Hello Guest it is July 11, 2020, 05:48:47 PM

Author Topic: Has anyone replaced an Anilam M control with Mach 3 ???  (Read 7279 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Has anyone replaced an Anilam M control with Mach 3 ???
« on: December 13, 2010, 07:14:42 PM »
I have an M control I've owned since new in 86 and it's time to get a newer more supportable control. I have a Galil 2133 board to interface with my servos. My M uses glass scales in a closed loop system for positioning. Has anyone installed Mach 3 using glass scales?

If possible I'd like to locate anyone near the LosAngeles or Ventura County area that has done a Mach 3 installation and is currently using it. Please send me a PM if you have any info.

Thank You for your time

Michael

Offline kf2qd

*
  •  123 123
    • View Profile
Re: Has anyone replaced an Anilam M control with Mach 3 ???
« Reply #1 on: December 15, 2010, 04:58:08 PM »
You should understand before you start that Mach3 runs in openloop mode where the CNC you are used to runs in closed loop mode. What this means - MACH does not use feedback for posioning, it relies on the characterisics of stepper drives for posioning. The anilam control used the glass scales as feedback devices as part of the motion control function. As such you would have to have drives that can function in Step/Direction type control, and the scales would only function as Digital Readouts.

Mach3 is really a hobby level control with many great capabilities, The Anilam control was a commercial production control and the capability of higher percision ans speed. It is like comparing Apples and Pears. They are very similar and you can use them for similar uses, but there are times when you really need a Pear.

Offline Hood

*
  •  25,846 25,846
  • Carnoustie, Scotland
    • View Profile
Re: Has anyone replaced an Anilam M control with Mach 3 ???
« Reply #2 on: December 15, 2010, 05:12:33 PM »
The Galil will close the loop to the motors so it would not be open loop, granted Mach would still be open loop but that would make no difference as you would set things up so that if the motors are not where they are meant to be the Galil would fault Mach. This should never happen unless a crash or something similar occurs as the Galil will be keeping a check on the motors position and making sure they are where they are meant to be within the following error set.

Hood
Re: Has anyone replaced an Anilam M control with Mach 3 ???
« Reply #3 on: December 15, 2010, 06:57:13 PM »
Thank You for the info. After reading the post about Mach 3 not being capable of closed loop I called my friend who will be setting up the conversion for me and he just told me the same info about the Galil board taking care of positioning. I can machine parts, but anything electronic related is lost to me. Fortunately I have some friends that I've done welding and machining for who will be doing the technical stuff on the conversion. I wish my M control hadn't died, because it was easy to use and was capable of doing any 3 axis parts I ever needed. I bought it new in 86, so I'm probably lucky it has lasted this many years. Now I have to learn G code. I've escaped that need for 24 years.

Thanks

Michael

Offline Hood

*
  •  25,846 25,846
  • Carnoustie, Scotland
    • View Profile
Re: Has anyone replaced an Anilam M control with Mach 3 ???
« Reply #4 on: December 15, 2010, 07:07:04 PM »
Its best to learn G Code but if you have CAD/CAM you can get by without it which will allow you to look at the code it produces and you will start picking  it up as you go. Mach also has some wizards and might also be worth looking at the newfangled solutions addons. There is also LazyCAM which you can try, its basic but can do quite a bit. Think there may be a manual for LazyCAM in the members docs section of the forum.
Hood
Re: Has anyone replaced an Anilam M control with Mach 3 ???
« Reply #5 on: December 15, 2010, 08:14:29 PM »
I was using BobCad V17's Cam portion, but I did all my editing at the control in conversational and never bothered to learn G codes beyond the canned cycles from the M that I used. My machine was used for inhouse work for race car and aircraft parts, so it was never in use more than a few hours per week and sometimes not even that much. I often used it in manual mode for quick jobs that I didn't want to do on my manual mill without DRO's. 

Offline Hood

*
  •  25,846 25,846
  • Carnoustie, Scotland
    • View Profile
Re: Has anyone replaced an Anilam M control with Mach 3 ???
« Reply #6 on: December 16, 2010, 02:22:44 AM »
When I did my first conversion (long gone now) it was a manual Bridgeport and I kept the handles as I thought I would use it more in the beginning manually until I got used to the CNC. Well after two weeks I chopped off the handles as I had never turned them once manually. I found for simple jobs either the wizards or just MDI was much better. MDI obviously requires G Code but for simple stuff that you would do manually its just G1's and G0's

Hood

Offline ASC

*
  •  59 59
    • View Profile
    • Automation Systems
Re: Has anyone replaced an Anilam M control with Mach 3 ???
« Reply #7 on: December 30, 2010, 03:50:23 PM »
Don't forget how dangerous those wildly spinning handles can be on a G0 move!

I'm going to follow this post closely as I have an old Anilam Crusader in my shop that is ripe for conversion...  if a 100 line limit means ripe....
Mr. Creosote
Re: Has anyone replaced an Anilam M control with Mach 3 ???
« Reply #8 on: December 30, 2010, 05:03:50 PM »
I had one of the handle return springs break not long after I bought the machine back in 86. It was on the Y axis and I'm glad I wasn't standing close to it when the handle popped out of its stowed position during a rapid move.  :o Since that incident I've learned to stay slightly away from that Y handle whenever I use the machine. I like having the handles on it and they'll be there as long as I own the machine. I don't plan on ever selling it. It's been a good machine overall for the past 24 years. My friends haven't had the time to do the conversion yet. If the 513 card wasn't giving problems I wouldn't be doing anything to it. It's too bad that a turn key replacement control is so pricey. I'd rather take something from a box and bolt it on knowing everything is already integrated and made to work together than try to get the Galil, Mach 3 all dialed in, plus having to learn how to use them. Being a dinosaur, I'm used to the M as it was designed and it's served me well over the years.

Have a great New Years

Michael
« Last Edit: December 30, 2010, 05:05:38 PM by Enzo »

Offline bw

*
  •  29 29
    • View Profile
Re: Has anyone replaced an Anilam M control with Mach 3 ???
« Reply #9 on: December 30, 2010, 06:12:28 PM »
I just got done doing a retrofit on an old crusader M.  I went with the ajax setup and mach, and have to say I am very pleased with it.  While mach may not be the best of the best, I found it very easy to get the hang of and I was making chips again in no time.  Ajax install support is poor but the system itself is good. The prices on the old stuff was just getting to out of hand to continue putting money into it.  If anybody is looking for M parts I have a full working system as well as a brand new Z encoder, and I wouldn't want the insane prices people are asking.  I would rather see them go to someone who can use them and recoup a little of the retro cost.