Hello Guest it is November 28, 2021, 07:17:40 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 - FineLineAuto

Pages: 1 2 »
1
General Mach Discussion / Position Errors Only on Diagonal Moves
« on: January 17, 2015, 06:34:19 PM »
That's great Nate ... simple as that.
I love it when a plan comes together.
Appreciate you posting back, this may be a "recommended reading" post for future reference.

Good job.
Thanks again,
Russ

It was Ray who suggested checking the parameters. Given this is my first experience with servo drives, I am glad I had some resources to turn to.

Thanks again for all the suggestions!


Nate
Fine Line Automation
www.finelineautomation.com

2
General Mach Discussion / Position Errors Only on Diagonal Moves
« on: January 17, 2015, 06:04:20 PM »
Found the problem. A setting on the Y servo drive was not set properly.

The results are beautiful, my bearings now fit perfectly and the finish is much better. Thanks to everyone for the suggestions provided!

Test circle for bearing fit (I cut it over top a previous test cut so ignore the round partial cuts you see.)



The test piece. Bearing just slips in al nice and snug. Finish is excellent too.







Nate
Fine Line Automation
www.finelineautomation.com

3
General Mach Discussion / Position Errors Only on Diagonal Moves
« on: January 15, 2015, 08:06:21 PM »
Some good news logically. The 90 degree squares are not really squares. Here's the corner measurements.




Also, I noticed something else. Look at the edge where the 1.585 is written. It's and the one opposite of it are oblong while the other 2 corners are a normal round.


Nate
Fine Line Automation
www.finelineautomation.com

Some more good news to report.

I ran Hood's test using the 2" square code I ran earlier today with a g4p1 in between each move and slowed the feedrate down to 5 ipm. The square parallel to XY came out right at 2" and measured the same on opposite corners. The 45 degree square was at 1.999 for one side and 2.027" for the other side.  The 2 corner measurements came out the same.

So, can we define it is servos needing tuned?


Nate
Fine Line Automation
www.finelineautomation.com

4
General Mach Discussion / Position Errors Only on Diagonal Moves
« on: January 15, 2015, 05:55:16 PM »
Some good news logically. The 90 degree squares are not really squares. Here's the corner measurements.




Also, I noticed something else. Look at the edge where the 1.585 is written. It's and the one opposite of it are oblong while the other 2 corners are a normal round.


Nate
Fine Line Automation
www.finelineautomation.com

5
General Mach Discussion / Position Errors Only on Diagonal Moves
« on: January 15, 2015, 03:26:43 PM »
Ray did you measure the Square from corner to corner to check for square or just side to side ??

Have you tried a SIMPLE test with just the basic moves . only one cut, no finish cuts,No offseting , no tool changing etc?

G20 (Units: Inches)
G40 G90 G91.1 G49 G80
F1
(Part: TestSquare)

G0 Z1.000
G00 X0.8839 Y0.0000
G01 Z-0.010 F10.0

X0.0000 Y0.8839 F17.0
X0.8839 Y1.7678
X1.7678 Y0.8839
X0.8839 Y0.0000

G00 Z0.5000
X3.4008 Y0.8839

G01 Z-.010 F10.0
Y0.2589 F17.0
X2.1508
Y1.5089
X3.4008
Y0.8834
G00 Z0.5000
M05 M30

I have tried just a one cut, Simple move hand coded GCode with 0,0 in the center. Still came out the same.

Let me check the square from corner to corner when I get back to the shop.


Nate
Fine Line Automation
www.finelineautomation.com

6
General Mach Discussion / Position Errors Only on Diagonal Moves
« on: January 15, 2015, 03:24:14 PM »
Thanks Ray
Ok, I'm curious ....  just 1 more and I'll stay out ..
You've had this machine about a year, and has it ever run any decent parts?


I have been running good parts for a while. My 5 production parts I have been running for close to a year now consist of the following operations:
- drilling
- cleaning up edges of barstock (so a straight line operation that is always parallel to the axes.
- facing

I can still run these production parts without issue and they do GO rapid moves for positioning in 2 axes all the time.

I first noticed the problem when I went to do a production run of a new pat that I have that has a pocketed circle for a bearing. What's interesting is that even though the bearing pocket came out wrong, the rest of the operations (drilling and edge cleanup) came out spot on.



Any diag. interpolated move is trash?
I see it stated where CAM and hand coding does the same.
Did you try a simple point to point rotated square pattern of 4 holes maybe ?
Start at X0,Y0

X1
hole
X0 Y1
hole
X-1 Y0
hole
X0 Y-1
hole

Then measure.

