezo voltage output or to tilt the inclinometer.
What the world really needs is a touch probe which does not need any deflection - which senses touch.

Cheers
Roger

575
General Mach Discussion / Re: Help Can't get steppers to move!!!
« on: January 29, 2016, 12:26:37 AM »
Quote
As well you loose torque when raising microsteps. Do most you guys agree with this?
Nope. But the bloggers often think so.

Quote
if I can switch that easy.
A word of caution. DO NOT EVER switch units during a program!!!!! Sadness wil follow almost invariably.

DC servos with optical encoders, not steppers. Single step resolution of 0.8 microns.

Cheers
Roger

576
General Mach Discussion / Re: M3 speed control issue on startup
« on: January 28, 2016, 04:29:44 PM »
Not as far as I know.
Some of the bugs are structural, and cannot be fixed. That's why Mach4 was started.

Cheers
Roger

577
General Mach Discussion / Re: Help Can't get steppers to move!!!
« on: January 28, 2016, 04:28:01 PM »
Hi Rich

Chuckle.

Cheers
Roger

578
General Mach Discussion / Re: Help Can't get steppers to move!!!
« on: January 28, 2016, 03:05:57 AM »
For a start, if the ball screw is metric, I would go METRIC!
Trying to go imperial is just a waste of effort, and (dare I suggest it?) archaic.


5 mm / 400 steps => 12.5 um/step: coarse!
5 mm / 800 => 6 um/step
5 mm / 1600  => 3 um/step - barely tolerable.

Cheers
Roger


579
General Mach Discussion / Re: M3 speed control issue on startup
« on: January 28, 2016, 02:32:42 AM »
Just for LOLs, try setting the pulley to 6000 and then see what the FIRST M3 does.

I have used the spindle calibration routine to create a new linearity.dat file, after deleting the old one. It worked OK for me, in .062 .

Is it just .066 with this bug? Certainly not. It seems a bit widespread.

Cheers
Roger
PS: putting S0 in first is a good trick. I have done that too, but with S200.

580
General Mach Discussion / Re: M3 speed control issue on startup
« on: January 27, 2016, 10:38:29 PM »
Ah - I think that bug can be handled. It'sa bit silly, and indeed Mach has a bug in it. However, per Peter Homann's advice, I was able to conceal the problem. The following is what I THINK is happening.

Mach should but does not read the Linearity.dat file before the first M3 is executed. A bug.
Mach does NOT know what speed the spindle can do at full power either. You have no way of telling Mach about this afaik.
Mach does read the pulley speed you have set up, and the first time it scales the requested speed to this value.

So ... if you tell Mach that Pulley 1 has a top speed of 3000 RPM, and then you request 3000 RPM, Mach will output a full-scale signal to the spindle. However, if 'full scale' really gives 3700 RPM, that's what you will get.

So, first find out what the max spindle speed is. You may have to rev the system a bit to get this.
Then tell Mach that the max speed for Pulley 1 is that speed, NOT what you want as top speed. In the case above, you tell Mach that the max pulley speed is 3700 RPM.

Now, when you fire up with S3000, you should actually get about 3000 RPM.

There can be another problem here. If you have told your spindle driver electronics to only go to a lower output than it can manage, the high end of the range is going to be a bit confused. In my case, the peak driver output voltage is around 200V DC, but the motor is only rated to 180 V DC. so the driver output will ramp up towards 200 V DC but it will get clipped at 180 V DC. That makes setting the peak speed a bit more tricky. You will have to try requesting speeds of (say) 1000, 2000 & 3000 RPM from the MDI line and noting the results. If actual speed comes out a bit high, by (say) 5%, push the Pulley speed up by 5%. A couple of cycles of this will get you close enough.

Cheers
Roger