Messages

471

General Mach Discussion / Re: VFD and vari speed pulleys

« on: November 22, 2011, 07:57:56 PM »

I have a step-pulley BP clone with a VFD.   The vast majority of my work can be done with the motor in 4P mode, and the fastest pulley, which gives 2720 RPM at the spindle at 60Hz, and 5440 RPM at 120Hz.  This setting gives me plenty of torque for all but the largest drills, which require stepping down one pulley.  And my VFD is a V/Hz drive, so a sensorless vector drive will give better low-speed torque.  The only time I have to use the highest speed (switching the motor to 2P), is for finish cuts with small endmills, which lets me get up to 8200RPM.

Regards,
Ray L.

472

General Mach Discussion / Re: parralell usb adapter

« on: November 20, 2011, 01:14:58 AM »

No.  If all you have is USB, you'll have to buy a USB motion controller, like SmoothStepper, KFlop, Galil, etc.

Regards,
Ray L.

473

General Mach Discussion / Re: Using M7 without interrupting G01

« on: November 15, 2011, 07:45:56 PM »

G-code is executed one block at a time, and the currently executing block must complete before the next one will be executed.  So, what you're asking for can't be done.

Regards,
Ray L.

474

General Mach Discussion / Re: G92 and G52 - How SHOULD They Work?

« on: November 15, 2011, 01:56:56 AM »

Ray I double checked an older version and it appears that the G52 G92 ARE seperate intities as they do show seperately in the mode bar.

(;-) TP

Terry,

You mean an older Fanuc version, or Mach3?

Regards,
Ray L.

475

General Mach Discussion / Re: G92 and G52 - How SHOULD They Work?

« on: November 15, 2011, 12:53:04 AM »

Terry,

Thanks!

Regards,
Ray L.

476

General Mach Discussion / Re: G92 and G52 - How SHOULD They Work?

« on: November 15, 2011, 12:06:57 AM »

Terry,

Well, my understanding is Mach3 tries to be Fanuc-compatible, so I guess that's what I care about.  I have Peter Smid's book, and I've done reading in other places.  What I think I've concluded is that G92 and G52 both manipulate the exact same internal offset registers, the main difference being that G92 is more-or-less an "absolute" offset, while G52 is more of a relative offset.  So you really, really, REALLY should NOT mix the two, which means that if you want to use G52, the only "safe" way to set your initial work offsets is to first zero all the G52 offsets, then use G10 to set your fixture offsets using G54-G59, and THEN you can use G52 to temporarily offset from there.  Is that consistent with your understanding?

BTW - I am just about tearing my hair out trying to get the KFlop to work on my mill.  Much of it works just fine, but it's those last few details that are driving me nuts.  And for some reason, their controller app, KMotionCNC, is completely unusable on my machine, and I don't have a clue why.  Works OK if I run it on my laptop, but when I run it on the PC on my mill, as soon as I enable the KFlop, all four axes start jogging, and never stop.  Mostly works OK using Mach3, though there are still issues to be sorted with probing and spindle control.

OTOH, I got an Ethernet SmoothStepper today, and it worked pretty much on the very first try....

Regards,
Ray L.

477

General Mach Discussion / G92 and G52 - How SHOULD They Work?

« on: November 14, 2011, 10:46:47 PM »

I've recently purchased a KFlop, and I've been playing with their controller application, KMotionCNC, and noting differences between it and Mach3.  My current confusion is surrounding G92 and G52, and how they interact.  Even after reading the relevent sections of Peter Smid's book, I'm not clear on what the *correct* behavior is.  So, here is a few hypothetical, and I'd like someone who knows for SURE, to tell me what the correct outcome is:

Example 1:

1) G52 Z0
2) Home the machine, and position to Machine Zero.
3) G92 Z2.0
4) G0 Z-1
4) G52 Z-1.0   => What does the Z DRO show after this?
5) G52 Z0       => What does the Z DRO show after this?

Regards,
Ray L.

478

General Mach Discussion / Re: Opinions For Spindle HP

« on: November 13, 2011, 06:34:01 PM »

Funny you bring it up. I decided last night that I'm going to play with the PP first to get the most performance I can out of it and to try the gearing you mentioned. I happened across that feature while reading the drive manual. It will at least let me get the project up and going sooner.

I like the idea of an Ethernet based controller there seems to be a big push for that in the market that Smoothstepper caters to. Does anyone know the status of the project? 

I know, but I'm not allowed to say....  :-)

Regards,
Ray L.

479

General Mach Discussion / Re: G43/G49 Question

« on: November 09, 2011, 09:11:08 AM »

Tom,

Sounds like you're using my M843/M849 macros then?

Yes, a KFlop is similar to a SmoothStepper, but quite different in some respects.  One of the key differences is that complete source code for both the firmware running on the device, as well as the PC applications and DLLs is provided.  It is quite easy (well, if you're a C/C++ programmer) to add your own functionality to the firmware and applications.  In fact, just getting the board running on your machine requires some programming.  But it is an extremely powerful and flexible solution.  My ultimate goal is to create a customized version of the KFlop CNC controller application written in C# tailored to my exact needs.

I'm discussing this with TomK, the KFlop developer, on the Yahoo "Dynomotion" group.

Regards,
Ray L.

480

General Mach Discussion / Re: G43/G49 Question

« on: November 09, 2011, 01:09:15 AM »

Terry,

That is what I suspected, from looking at the G43/G49 code in the KFlop RS274interpreter, and makes perfect sense when the comp is done on the Z axis.  I need to modify it so it actually does the move when the G43/G49 are executed, to make it work the way I want it to.  Fortunately, that appears to be a very simple change to the interpreter.  I'll find out in a few days when my copy of Visual Studio gets here.

Regards,
Ray L.