Just wondering if you tried something this simple as a test  ?
This would maybe eliminate some possibilities.
Russ

If I do the program you mention about, it will come out perfect. It's only on G1 moves. G0 moves end up in the right position.

Regards,

Nate


Nate
Fine Line Automation
www.finelineautomation.com

7
General Mach Discussion / Position Errors Only on Diagonal Moves
« on: January 15, 2015, 11:31:14 AM »
Running your Gcode, using a laser, the centreline of the toolpath produces a 1.2" square on the first pass and a 1.25" square on the second pass. Both the X-Y aligned square and the 45 deg. square are absolutely identical in dimension - there is no error.

So I think I can safely say there is absolutely nothing wrong with your Gcode or the Mach3 interpretation of that Gcode.

Hope this helps in finding your problem.

Tweakie.

Tweakie,

I am inclined to agree with you, especially after I:
  - took a known good control computer from another machine and upon hooking it to the mill it produced the same off results.
  - rebuilt the configure file from a pristine manufacturers file and a second time from scratch and still got the same off results.
  - get the same results using the PP or a UC100

My only question is, what do I check now?


Nate
Fine Line Automation
www.finelineautomation.com

8
General Mach Discussion / Position Errors Only on Diagonal Moves
« on: January 15, 2015, 09:46:31 AM »
OK using a different PC from a KNOWN working machine and it did the same thing where as on the other machine it worked correctly ? That would rule out MAch3 and the PC would it not ??

One would think. I am not entirely sure though. The thing that is preventing me from saying absolutely yes it is not Mach 3 or the pc is the fact that the squares parallel to XY are coming out perfect and I am not losing steps running the program.

IS this a servo drive machine ?? Have the servos been TUNED to the machine correctly ?? (;-) NOT just by ear but with a scope.  Put a medium load on the bed and tune it with a scope.

This is a servo drive machine. I am assuming the set is were tuned at the factory. I have not done any tuning and I don't have a scope to check it out.

Try switching the 2 drives XY with each other and see IF the offsetting changes with it. 

Check the servo power supply voltages while running the code that offsets ?

Swapping the drives is my next test.

I will need to get with Ray to figure out which lines I need to measure voltage from.

You said that it is NOT a problem with following error ?? HOW did you check it. WILL the servo actually FAULT if you lock  down the servo motor and try to move it ?

(;-) TP

What error are you referring to? If I run the table up to the hardstop the servo drive definitely faults.

Regards,

Nate


Nate
Fine Line Automation
www.finelineautomation.com

9
General Mach Discussion / Position Errors Only on Diagonal Moves
« on: January 15, 2015, 09:36:23 AM »
I got to run 2 more tests this morning:

Test 1
   - cut a 2" square that is 45 degrees from XY followed by a 2" square that is parallel to XY
  - use foam to eliminate any possibility of load resistance
  - use 15 ipm instead of 50.
  - run this on a different part of the table

GCode:

     G54

  (Toolchange Start)
     G53 G00 Z0.0000
         X[#100] Y[#101]
     G49
  M05
  M09
  (Tool #6, Aluminum - Pocketing - 1/4in Carbide Endmill)
  (TOOL/MILL,0.2500,0.0000,1.2500)
  M06 T6
     G43 H6
  (USR, Load Tool #6, Aluminum - Pocketing - 1/4in Carbide Endmill)
  M00
  (USR, 2D Contour1, Instance 1)
  M03 S6000
  (Toolchange End)


  M09
     G17
     G90 G00 X2.3510 Y1.3990
     G43 Z0.6000 H6
         Z0.2000
     (LEAD IN)
     G01 Z0.0394 F15
     (PLUNGE)
         Z-0.1000 F15.
     (CUTTING)
         X2.9521 Y2.0000 F15
         X1.7500 Y3.2021
         X0.5479 Y2.0000
         X1.7500 Y0.7979
         X2.3510 Y1.3990
     (TRANSITION)
     G02 X2.3731 Y1.4034 Z-0.1000 I0.0144 J-0.0144
     G03 X2.3952 Y1.4078 Z-0.1000 I0.0077 J0.0188
     (FINISH CUT)
     G01 X2.9874 Y2.0000
         X1.7500 Y3.2374
         X0.5126 Y2.0000
         X1.7500 Y0.7626
         X2.3952 Y1.4078
         X2.9874 Y2.0000
         X1.7500 Y3.2374
         X0.5126 Y2.0000
         X1.7500 Y0.7626
         X2.3952 Y1.4078
     (RAPID)
     G00 Z0.2000
         X5.3500 Y2.0000
     (LEAD IN)
     G01 Z0.0394
     (PLUNGE)
         Z-0.1000 F15.
     (CUTTING)
         Y2.8500 F15
         X3.6500
         Y1.1500
         X5.3500
         Y2.0000
     (TRANSITION)
     G02 X5.3625 Y2.0187 Z-0.1000 I0.0203 J0.0000
     G03 X5.3750 Y2.0375 Z-0.1000 I-0.0078 J0.0187
     (FINISH CUT)
     G01 Y2.8750
         X3.6250
         Y1.1250
         X5.3750
         Y2.0375
         Y2.8750
         X3.6250
         Y1.1250
         X5.3750
         Y2.0375
     (RAPID)
     G00 Z0.6000

