Messages

6941

General Mach Discussion / Re: New KX3 not working

« on: June 06, 2017, 03:00:53 PM »

Hi,
it sounds like Mach3 is installed and is using the built in parallel port when powered up. You don't want to use PP you want
to use USB. At power up there should be a screen which allows you to choose your motion controller. It also allows you to
check a box so that it doesn't show up all the time.
'Function Cfg's/Reset Device Sel....' then close and restart Mach this time selecting the motion controller you are actually going to use!

Craig

6942

General Mach Discussion / Re: Tool plunges into project too deep

« on: June 06, 2017, 02:50:15 PM »

Hi Peter,
G1 means 'co-ordinated linear move at feedrate'.

Being able to read and write simple Gcode fragments is a required skill of CNCing. There are plenty of Gcode tutorials online,
observing the code generated by wizards loaded in Mach3 are valuable learning resources.

'CNC Programming Handbook' by Peter Smid is pretty much the bible as far as we are concerned.

Learning new things is a consequence of and major benefit of our hobby.

Craig

6943

General Mach Discussion / Re: Tool plunges into project too deep

« on: June 06, 2017, 04:43:28 AM »

Hi,
are you sure, I know you've set things as before and/or used the built in facility but how do you KNOW it right?

Set the machine couple of inches above the table, zero Z, MDI G1 Z1.....How far does it move? Simple and a sure test of what 1 unit
is on your machine.

Craig

6944

Mach4 General Discussion / Re: peck drilling

« on: June 06, 2017, 02:58:07 AM »

Hi,
found a post which might help
http://www.machsupport.com/forum/index.php/topic,33845.0.html

Note in particular that Mach4 doesn't like a G83 code on each line, it requires one at the start with all the peck parameters
but thereafter it just requires the XY of the next hole.

Craig

6945

Mach4 General Discussion / Re: peck drilling

« on: June 06, 2017, 02:43:02 AM »

Hi,
I had the same or at least similar problem a while back... cant quite remember how it panned out but will try to find the post.

The upshot is that peck drill Gcode in Mach3 is not exactly conformant to the Gcode standard but it still works, ie Mach3 doesn't care too much.
The same Gcode in Mach4 won't work because Mach4 demands good Gcode. I'll see if I can't find some examples of what I mean. I recall doing
a wee edit on my Gcode and the everything was fine.

Craig

6946

General Mach Discussion / Re: Tool plunges into project too deep

« on: June 05, 2017, 08:13:06 AM »

Hi,
couldn't be as simple as inch vs mm units could it? Try MDIing 1 unit and see how far it actually moves.

Craig

6947

Mach4 General Discussion / Re: EtherCat Pulgin...co-operative venture?

« on: June 04, 2017, 11:38:24 PM »

Hi All,
just doing a bit more reading and looks like no cost need be involved licencing EtherCat.

If you wish to make an EtherCat capable slave device, a servo drive for instance, the EtherCat chip you buy to implement it is already
licence paid. To implement an EtherCat Master a licence is required but no cost!  Gotta luv no cost options! There are patented
technologies which may have to be paid for and whatever you build must comply with the specification. It might be that you need a certificate
of conformance which you would pay to have someone test and certify.

In the early days of field bus control of machine tools safety signals were not permitted to be communicated over the same data link as the
machine code, ie if the link failed or went cranky the Estop at the machine operators station would still work. In more recent years safety signals
are permitted to share the data link, they do however have to comply with some extra stuff...just what and how I don't know but could not rule
out having to pay for it.

In general the licencing stuff I have read is meant to encourage widespread use of EtherCat and is free or nearly so to do it. I think this policy is
likely to ensure that EtherCat is a dominant player in years to come.

Craig

6948

Mach4 General Discussion / EtherCat Pulgin...co-operative venture?

« on: June 04, 2017, 10:40:06 PM »

Hi All,
a wee while ago I came across my first 'distributed motion control' set up, a proprietary communication protocol by Panasonic,
called 'Smart Servo', if memory serves, based on RS485 comms. Really clever.

