Hello Guest it is March 29, 2024, 09:33:50 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 - rbleth51

Pages: 1 2 »
1
The NFS (New Fangled Solutions) wizards are included with the Mach 3 download.  However, you need to purchase a separate license from NFS in order to be able to use the G-Code they generate.  It is located under the "Conversational" button on the Program Run screen of the standard Mach 3 screens (1024.set I believe).  You push the Conversational button and it takes you to the wizards.  You can use every part and function of the wizards as they are in the download without a license, you just can't "post" and use the G-code they generate without the license.  You can even preview the toolpaths the wizards generated without the license, so you can get a better idea of their functionality.  Play around with them a bit and I think you will be impressed, especially for the price.  They are quite powerfull and many find them to be all they need to do the machining operations they require.  Much cheaper than a full blown CAM program.  Check out the NFS website at:

http://www.newfangledsolutions.com

lots of good info there.  Hope that helps.  Clear as mud?

2
General Mach Discussion / Re: demo
« on: April 10, 2006, 09:59:04 PM »
I am not sure on the backlash issue.  But I "think" that backlash isn't supposed to work without a license.  I could be wrong on this one though.

As for the arc problem with lots of blue circles, I believe this can be fixed by changing your I J arcs from incremental to absolute, or vice versa.  Just change it from what ever it is to the opposite.  It can be found under the Config. drop down menu under State.  You will see a box for "I J Mode", just swap it and it should fix the arc/big blue circle problem right up.

Hope that helps at least a little.

3
Are the motors directly coupled to the ball screws?  Is the Xylotex card set to be microstepping?  What kind of mill is it?  Is Mach set to use milimeters for Native Units?  And also what release of Mach 3 are you using?  We can get this figured out for you.   ;D

4
Yes, that is correct.  But are you talking about a quadrature signal encoder?

5
You were in the right place for setting up, the motor tuning dialog.  The steps per box is really steps per unit, either inch or mm.  You enter the number of steps Mach has to output to that axis drive to move the table, or whatever you are moving, 1 inch or mm depending on what you want to run in.  It is okay to use metric pitch screws in an inch system too (that question gets asked allot  ;) ).  You just need to remember to convert from metric to standard, 2.54cm per inch.  So if you have 1.8 degree steppers I believe you have 200 steps per rev of the motor, not 100 (360 / 1.8) = 200.  Now this assumes you have no gearing, pulleys, or any other step up/down between the motor and the screw.  So, assuming direct drive of the screw at a 4mm pitch, the nut will travel 4mm per rotation of the screw.  So 200 steps to the motor = 1 rev of the screw = 4mm of travel.  Now we divide by 4 to get the number of steps per 1mm if working in metric.  (200/40) = 50 steps per unit or 50 steps per mm.  If going for inch you need to use the 2.54cm per 1in, or 25.4mm per 1in conversion factor.  We would need to multiply the 1mm travel by 25.4mm per 1 inch to get an inch and thus multiply the 50 step by 25.4 to get the number of steps per 1in.  (50 * 25.4) = 1270 steps per unit or 1270 steps per inch.  How is that?  Clear as mud?   8)

All of this also assumes you are not using microstepping drives, or if you are, you do not have them set up to microstep.  If you are microstepping, you need to multiply the steps per unit number we just found by the microstepping factor.  For example if you are are using 1/10th microstepping, we need 10 microsteps per full step, so we would multiply our above found step number (either 50 steps/mm or 1270 steps/in) by 10.  That result would then be what you entered into the Steps Per Unit box in motor tuning.

Hope that helped a little.  If I messed it up someone else please jump in.  I have only used servos, with inch ballscrews, and inch native units.  If you have any more question, don't hesitate to ask, there is a phenomonal group of people here with a deep, deep, deep well of knowledge, and they always seem ready and willing to help.  I would suggest though that you go to the Mach Support site (www.machsupport.com) and click on the support button.  There you can download and read the Mach 3 manual (click on the PDF Tutorial link) as well as look through the various Wiki's that have been set up.  Good luck and let us know when you get that router going.

