Messages

21

CS-Lab / Re: Index Homing

« on: December 21, 2018, 11:35:44 AM »

Yes, that is correct.

Have you also changed Mach's Counts per unit to match the new encoder, and is the Y axis working except for index homing?

Allan

22

CS-Lab / Re: Index Homing

« on: December 21, 2018, 05:16:57 AM »

I'm not sure why the axis no longer homes near the home  switch.

You need to change your ppr to 8192 (4 x 2048) as per data sheet:

All resolutions are listed as pre-quadrature, meaning the final number of counts is PPR x 4.

You do this within the CS Labs plugin.

Allan

23

Mach4 General Discussion / Re: Mach4 bore probing.

« on: December 20, 2018, 05:21:59 AM »

The probing module has not been changed in recent times. I had a quick eyeball over the Bore script last night and nothing untoward jumps out at me.

So are you using plugin 3.16?In terms of Mach4, I tend to use one of the development versions. I am currently using 3882. My controller is the IP-A, and I cannot say if there are subtle differences in the plugin for the IP-M.

I am tending to think that the plugin is returning the wrong positions, as neither the backoff position nor the centre are coming out sensibly. Presumeably you have set backoff to a small value, e.g. 0.3mm, yet your probe is backing off some 45mm, which makes no sense.

Ultimately, you may need to add messages to the probing script to see just what values are being returned by the probe, but before that, have you tried a simpler probing operation, such as probing the X position of a part at a known position. Does this give a credible result?

You'd do well to start reading up on LUA scripting.

Allan

24

CS-Lab / Re: Index Homing

« on: December 19, 2018, 03:51:54 PM »

The index pulse is very short, so you would need to turn the encoder extremely slowly to check as above, but given care and patience it should be possible to verify it in that way.  Maybe you could verify that you can see the pulse on a channel that is known to be working properly. That would show you just how easy, or otherwise, it was to see the single line transition.

Allan

25

Mach4 General Discussion / Re: Mach4 bore probing.

« on: December 19, 2018, 07:16:47 AM »

Here is a summary of your log file:

Nominal bore diameter 85

probe Y to 13.6
move to -29.8
Probe Y to -73.3
move to 3.1 (but nominal centre is -30)

Probe X to 23.0
backoff to -22.97
Probe X to 23.0 (still at 500 for slow rate)
Move to -20.5
Probe X to -64.0
Backoff to -3.7
Probe X to -64
Move to -6.3 (but nominal centre is -21)

Probe hits side as X and Y are way off centre.

I cannot make any sense of these figures. The probe does not find the centre of the hole, but ends way off to one corner, causing the unwanted strike. Also your backoff distance and slow speed don't seem to be properly set. . I know the original probing module contained errors, but cannot remember if these affected the bore routine. I can say that using my corrected probing module and CSMIO plugin 3.16 the bore routine works perfectly, so I do not bleive this to be a CSMIO issue unless you are using an old plugin. Be sure to use the latest 3.16. If you already have this, I would check over the LUA code within the bore routine, as it seems likely to contain errors.


Allan

26

Mach4 General Discussion / Re: Mach4 bore probing.

« on: December 18, 2018, 05:11:35 PM »

Something seems to go wrong here following a G1 move:

2018-12-06 16:23:03.908 - Signal id 161, (Probe), changed from HIGH to LOW.
2018-12-06 16:23:07.498 - Signal id 161, (Probe), changed from LOW to HIGH.

The probe signal is cleared and then set again. This causes the following probing operation to be aborted and the system to be disabled.

Allan

27

CS-Lab / Re: Index Homing

« on: December 16, 2018, 06:35:43 AM »

 
Presuming you are using the motor encoders  rather than linear scales, your servo drive may allow you to observe the index pulse via the drive diagnostic facility. This would indicate whether the drive itself was receiving the encoder index signal. If this is OK, either the drive is failing to output the index to CSMIO, the cable between these is faulty, or the CSMIO is not recognising or processing the index.

Allan

28

General Mach Discussion / Re: CS Labs CSMIO/P-A

« on: August 21, 2018, 06:24:03 PM »

Craig

I'm not at all clear what these connectors are. The drive manual doesn't appear to specify this, which is a pretty poor show. Are we talking about the 3M MDR (micro Centronics style) which are a pig to solder, or arethey something else~?  The term micro D seems to cover various proprietarty designs.


Would it be worth asking Sneider to confirm?

Allan

29

General Mach Discussion / Re: CS Labs CSMIO/P-A

« on: August 19, 2018, 03:23:57 PM »

do yourself a favour ...

Absolutely agree.

Allan

30

General Mach Discussion / Re: CS Labs CSMIO/P-A

« on: August 18, 2018, 09:37:32 AM »

Mick

Yes, the GND pins you mention above are what we are talking about. Essentially, we are saying that this ground potential must also be the one used by the drive as a reference for its ESM outputs.

I haven't had time to give the manual much attention as yet but it looks as if pin 49 on CN1 is the only common ground for  all of the drive's digital signals. It is also the common for the 24V power supply to the drive. As we don't want to contaminate any of the analogue grounds with digital noise, pin 49 appears to be the only option.

Assuming you are using the same 24V supply for the drives and for CSMIO, their commons are bound to be connected, and that, in essense, should be enough. If you have separate 24V supplies, make sure that their 0V commons are connected together. If the cable you are using has a ground wire, by all means connect it to one of the CSMIO ground pins. If it only contains the 6 ESM signals, just make sure the power supply ground is common for the CSMIO and the drives as above. It is unlikely that you will experience noise issues on these differential signals, and unless you do, I wouldn’t worry about it any further.   

Allan

P.S. I somewhat sloppily tend to use the workds ground and common interchangeably. To be clear, in both cases I am referring to the circuit 0V line, and not to the protective earth (though these will likely be bonded somewhere).