As a consequence I did a little reading about distributed motion controls and various field bus strategies. All really fascinating.
The one that appealed on the basis of performance, flexibility and reasonably widespread adoption by industry is EtherCat.
If my understanding is correct if there were a plugin Mach4 could communicate to EtherCat capable servo drives via a humble
RJ45 cable. No hardware motion controller required!

While EtherCat is not so common amongst the cheapest servo and drives common on hobbyist gear most of the better servos and drives
are EtherCat capable. I am of the opinion that EtherCat may well come to dominate the distributed motion control field on the basis
of capability and  apparently flexible and favourable licence terms. It already appears to have more market penetration than any
of the other protocols.

If Mach4 is ever going to hit the industrial mainstream it will require some distributed motion control capability, at this stage EtherCat
being the most significant. Is there any interest amongst the community to write a plugin?

My own programming skills are not upto it but I could probably help in some sort of joint effort.

I need to find out a little more about plugins and Machs SDK.

Also need to find out a bit more about potential costs of licencing EtherCat. Don't want to spend time and effort on a plugin only to find
that you can't publish or sell the thing because of a licence snafu.

Craig

6949

General Mach Discussion / Re: Servo drive tripping, mach3 stays online.

« on: June 04, 2017, 10:04:23 PM »

Hi Tarak,
I use MB02's as well, I'm guessing you must be an Aussie whereas I'm Kiwi, either way Homan Designs is 'local'. In fact that's how I came
to suggest putting a diode in the circuit, I've blown the input buffer for just one pin on one of my MB02s. MB02s DO NOT accommodate
being reverse biased....nor are you doing yourself any favours by demanding that IOs either deliver or sink a great deal of current.

Depending on the actual IO MB02s are good for 24-32mA source and about the same sink. I personally like to keep it to 5mA or less. Having said that
I don't like to overload IO neither do I like it to loaf. In the example above I used a 5K resistor as pull-down, ie 1mA. I could have used a much
higher resistance, say 100k but the pull-down current would only be 50uA and therefore be subject to noise.

As garyhlucas has said the robustness of relays and the moderate voltages and currents used in such designs can prove to be a much better
performer in noisy environments compared to micro-power low voltage signals.

Craig

6950

General Mach Discussion / Re: Alternative to Step-Dir.

« on: June 04, 2017, 07:21:39 PM »

Hi,
a goodly fraction of modern servos drives have some sort of field bus control. There are a bewildering array of communication
protocols in use with each manufacturer claiming theirs is the best.

One of the most advanced and capable is Profinet. I believe it was started by Siemens and is certainly dominated by Siemens.
It has been licenced to other manufacturers who have added some great components and facilities. I think Siemens is guilty
however of setting the licence bar to high and so Profinet is really expensive.

Another very capable protocol is EtherCat. The licencing setup is such that many top flight servo manufacturers have adopted it.
The basic idea is that the central controller, be it a PLC or PC, sends numerical data over Ethernet to all the servos of a machine
or factory installation. On a 'Go' signal all servos move so as to arrive at the correct destination at exactly the right time. The servos
achieve co-ordinated movement but each is in fact controlled by its own drive. Its called 'distributed motion control'. Its fascinating
and right out there!

I have a customer at work who has a really big Plasma table...$100,000 plus. It uses Panasonic servos and Logosol drivers using
Panasonics proprietary comm protocol using RS485. It effects distributed motion control in a manner similar to EtherCat. There is
enuf info published for me to seize control of the Logosol drives but would require me to write a plugin for Mach4, quite an undertaking.

As it stands Mach4 develops position-velocity over time trajectory and communicates that to a motion controller that generates the
pluses (step-dir or CW-CCW or quadrature) for the drives. If Mach4 had an EtherCat plugin the servo drives could be daisy-chained
together with Ethernet cables and the drives are smart enuf to take it from there.

Over the coming years distributed motion control is going to be ever more important. I would dearly luv to write an EtherCat plugin.
It is beyond my programming skills at the moment but I believe that someone will take up the challenge and maybe it could be done
co-operatively.

Recommend a Google search for EtherCat....its a fascinating read.

Craig