Hello Guest it is March 28, 2024, 03:00:14 PM

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 - doug6949

Pages: 1 2 »
1
General Mach Discussion / Re: hopefully getting this worked out
« on: September 27, 2011, 06:33:23 PM »
This thread is an example of what happens when communication breaks down.  I accept much of the blame here, as it never even occurred to me that Art had sold the company.  (That should give some indication of how long I've been out of the loop.)

Scott has offered up the olive branch in granting my request to honor a nine year old - and admittedly obscure - agreement between Art and myself.  Brad gets a real license, I get closure, and Scott demonstrates the kind of business ethic not often seen in today's economy.  Thanks, Scott.  Yer a good egg!

Doug

2
General Mach Discussion / Re: hopefully getting this worked out
« on: September 25, 2011, 01:18:18 PM »
Brad made no attempt to hide the fact that he acquired a router that was later found to have a pirate copy.  One may conservatively estimate that more than half the users of mach possess illegal copies so this is not surprising.

It should also come as no surprise that many of the problems encounters with mach over the years have been from illegal copies of Autocad (Mastercam, Solid Works, pick your favorite and insert here) causing unwanted interrupts.  I wonder how many on this thread actually bought $16K CAM software to run their $150 CNC.

I will contact Art or Brian this afternoon so that we may put this all behind us.  For now, give Brad the benefit of the doubt.  I know Brad well enough to vouch for his integrity.

Doug

3
General Mach Discussion / Re: hopefully getting this worked out
« on: September 25, 2011, 09:21:45 AM »
A few months ago I sold Brad a box of hardware for his machine.  At that time I promised to throw in a license for Mach for the agreed price.  Unfortunately, I forgot to mail him the license key.  Brad apparently felt it would be inappropriate to remind me of my promise.

I saw a post from Brad on another forum last week wherein he mentioned not having a legitimate license.  I promptly sent him the key and apologized for my oversight.

Assuming you have read beyond the part about transferring the license, let me explain.  I purchased three licenses many years ago from Art with what I thought was a clear understanding that I intended to transfer them to customers of machines I built.

I do not recall any mention of non-transferability of licenses, nor can I imagine Art deliberately selling me three licenses that I would not be able to transfer.  Perhaps the license terms have changed.  That does not change the terms under which I purchase my copies.

It should be noted that claims of non-transferability in software licensing have repeatedly been shown invalid, most notably in the Adobe vs Softman case of 2001.  I would hope remarks to the contrary within this forum, as well as claims within the Mach license agreement, are based on misunderstanding and not blatant disregard for this fact.

Please give Brad the benefit of your knowledge and help.  He has done nothing wrong.

Doug

4
General Mach Discussion / Re: Mach 3 and Galil Motion Control boards
« on: November 01, 2009, 06:37:05 PM »
Is the communication protocol between Mach 3 and the Galil board open to be looked at and studied?  I assume that the Galil boards are PCI based? The reason for these questions is that I think Galil products are very expensive and I have seen a PCI motion control board for a fraction of the cost of a Galil, but it will obviously need a new driver or plug-in writing to communicate with Mach 3.

The Galil card, unlike the less expensive motion control cards you mention, has its own trajectory planner. 

From what I recall from previous discussions, Mach sends velocity and position data to the board.  The Galil uses internal functions (possibly LM and VS) to convert this into a trajectory.  These features are missing from lower cost cards which, as a result, would require a completely different approach to writing a driver.  It is definitely not trivial.


5
General Mach Discussion / Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
« on: October 19, 2009, 05:52:04 PM »
When the subject of piracy was being discussed several years ago I asked Art why he hadn't considered putting some of the code in hardware.  Art said he was looking into it but apparently the idea was discarded.

Centroid, Power Automation, and other commercial Windows-based CNC systems use this method successfully.  The majority of Mach systems already employ some type of interface board.  It wouldn't be that costly to add memory and some type of processor.  Done correctly, this type of code protection is very difficult to crack.

6
General Mach Discussion / Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
« on: October 17, 2009, 01:58:14 PM »
I think Brian is on the right track wrt the software protection scheme.  Most dongles are eventually defeated.  Adding dongle protection just makes you a target for those who see it as a challenge.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act specifically exempts dongles, making it perfectly legal to develop and distribute dongle emulators.  The problem is that illegal copies of legitimately enabled emulators get circulated. 

Online activation isn't bulletproof but it works somewhat better than dongle protection, particularly with an application like Mach.  The target for cracking is only one application as opposed to multiple applications using the same dongle.  Insignificant targets aren't worth cracking.

7
General Mach Discussion / Re: CHNC retrofit
« on: December 03, 2007, 07:24:56 PM »
As far as I know, Mach still doesn't provide servo control of the spindle (i.e. a rotary axis). So there isn't much point in having a servo spindle when a simple DC drive or VFD AC drive will do.  VFD's are so inexpensive these days you might get a complete system for less than a high current DC drive alone. They're getting rare and surplus units are a gamble.

8
The DMC-1040 series used a Motorola 68331 CPU which, even by today's standards, is a fast controller.  The encoder registers are capable of 8mHz quadrature input.

The only way I can see a speed problem is if one is trying to dump S/D pulses through the bus, or trying to use the Galil windows driver. The first approach reduces the board to a very expensive S/D-to-analog converter. The second is fruitless.

FWIW, numerous companies (mine included) attempted to build a PC-based CNC around the DMC-1040. The only one that succeeded was Camsoft.  They did it with aggressive marketing, not with a functional product.  Galil Basic was not a good platform for CNC, though it could be made to work in DOS. The windows driver was a joke because it used a windows timer and was not predictable. The board runs best as a standalone which is useless in CNC applications.

If you want to make use of the board you can always tie the S/D pins from the parallel port to the aux encoder inputs and then tell the axis' to follow them. Of course you will be back to the S/D-to-analog converter thing and you still won't have a closed loop between the drives and control, nor a decent homing sequence. Might as well use Geckos or Rutex.

9
Show"N"Tell ( Your Machines) / Re: hardinge hnc to retrofit
« on: November 30, 2007, 07:13:42 PM »
Mine is a HNC late 70's I think and it has stepper motors now............. I think the CHNC is the same base machine wrapped up in a new package.

The HNC has a 5C collet spindle whereas the CHNC uses the larger 16C collets. Bar capacity is thus increased to (IIRC) 1.5" .

10
General Mach Discussion / Re: CHNC retrofit
« on: November 30, 2007, 07:03:45 PM »
I need some advice from the experts here...

I'm in the middle of trying to figure out how to best retrofit my Hardinge CHNC using Mach3 and am stuck on how to drive the spindle.  The stock DC spindle motor on the machine was recently rebuilt, so I'd like to keep it on the machine (and I have a spare on the shelf besides) but I have no idea what kind of drive would be best to control it with.  The original control uses a 90VDC GE drive that can put out 85 amps. 

Hardinge had a way of using weird stuff in their CNC lathes. The problem with a 90VDC spindle motor is the large current requirement.  Otherwise I would suggest a servo drive such as the Rutex 2040.  You really need 3-5hp to get the most out of a CHNC.  That would be pushing the Rutex beyond it's comfort zone.


Pages: 1 2 »