Author Topic: 1989 Bridgeport interact 412 Mach3 conversion  (Read 22560 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Johann

  • Active Member
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
1989 Bridgeport interact 412 Mach3 conversion
« on: June 05, 2013, 05:38:36 PM »
Hi people!

I'm Johann from the Netherlands.
Bought an old BPi412 a while ago.



Machine was supposed to have lost it's parameters. Price was accordingly and some tools came with the machine.
After receiving the machine it turned out the parameters were still there but the Bosch servo amp had a problem.



An attempt to repair the amp didn't work out so I decided to replace the servo's.
To at least be able to use a mill I ran in to another BP, a 308, at an auction and also bought this fully functional machine. While working with the machine with a HH 2500 control I came to the conclusion the 2500 was a tad to limited for what I wanted to do. A fun machine and with CAM software things were possible but communication and also the machine's memory are slow and limited.
It got me thinking about the BPi412 with it's HH 355 control. After checking on servo drives it also turned out that the encoders make things difficult or expensive better said.
Eventually I decided to rebuild to Mach3. A bit of a gamble. Not much experience with Mach nor G-code but I thought it was nice challenge.
This forum has been a great help to get to that decision. Next question was about the setup. Which controller to use and which servo's. Eventually I decided to use a CSMIO/IP-S in combination with 750Watt Delta ASDA-B2 servo's.
Not having electrical diagrams of the machine made it an even bigger challenge.
While waiting for the Bosch amp repair I partially took the machine apart.



This to clean up the huge mess inside the machine and also to paint the inside of the machine white to make it appear a bit less depressing, a bit more light inside. I want to keep the outside as old looking as it is.

Also repaired the ATC,

Before,



After,



Welded a crack in the turret mount and replaced the bearings. Cleaned everything and added some paint and grease.

After receiving a Delta servo motor I made new mounting plates for the motors and ordered new pulleys and belts,



Removed the Bosch cabinet from the machine and made a new placeholder for the Delta drives,



About three weeks ago I ordered a CSMIO straight from CS-Labs in Poland. Also ordered an MPG unit with it. Removed most of the electrical parts from the machine. Managed to find a very bad quality diagram of the machine and discovered that I had removed to much from the cabinet..  ;D
After 5 days the CSMIO arrived and I started rewiring the cabinet. The Fanuc Spindle was a bit of a headache but eventually I managed to trace all the pins. Got the Fanuc working with the CSMIO. Spindle Orientation is also functional. Reused the ATC motor and used the original wiring with it. Basically managed to get all the OEM parts working. Only tested one drive so far because I'm still waiting for cables. Drive appears to work well. Needs some fine tuning when everything is in place.
Not being an electrical guy I think the cabinet looks pretty neat so far,



My biggest fear is the ATC. Did a lot of reading on this forum and decided to take a look at, the amazing, JHChoppers's script.

After having the pneumatics up and running I did some trial and error testing. I'm not a VB scripter by any means but after about an hour I managed to get the ATC to initialise and count pockets. Somehow the LED's of the Airblast, tool release and ram movement aren't working but the buttons are doing what they're supposed to do. Orient needs to be done. No clue about monitoring the Fanuc spindle though.

Just wanted to share and also thank JHChoppers for the great script.

 

Offline Hood

  • Mach4 Alpha
  • Posts: 25,774
  • Carnoustie, Scotland
    • View Profile
Re: 1989 Bridgeport interact 412 Mach3 conversion
« Reply #1 on: June 08, 2013, 03:33:04 AM »
Looks great and I agree, your wiring is very nice and neat :)
Personally I think the IP-A is the better choice but the IP-S is still an excellent controller and I am sure you will like it a lot.

Hood

Offline Johann

  • Active Member
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
Re: 1989 Bridgeport interact 412 Mach3 conversion
« Reply #2 on: June 14, 2013, 03:10:41 AM »
Looks great and I agree, your wiring is very nice and neat :)
Personally I think the IP-A is the better choice but the IP-S is still an excellent controller and I am sure you will like it a lot.

