Messages

1

General Mach Discussion / Mach 3 random EMO after installing new motor and VFD.

« on: April 23, 2020, 12:43:42 AM »

Hi all,  Can anyone tell me how Mach 3 generates an EMO signal?  My mill has been running for years but I just upgraded the motor and now it just randomly goes into alarm for EMO.  The EMO is not pushed.  If I knew what would cause an EMO signal (other than the real EMO pushed) it would help me.  Is it possible I have a noise issue after installing the 3ph motor and VFD.  Note that other than sharing mains AC power the VFD and cnc controller are isolated from each other, nothing is integrated yet. 

Thanks in advance for any input

Glen

2

General Mach Discussion / Re: Feed Hold stopped working. Resolved!

« on: January 31, 2016, 07:09:27 PM »

Well I seem to be having a conversation with myself 
I was able to get the feed hold to function by reverting back to mach3 version .022.  Was running .066 and had nothing but problems compared to my X2 mill that runs .022.  Should be good to go... for now anyway. 

Maybe this will help someone down the road.

Glen

3

General Mach Discussion / Re: Feed Hold problem

« on: January 31, 2016, 05:51:44 PM »

Sorry to pull up an old thread but were you able to get this resolved?  I'm having the same issue and have confirmed it's not the G-code.

4

General Mach Discussion / Re: Feed Hold stopped working.

« on: January 31, 2016, 04:53:36 PM »

Maybe more info will spark some memories for a fix.  I've reloaded Mach3 and confirmed the issue is not the G-Code from CamBam (ran fine on another mill).  Any ideas where to look for this setting? 

Thanks.
Glen

5

General Mach Discussion / Feed Hold stopped working.

« on: January 30, 2016, 11:52:17 AM »

Hi all,  the feed hold (and space bar) stopped working.  Keyboard, mouse, pendant and touchscreen are all USB and I've been having fits with USB failing for the pendant but start, stop etc all work but feed hold does nothing.  Any ideas how to resolve this. 
I'm running Mach3 R3.043.066 with windows XP

Thanks for reading. 
Glen

6

General Mach Discussion / Re: Kernel speed error on startup

« on: March 12, 2014, 11:17:19 PM »

Hmmm, You are correct, the Z was at 75 when I loaded the XML file.  I am sure of this because I noted each axis and wrote it down just before I replied with the XML in my last post.  Now comes the strange part.  After I saw your reply I ran down and fired up the mill PC and was surprised I did not get the error.  Once booted up I checked the velocities for each axis and the Z axis is now at 57.  I did not change it and if I had now written it down 30 minutes ago I would doubt what I saw.  Very strange.  All I can think of is that at some point in checking and downloading the XML I did load a different profile but not sure if it was before or after documenting the settings.  I really appreciate you guys helping.   

7

General Mach Discussion / Re: Kernel speed error on startup

« on: March 12, 2014, 09:29:20 PM »

Here is the XML file, I hope...
I also verified the velocity and speeds and it is 57 and 5.  In case it helps, the exact verbiage of the error is " Warning, One or more axis are tuned too fast for current kernel speed of 25000"   

8

General Mach Discussion / Re: Kernel speed error on startup

« on: March 11, 2014, 11:22:28 PM »

My thoughts exactly.   Error first came up when it was set in the 1000s after I messed up the calibration.   Once I found the error and reset it, it runs perfect and noticeably quieter than the other axis.   If I wasn't getting the error on startup I'd be thinking I fixed it....   :-)

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

9

General Mach Discussion / Re: Kernel speed error on startup

« on: March 11, 2014, 03:57:50 PM »

I'll verify when I get home.   It's possible it's 75  5 but I'm fairly sure it's one of those.  Possible I'm not looking in correct place,  motor tuning page correct?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

10

General Mach Discussion / Re: Kernel speed error on startup

« on: March 11, 2014, 03:19:16 PM »

Velocity 57, accel 5.  I compared to the Y and Z axis and it looks similar.   

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk