1
General Mach Discussion / Re: Formula axis correction limitation
« on: June 09, 2013, 12:17:57 PM »
Thanks Gerry, that's exactly what it is doing. I have found that the squeal phantom distance is the value of the x modifier for f(z). At x / 500, the squeal is short displacing the reading just under 1.5 mm with the x out at 700 or so.
It's a shame, as it is obviously trying to do the right thing but missing the crucial consideration to f = ma.
I am still a bit weirded out by the behaviour of the formulas, as I was able to run the program with the second computer which didn't gouge the work in a situation that the first computer gouged. I am still suss on the first computer which seems to have caused problems with another machine. It has however worked perfectly for a while with the new machine that I am working with now. The only problem with the first computer is that it is hypersensitive to noise and kept being tripped by the spindle. This computer still causes motor stalling when go to zero is pressed. I am curious to run this computer with some better filters, because on test runs, I didn't hear any stalling through the first 15 or so minutes of the program. I didn't actually confirm this with a location check. I am pretty sure I also checked the last lines of code through this computer which did cause a stall. I only started on a workpiece when I had established some trust in the formula functions, but the spindle interference problem annoyed me after two z increments. That's when I saw how pleasing the toolpath was, albeit briefly. When I tried the old computer, my jolliness was abruptly extinguished as the z axis failed to rise on a z0 command, exactly where it had done this move correctly on the second computer. It did show me though how impressively heavy a cut my 800W Chinese water cooled spindle can do. Struth!
I will update again once I have played around with the second computer. If I only have to delete the last risky lines, that'll do. I can turn the formulas off for g30.
It's a shame, as it is obviously trying to do the right thing but missing the crucial consideration to f = ma.
I am still a bit weirded out by the behaviour of the formulas, as I was able to run the program with the second computer which didn't gouge the work in a situation that the first computer gouged. I am still suss on the first computer which seems to have caused problems with another machine. It has however worked perfectly for a while with the new machine that I am working with now. The only problem with the first computer is that it is hypersensitive to noise and kept being tripped by the spindle. This computer still causes motor stalling when go to zero is pressed. I am curious to run this computer with some better filters, because on test runs, I didn't hear any stalling through the first 15 or so minutes of the program. I didn't actually confirm this with a location check. I am pretty sure I also checked the last lines of code through this computer which did cause a stall. I only started on a workpiece when I had established some trust in the formula functions, but the spindle interference problem annoyed me after two z increments. That's when I saw how pleasing the toolpath was, albeit briefly. When I tried the old computer, my jolliness was abruptly extinguished as the z axis failed to rise on a z0 command, exactly where it had done this move correctly on the second computer. It did show me though how impressively heavy a cut my 800W Chinese water cooled spindle can do. Struth!
I will update again once I have played around with the second computer. If I only have to delete the last risky lines, that'll do. I can turn the formulas off for g30.