Messages

11

General Mach Discussion / Re: switch of the motors off after end of G-code

« on: February 26, 2011, 10:07:56 PM »

Ah good !
Thanks Hood, Ill get right on it !

12

General Mach Discussion / Re: switch of the motors off after end of G-code

« on: February 26, 2011, 09:11:33 PM »

Hello Hood,

Yes, that's the idea.
I m running g-codes that take about 5 hours to complete, I would like to leave the machine run unattended during the night and turn off after finish.

Forgot to mention I m using a smooth stepper with G540.

Thanks

13

General Mach Discussion / switch of the motors off after end of G-code

« on: February 26, 2011, 05:20:52 PM »

Hello everybody,

I Dont know if this is the correct area to post my question, moderators feel free to move the thread.

I basically would like to have the ability to go offline after M05, is there any way to do it with macros or brains?

14

General Mach Discussion / Re: A very weird prob... pls assist...

« on: June 05, 2010, 04:46:03 PM »

on the first run lets say that the error is 0.5mm too deep, on the second run with no resetting of the datum is the error in depth 0.5mm or 1.0mm

Graham

The error in depth on the second run equals the error in depth in first run.
in other words: 0.5mm

but here is what you just helped me realize:

on the files I do not involve tool changes i don't have errors !
If my code has tool changes i run:

                   G00 Z 50
                   M05
                   M00
                   M03

I manually change the tool and hit "start cycle"
Instead of tool offsets I simply use a small aluminum tube with a brass stop on one end, (think of it like a condom) i used that method for years and had not probs.

Graham i think we are getting somewhere ! Thank you very much for helping me think straight ! With this new information can you make any guesses?

here is a sample of of one of my codes that do introduce the error:
(this one also includes a flip to do top/bottom milling)
G01 X-37.5185 Y13.9874 Z5.1000
G00 X-37.5185 Y13.9874 Z8.5000
G00 X0.0000 Y50.0000 Z50.0000
    A0 F750.
G00 Z 50
M05
M00
M03
G00 X-15.0029 Y8.3547 Z8.5000
F300
G01 X-15.0029 Y8.3547 Z2.4545
F500
G01 X-15.0615 Y8.3566 Z2.4545
G01 X-15.1262 Y8.3596 Z2.4545

15

General Mach Discussion / Re: A very weird prob... pls assist...

« on: June 05, 2010, 02:23:21 PM »

Hello Graham,

Allow me to apologize as English is not my native language.

When i say the error is duplicated I mean i put in new stock, run same code and end up with same results like the first cut.

I did  not try to run the code twice on the same stock.

I m not sure I understand what you mean by "if the error is incrementing or not"

Thank you

16

General Mach Discussion / Re: A very weird prob... pls assist...

« on: June 05, 2010, 01:51:59 PM »

Hello Jeff,

I did something similar with MDI and could not find any errors other than tiny misalignment due to physical tramming.

Next step is to swap Z with A axis (cables and pins) and see whats going to happen I will know more on Monday once I try it.

Thank you.

17

General Mach Discussion / Re: A very weird prob... pls assist...

« on: June 05, 2010, 10:26:08 AM »

Hello Graham,

yes the error is duplicated, this points to a possible CAM issue but i run the simulations and I dont see a prob there.
Still i should try a different CAM to exclude this.

Thank you

18

General Mach Discussion / Re: A very weird prob... pls assist...

« on: June 04, 2010, 10:19:00 PM »

No i don't call any height or work offsets in the G-code.

I simply set all axis to zero at the point where all axis meet, raise Z, add my stock and run the code

Thanks Hood.

19

General Mach Discussion / A very weird prob... pls assist...

« on: June 04, 2010, 07:49:55 PM »

Hello Guys:

Here is a very weird problem i m facing with my mill: (4 axis - G540 -ballscrews - SmoothStepper)

After tramming the mill to a acceptable degree,
And measuring with the dial and physically verifying the distance on the DRO is the actual distance traveled,
I made a small cube (10x10x6mm)  in my CAD prog to find the 0,0,0 of the machine. ( I do roughing and finishing on top/bottom)
After cutting  - measuring - adjusting the offset i got a pretty good accuracy. (about 0.05mm tolerance).

Here is the weird part:
when i cut my test part i always get the same result, but when i cut other parts they about 1mm smaller in the Z axis. (ie: my part should be 6.1mm in Z and it comes out 5mm)
The problem occurs no matter:
 - If I use SS or not,
 - Two different computers,
 - I run simulations to exclude any CAM issues.
 - While using the LTP driver and press the verify button   I don't have lost steps in the report.

In the bottom line:
 When i cut some rectangular parts I cannot recreate the error, When i do pocketing or anything else I end with physical geometry which is missing about 1mm in Z.

I would highly appreciate any ideas on this very weird problem.

20

General Mach Discussion / Re: Problem homing when Autozero is disabled.

« on: April 28, 2010, 07:14:38 PM »

I m stopping mid program,
I didn't try waiting for a code to finish, will do though.