Messages

1

Third party software and hardware support forums. / Re: Compatible servo drives

« on: June 17, 2010, 10:21:43 AM »

Another contributor here, Hood, just told me about YAPSC:10V, which is an open-source product that may address the need I'm seeing.  I'm ordering a set of parts to try it out.  I'm hoping it will indeed be the missing link that will let us use conventional analog servo drives with Mach3's step/dir outputs.

Dave

2

Third party software and hardware support forums. / Compatible servo drives

« on: June 13, 2010, 09:49:02 PM »

I'm reading a Mitsubishi servo drive manual that effectively says it has a step/dir mode is available for its inputs. 
Does anybody here have any experience in trying to use Mitsubishi drives in a Mach3 system?  Is there any reason why one of these drives couldn't/shouldn't be driven from Mach3's parallel port?

Are there any other major manufacturers whose products will accept step/dir inputs?

Also, does anybody know a way to use Parker-Hannafin Aries drives (analog inputs) and controllers with Mach3?

Do you know of anybody working on a simple, low-cost, open-source step-to-analog converter?

I'm aware of Gecko, Galil, DSPMC, K-FLOP/K-Analogue, but there really ought to be a way for us to utilize the surplus servo drives & brushless motors that sell on eBay for pennies on the dollar.

Regards to all...
Dave

3

dspMC/IP Motion Controller / Re: kitako/fanuc om resurection

« on: June 13, 2010, 07:20:26 PM »

Arktec,

Did you ever find the step-to-analog-converter you were hoping for?  I'm now wishing for the same thing because I've got some Parker motors and drives that require analog input.

Dave

4

SmoothStepper USB / Re: Help with SS and Servo drives please :(

« on: June 13, 2010, 10:48:48 AM »

I don't have any specific experience with your specific hardware, but I can say that if the interference you refer to is so high that you can't use your limit switched then you must have big problems and probably shouldn't try to push the system further until you figure out a solution to the interference problem.

What kind of servo drives and motors are you using?  Do the servo drives have their own, internal motor power supply or do you have an external power supply that's providing motor power to the servos and motors? 

5

LazyTurn / Re: LazyTurn

« on: March 02, 2010, 11:26:11 PM »

Art, Rich, and all,

I'm very happy with LT.  I haven't found any bug's in it.  The finish passes saved enough time that my total cutting time, is now 2-1/2 min., which is about the same amount of time it takes me to do my secondary operations on the turned piece after I part it off.  So both I and the lathe are busy continuously... no waiting any more and my output per hour is up!  I've cut almost 400 pieces so far. 

Now, I'm cutting wood, and the rough cuts are very coarse.  Pass depth is 1mm.  This means that there is a lot of material left when the finish pass begins, so I'm using 3 finishing operations and I tinkered with the params of each so that each one removes about the same amount of material, with the last one a little light. 

I hand optimized the G-code.  I added bi-directional cutting on most of the rough cutting and pruned some redundant code on both the rough and the finishes.  No complaints.  I like bi-directional cutting but I recognize that I may be the only one that wants it.

One question:  You earlier added separate X and Z feed rates at my suggestion, which was a huge help.  Should these two feed rates also used in the finish passes and vector-summed?   While cutting the finish passes, the noise  sounds like it may be cutting too fast when there is rapid change in the X direction. It's most noticeable when I'm cutting a narrow V-groove and  the bottom of the groove matches the radius of the cutter, so the slightest movement in X causes a lot of cutting.  Hasn't caused a problem but the noise makes me wonder.

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you,

Dave

6

LazyTurn / Re: LazyTurn

« on: February 24, 2010, 08:44:42 AM »

Art,

I'm embarrassed to bring up such a small point, but........
Before you put LT back on the shelf please remember that "Zoom in" and "Zoom out" are reversed, compared to AutoCAD.

Regards,
Dave

7

LazyTurn / Re: LazyTurn

« on: February 08, 2010, 03:05:48 AM »

Art,

I should know better than to ask, but........

My projects are wood.  My cutting tool is symmetrical and cuts in both directions, but LT only cuts in one direction.

Any chance that LT could get an option to cut in both directions in the rough pass? 

It saves a lot of time.  I've modified one of my LT projects by hand to cut bidirectionally. It saved over 30sec and I saw no difference in the finished product.

Thanks again,
Dave

8

LazyTurn / Re: LazyTurn

« on: February 07, 2010, 11:58:57 PM »

Art,

The red line looks good on my project.  Turn the output on!

I don't understand what "Final Pass," "Per Pass," and "Tolerance" are for.  They don't seem to be functional.  Only "Clearance" makes any difference in the red line's position.

Regards,
Dave

9

LazyTurn / Re: LazyTurn

« on: January 04, 2010, 11:31:19 AM »

Art,

I guess I'll have to see it in action to understand it.  Of course collisions between the tool and profile must be predicted and avoided, but I expected that the program would simply tell me when/where I needed to change tools to avoid collision.  This is my first foray into machine tools so I am a neophyte and know nothing about the industry's standard practice.

My profiles are pretty simple and my tools are narrower than any of the standard cutters.  Collisions haven't been a problem for me.  This is wood.  Right now I'm roughing down to zero and using sandpaper in lieu of a finish pass.  Sounds like I might do well to continue this.

Thanks,
Dave

10

LazyTurn / Re: LazyTurn

« on: January 04, 2010, 10:26:47 AM »

Art, 

I hate to waste your time with another email to answer, but my curiosity is overwhelming.  Your statement, that using a finish pass without roughing would work but would take many passes, has me wondering.....

I've been assuming that the finish pass would not use a raster algorithm to cut with, like the rough pass does, but instead would be vector based and would follow the final profile using diagonals and arcs as needed.  Am I wrong?

Regards,
Dave