Hood

The S has a bit more IO standard. Also CSLabs recommends the S for a modern setup. I already had the M so the choice for the S was pretty much obvious. So far it is working for me although I'm starting to run out of IO.

Have the machine running now from the computer screen. Still need to make the operator panel. Order a couple of buttons and a hand wheel. Started mounting a monitor to the panel,



Not sure about the layout of the controls yet...

Offline Hood

  • Mach4 Alpha
  • Posts: 25,774
  • Carnoustie, Scotland
    • View Profile
Re: 1989 Bridgeport interact 412 Mach3 conversion
« Reply #3 on: June 14, 2013, 03:46:04 AM »
I am not sure why CS-Lab say that but from my point of view the A is the controller of choice. I have used the S and M on two other retrofits and both are excellent controllers, the A however has advantages  over the S and M and will be what I use on the big lathe when threading can be done correctly (Mach issue at the moment but Brian is working on it :)  )

With the Step/Dir models there is no encoder feedback to update Machs DROs, that means any time you take Mach out of reset you need to home as there is a good chance the axes have moved slightly from  previous positions, that is especially true of a Z axis. When I press Reset on my Chiron the Z will fall slightly as it takes a few mS for the brake to hold, the X and Y may also move depending on forces acting on them. As the A updates Machs DROs from encoder values Mach always knows exactly where the axis is so when I take out of reset I do not have to re-home. Also moving an axis manually when servos are disabled will update Machs position.
 Another nice thing the A has the advantage over the S for is the Index homing. The S can do it but depending on servo drives you may require additional hardware, the A you dont need anything extra.
 The only disadvantage the A has compared to the S is less I/O but an extra I/O module would make up for that, obviously thats extra cost compared to the S.
 So basically with the exception of the amount of I/O the A does everything the S does but it also does more which in my opinion makes it the better of the two.

As said however the S is an excellent controller and you will be delighted with it.

Hood
 

Offline Johann

  • Active Member
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
Re: 1989 Bridgeport interact 412 Mach3 conversion
« Reply #4 on: June 14, 2013, 04:34:45 AM »
I believe you  :)

But I had to make a decision and noticed this writing on CSLabs's site,

Quote
Step/dir control type has the advantage that the control signal is transmitted digitally and all motor control loops are in the drive, synchronized with each other, making this system work more precisely. However- analog control allows you to connect some old servo-drives, which can be a great advantage for people who want to retrofit their control system on old-type tool machine.

This and that I already had an IP-M made me decide to go for the S. With the M I only did some testing with a couple of steppers and started on a scrap build router using hybrid stepper drives but is a slow going project. I assumed Mach would use the controller in a similar way. Never knew the A will keep the position at all time.



Very far from finished though..

For the Z-axis I use the drive's output for the brake function. This because the drive knows when the motor is powered. The assumption here is that it will account for the latency. The only remark I have with this is that it appears the brake is operated more frequent compared to when operated by an external control.
Index has been set up as recommended by CSLabs.


Offline Hood

  • Mach4 Alpha
  • Posts: 25,774
  • Carnoustie, Scotland
    • View Profile
Re: 1989 Bridgeport interact 412 Mach3 conversion
« Reply #5 on: June 14, 2013, 06:25:35 AM »
My brake is also via my drive and yes you can configure the drive to apply the brake before the axis is disabled, however you will still have forces acting in that situation and when you remove the drives enable it will still likely move a small amount. The amount mine moves is small but it has still moved and thus each time you do that with the Step/Dir controllers the axis will be out of position. Also enabling the drive will likely move the axis slightly, and this is not just Z but all axes, again it will be a small amount but as Mach does not know anything about it you need to home after each and every time you take Mach out of reset. Its no big deal and it is something I do on all of my other machines that use SmoothStepper, Ethernet SmoothStepper and also the CSMIO/IP-S and M but it is nice not having to take that into consideration when using the IP-A controlled Chiron

Regarding the quote you attached from CS-Lab, well that can be true to a certain extent but there are a few other things to factor in. For example the drives you have are only closing the loop to their respective  motors. With  the IP-A the loop is closed in the control itself which is able to view ALL axis at the same time and I would imagine that would then allow the IP-A to then control all axis in sync with each other.