  M09 M05
     G53 G00 Z0.0000
         X[#102] Y[#103]
     G49 G54 G90
  (USR, Program Done)
  M30

Results:



As you can see, the 45 degree square is still about + or - 0.042" off on one side. The square parallel to XY came out perfect.

Test 2
   - cut a 1.5" square that is 45 degrees from XY followed by a 1.5" square that is parallel to XY
  - use foam to eliminate any possibility of load resistance
  - use 15 ipm instead of 50.
  - run this on a different part of the table that previous tests.
  - cut the square backwards from my Normal tests

GCode:

     G54

  (Toolchange Start)
     G53 G00 Z0.0000
         X[#100] Y[#101]
     G49
  M05
  M09
  (Tool #6, Aluminum - Pocketing - 1/4in Carbide Endmill)
  (TOOL/MILL,0.2500,0.0000,1.2500)
  M06 T6
     G43 H6
  (USR, Load Tool #6, Aluminum - Pocketing - 1/4in Carbide Endmill)
  M00
  (USR, 2D Contour1, Instance 1)
  M03 S6000
  (Toolchange End)


  M09
     G17
     G90 G00 X2.1743 Y2.4243
     G43 Z0.6000 H6
         Z0.2000
     (LEAD IN)
     G01 Z0.0394 F15
     (PLUNGE)
         Z-0.1000 F15.
     (CUTTING)
         X2.5985 Y2.0000 F15
         X1.7500 Y1.1515
         X0.9015 Y2.0000
         X1.7500 Y2.8485
         X2.1743 Y2.4243
     (TRANSITION)
     G03 X2.1964 Y2.4198 Z-0.1000 I0.0144 J0.0144
     G02 X2.2185 Y2.4154 Z-0.1000 I0.0077 J-0.0188
     (FINISH CUT)
     G01 X2.6339 Y2.0000
         X1.7500 Y1.1161
         X0.8661 Y2.0000
         X1.7500 Y2.8839
         X2.6339 Y2.0000
         X1.7500 Y1.1161
         X0.8661 Y2.0000
         X1.7500 Y2.8839
         X2.2185 Y2.4154
     (RAPID)
     G00 Z0.2000
         X5.1000 Y2.0000
     (LEAD IN)
     G01 Z0.0394
     (PLUNGE)
         Z-0.1000 F15.
     (CUTTING)
         Y1.4000 F15
         X3.9000
         Y2.6000
         X5.1000
         Y2.0000
     (TRANSITION)
     G03 X5.1125 Y1.9812 Z-0.1000 I0.0203 J0.0000
     G02 X5.1250 Y1.9625 Z-0.1000 I-0.0078 J-0.0187
     (FINISH CUT)
     G01 Y1.3750
         X3.8750
         Y2.6250
         X5.1250
         Y1.3750
         X3.8750
         Y2.6250
         X5.1250
         Y1.9625
     (RAPID)
     G00 Z0.6000

  M09 M05
     G53 G00 Z0.0000
         X[#102] Y[#103]
     G49 G54 G90
  (USR, Program Done)
  M30

Results:



As you can see, the 45 degree square is still about + or - 0.042" off on one side. The square parallel to XY came out perfect.

Next tests:

- Flip XY servos around and see if the error flips around.
- run the 2" test and put a G4P1 after every move to test for servo tuning


Nate
Fine Line Automation
www.finelineautomation.com

10
General Mach Discussion / Re: Position Errors Only on Diagonal Moves
« on: January 14, 2015, 05:48:13 PM »
Hey folks, sorry ... I somehow missed those earlier posts. I'd retract mine if possible to keep the clutter down.
Jeesh, I'll try to pay better attention in the future. ::)
Again, apologies.  :-[
Russ  :P

 :)

No need to apologize. I appreciate all the responses and input I can get. That said, I had set up some indicators and measured not only against the table but against the fixture plate to rule out the possibility of the x and y not being square.

Pages: 1 2 »