6
General Mach Discussion / Re: Absolutley Impressed
« on: April 01, 2006, 01:34:18 PM »
I have a Bridgeport R2E4 that I retrofitted and ran with Mach 2, now Mach 3.  It runs beautifully.  The only problem I have is the servo drives I used were to small.  Mine is a servo machine and I reused all the originall power supplies, motors, encoders, etc.  I went with Rutex drives (no connection to the company, just an extremely satisfied user).  This is where my only problem came in.  I did the retro about 3 years ago now, and Rutex had not released the R90 drive for 200V 40amp.  I ended going with, if I remember right, the R990H2 so I would not have to mess with altering/building power supplies.  These drives were rated for up to 200V, but only 10amps.  Where as the alternative Rutex drive at the time was 100V 20amp.  Being lazy (or more cheap than anything  ;D ) I was intent on reusing as much as I could, including the power supply.  And I did not want to mess with electronice and what not to drop the voltage to an acceptable level for a 100V drive.  So I traded off amperage.  This made it hard to tune in the drives to the motors since they were soo underpowered.  I don't remember the amp rating for the motors or what the supply originally put out to the original drives, but it was more than 10 amps.  I had to max out the current limit pot on the drives I had.  This underpower condition meant I had to run things much slower than the machine originally could.  I run with 100ipm rapids reliably as opposed to, I believe, the original drives 250ipm rapid capability.  Slower than original but not too shabby.  So the only real problem I had was being a cheapskate.  The Rutex drives functioned beautifully, and the tuning software was very easy to use.  I now have 3 of the new 2000 series drives on the way from Rutex, the R2020 rated for 200V 40amps.  These should bring things back up to speed.  Not sure if your mill is servo or not, I don't know if all the R2E4s were the same.  Mine had a BOSS 10 control.  But mice had done some "customization" of the original wiring with their teeth, so retrofit it was.  Mine is also a Series II, again, not sure about all the R2E4s.

Anyway, to make an already long post a little longer  ;), I would say go for it.  If you don't like Rutex, there are many other great drive manufacturers out there like Gecko.  I have used them too, and they are also very nice.  But if yours is like mine, Rutex was the only one that came close to the electrical requirements.  So dive in.  I will be glad to answer any questions you may have, to the best of my knowledge and experience anyway.  And if I don't know, some one else here certainly will.  Good luck and hope that helps.


p.s.  I would recommend going with Mach 3 over 2 at this point.

7
General Mach Discussion / Re: Mach 2 Help from a complete Newbie!!
« on: March 29, 2006, 09:58:59 PM »
To be honest {not that I am normally dishonest  ;) } there are many possibilities.  But my best semi-educated guess, is that the round object consists of entities that the MACH importer does not recognize.  The MACH importer will only recognize certain entity types from DXFs.  But I do not use the DXF importer, only played around with it a little in the past.  I have CAM software to do all the hard stuff, takes all the work out of it and generates my G-Code for me.  So I am not sure which entities are recognized and which ones are not.  But in the 3-4 years I have been following and using MACH, this issue has come up many, many, many times in the Yahoo forum.  Not sure about here as this forum is relatively new compared to the Yahoo MACH support forum.  You might try looking over there and doing a search for "DXF" and "entity" or "entities".  Art or Brian could say for sure.  I want to say splines are not supported, but my memory is fading more and more every day.   :-\  But I do seem to remember that once the drawing was done, it could be exploded and then the offending entities could be individually changed to entities that MACH recognizes.  Like I said before, LazyCAM should solve most of these issues.  Sorry, once again I don't have the solution, but hopefully I at least explained why it might not be working.  Hope that helps.

8
General Mach Discussion / Re: Mach 2 Help from a complete Newbie!!
« on: March 29, 2006, 08:39:16 PM »
Are you saving the part drawing as a DXF?  If so, the recomended DXF format is Release 12.  This is in AutoCAD right?

Thanks,
Rob

9
General Mach Discussion / Re: Mach 2 Help from a complete Newbie!!
« on: March 29, 2006, 07:02:58 PM »
Great, glad I could help.   ;D  I have asked enough questions and learned so much from the MACH support groups, that it is nice to give a little back.  Don't hesitate to ask more questions.  If I can't help/don't have the answer, someone else around here will.   8)  Good luck and happy chip making!!

Thanks,
Rob

10
General Mach Discussion / Re: Mach 2 Help from a complete Newbie!!
« on: March 29, 2006, 06:53:57 PM »
Just to be safe I want to clarify that MACH is fully capable of true 3d work, however the DXF importer will not handle 3d DXFs.

So, that being said, for most true "3d" work, CAM software is the way to go.  There is a multitude of CAM software out there, you need to choose one that best fits you needs and budget.  I would recommend downloading LazyCAM from the MACH support site though.  It is currently in development, but will end up being a powerfull package, just as MACH has been.  Did I guess right, were you using a DXF to bring the part into MACH?

One more question.  Is this part truly 3d or just 2 1/2d?

Hope that helps a little.

Thanks,
Rob

Pages: 1 2 »