Again dont get me wrong, a step/dir setup with well tuned drives will be extremely precise, my big lathe and Beaver mill are but the IP-A is a step up from that from my experience.



Hood

Offline Dan13

  • Active Member
  • Posts: 1,244
    • View Profile
    • DY Engineering
Re: 1989 Bridgeport interact 412 Mach3 conversion
« Reply #6 on: June 14, 2013, 08:22:37 AM »
Good work Johann. I like Delta servos. Their A2 series implement the technology used in the Mitsubishi J2S and J3 drives, for resonance suppression and continuous real time auto tuning. I am interested how you got the Fanuc VFD to work?

Dan

Offline poppabear

  • Global Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 2,231
  • Briceville, TN, USA
    • View Profile
    • S S Systems, LLC
Re: 1989 Bridgeport interact 412 Mach3 conversion
« Reply #7 on: June 14, 2013, 09:21:16 AM »
"Eventually I decided to rebuild to Mach3. A bit of a gamble. Not much experience with Mach nor G-code but I thought it was nice challenge."

Wow, if your doing this level of work, and not much experience, then I will LOVE to see your work, when you become experienced!!!  Your work, is EXCELLENT, Great Job!!

I have never used the CSMIO/IP-x, series of controllers.......  but the way Hood is going on and on about them, maybe I should try one!!

Again, really nice work!!

Scott
Commercial Mach3 & Mach 4, Design/Build/Retrofit CNC and Industrial machines.
http://www.ss-systems-llc.com/

Offline Johann

  • Active Member
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
Re: 1989 Bridgeport interact 412 Mach3 conversion
« Reply #8 on: June 15, 2013, 06:50:44 AM »
I am interested how you got the Fanuc VFD to work?

Dan


Biggest issue was that I didn't have info about the connector. Which wire did what. A huge puzzle.
The Fanuc uses 0-10v speed, CW and CCW direction, Alarm, Drive ready, Speed achieved and zero speed, Orient and orient achieved and E-stop.


"Eventually I decided to rebuild to Mach3. A bit of a gamble. Not much experience with Mach nor G-code but I thought it was nice challenge."

Wow, if your doing this level of work, and not much experience, then I will LOVE to see your work, when you become experienced!!!  Your work, is EXCELLENT, Great Job!!

I have never used the CSMIO/IP-x, series of controllers.......  but the way Hood is going on and on about them, maybe I should try one!!

Again, really nice work!!

Scott

Thank you Sir!

I only worked with Heidenhain dialog so far. Have been working with a 410 for a couple of years. The 308's 2500 is a bit older dialog and missing some cycles compared to the 410. Both can do G-code (ISO) but I never bothered. G-code is new for me. I think it has been 6-7 month since I started using, or testing better said, Mach3 and most has been configuring Mach itself. I have been working with computers all my live and learned an older programming language some 30 years ago so I'm not totally unfamiliar with the matter but a lot is forgotten over the years.. From the electronics side I do have some recent experience wiring cars, retrofitting standalone engine management systems in this case, and in the past I did maintenance on printing presses. So also here not totally unfamiliar. Never rebuild a wiring cabinet to this extend though. I did have some help but wanted to do the actual wiring myself.  

A small video clip of the first run.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/omeSv9P2cy0" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/omeSv9P2cy0</a>

(There a loud air compressor running in the background)
« Last Edit: June 15, 2013, 07:02:33 AM by Johann »

Offline Dan13

  • Active Member
  • Posts: 1,244
    • View Profile
    • DY Engineering
Re: 1989 Bridgeport interact 412 Mach3 conversion
« Reply #9 on: June 15, 2013, 11:46:32 AM »
Hi Johann,

Would you share the Fanuc connector pinout?

Dan