Hello Guest it is March 28, 2024, 07:23:34 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Filou

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
31
" ... forget limits they are not needed on a stepper drive".
the simplification you are proposing presents the advantage of simplicity. How do you motivate this choice ?

32
Thank you. That seems to be the misleading point. In the main config page, there are two possible entries for LPT ports; say 1 and 2.

In the ports and pins page, I'm using a port number, say 1, to talk to one BoB connected to the UC300. The missing bit: this "1" is NOT connected to the connector numbered "1" on the UC 300 but on the second.  I agree that there is no "rule" that forces anyone to number "ports" and " associated connectors" in a coherent manner, but one would think ...

Documentation is not coherent, in my modest opinion.

cheers, Philippe 

33
Gerry, thank you for contradicting me.

What I miss, is the pathway to tell Mach 3 to use the resources provided by the three additional ports not offered in the main config menu.

It is clear that two LPT like ports can be directly configured, less so (for me) for any other one.

Is it sufficient to define a sole port number that differs from the two used in the main config menu ? This is not obvious from the documentation that is available to me.

If for example I assign ports 1 and 2 in the main config, I could be using implicitly ports 3, 4 and 5 (in the pins menu) to get access to all the other resources ?

cheers, Philippe

34
Can anyone contradict me please ?

I do not see how Mach 3 would be able to "talk" to more than two ports "at the time". Therefore, the nice UC300-5LPT appears useful for a User who has in mind to use, say a mill that needs two ports worth or In/Out and a lathe with another set of two ports. But how about using a third port ?

If I'm mistaken, please correct me, I'd be more than happy to be able to use more than two ports "at the time".

PS: the "at the time" quote is the necessary care needed when we are talking about systems which are not meant to operate in real time.

35
Good evening Rich,

You are absolutely right !  I'm well aware of the fact that using a CNC-like rig to perform measurements is more than a weird approach !

My background is "measurement", rather than "machining".  I have some feeling for the need to add , as a minimum, all the error contributions in quadrature to have a coarse idea of the total error budget. The "old" system can reproduce its position within a volume of 50 x 50 x 50 micrometers ^3.  This number is validated with an optical laser tracker survey instrument. The absolute position (in the 2 m x 3 m x 0.8 m volume)  is in the 80-100 microns range, owing to the fact that the laser tracker error contribution is around 25 microns.  The whole rig must move. We should blow dust off, and try to up-grade what can be. New encoders, perhaps new servos using a safer "inhibit" functions, and get rid of a "silly" controls SW. We have, in theory, internal resources to re-write all the SW, but since CNC controls technology is around and provides some sort of "standard" to move 4-5 axis around in space, why not use it. This is an attempt to think out of the box, not sure we will implement all these concepts, but at least we should envisage all the possibilities.

Regards, Philippe 


 

36
Thank you TPS and RICH,

I agree, it may sound a bit crazy to use Mach 3 or 4 or equivalent to "measure". The idea pops up in the context of an upgrade of a 30 years+ old machine that runs on hard to maintain controls SW.  The machine is intended to measure and not to machine anything. It has 4 axis, and does not need to run fast. Since Mach3 / 4 / equivalent provide all the tools needed to move axis around using a widespread language, why not use this tool box. All we need is a clean way to record the positions of the axis + a few other values that are acquired synchronously with separate electronics equipment.  Trigger signals should be available.

I'm investigating this before engaging into a a more involved "from scratch" approach.

regards, Philippe

37
Thank you, I will have a look at it. Enjoy your day, Philippe

38
In the process of up-grading an old measurement system which has 3 axis and relies on out-of-date controls SW.

Is there a way to have Mach3 or Mach4 WRITE the numbers corresponding to every target position reached and assessed by encoders to a file ?
Browsed a little in the SDK forum without success (or not enough patience).

any hint is welcome. regards, Philippe

39
General Mach Discussion / Re: Licensing: how to update?
« on: February 08, 2018, 08:32:20 AM »
A variation of the question would be:

how to transfer a license from an "old" computer ready to die to a newer one owned by the same person who has purchased the license ?
philippe

40
The answer to my above question is simple; it is a matter of point of view.

The 5V level provided by the BoB is common to all input channels; the input pins sense a change in NEGATIVE direction.
I had (naively) assumed the opposite trend, 0V close to ground as reference and the active pins would sense a POSITIVE difference of about 5V.

LESSON 1: trust the info given by the DIAGNOSTIC screen of Mach3.

ACTION: Simply modified the signal conditioning circuitry to match to the "inverse" logic and Mach 3 behaves as before and the diagnostic screen gives coherent information.

Enjoy your evening, Philippe

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »