Hello Guest it is December 06, 2019, 02:03:04 PM

Author Topic: Mach4 question  (Read 3456 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mach4 question
« on: October 07, 2013, 08:23:07 PM »
Hello
I have a mill where the spindle drive can accept a step and direction signal but the resolution is very high. At full speed the step signal would need to be 104kHz. This is much to fast for Mach3 but would it be possible to control a signal like this with the new version of Mach4. I am trying to decide to attempt to use another method of controlling the spindle speed or wait for mach4.

Thanks,
Paul

Offline BR549

*
  •  6,916 6,916
    • View Profile
Re: Mach4 question
« Reply #1 on: October 07, 2013, 08:30:34 PM »
Mach4 itself will not be doing anything but the front end for a seperate motion controller.

Mach3 can also drive a seperate controller and that is what you need to use to get the step rate up to above what you need.

(;-) TP
Re: Mach4 question
« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2013, 08:47:14 PM »
My problem with mach3 with my application is that the spindle steps per revolution are so high that mach3 could not support the steps at full speed. The drive form my spindle is set up for 2048 steps per revolution and has a top speed of 9000 rpm that is equal to 307200 steps per second. Mach3 has cannot support this pulse speed along with the steps for the axis. My hope is that mach4 will have a greater pulse per second ability.

Offline BR549

*
  •  6,916 6,916
    • View Profile
Re: Mach4 question
« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2013, 09:06:07 PM »
OK i will say it one more time (;-) Mach4 will not generate any steps it controls an outside motion controller that generates the actual steps. SO it will depend on the motion controller as to HOW MANY step it can create per second.  NOTE there will be a LPT driver available but the specs have not been set that I know of

Mach 3 has the same capacity in that respect it CAN control and outside controller and that controller sets the steps per sec value NOT mach3.

Does that clear it up, (;-) TP

Offline dude1

*
  •  1,253 1,253
    • View Profile
Re: Mach4 question
« Reply #4 on: October 07, 2013, 09:42:06 PM »
you will need something like a ess it is what can do, what you wont http://warp9td.com/

Offline ger21

*
  • *
  •  6,289 6,289
    • View Profile
    • The CNC Woodworker
Re: Mach4 question
« Reply #5 on: October 07, 2013, 10:16:17 PM »
While Mach4 isn't available yet, it more than likely will support the same motion controllers that Mach3 currently does, so if you buy one of the better supported (non chinese) models, you should be able to use it with Mach3 now and then with Mach4 when it's released. I don't expect a fully functional and bug free Mach4 for at least a year, but you never know.
Gerry

2010 Screenset
http://www.thecncwoodworker.com/2010.html

JointCAM Dovetail and Box Joint software
http://www.g-forcecnc.com/jointcam.html

Offline dude1

*
  •  1,253 1,253
    • View Profile
Re: Mach4 question
« Reply #6 on: October 07, 2013, 10:22:39 PM »
just saw a youtube vid of mach4 doing tool changeing he was useing a ess

Offline mc

*
  •  381 381
    • View Profile
Re: Mach4 question
« Reply #7 on: October 08, 2013, 11:54:31 AM »
As others have said, although not to clearly, is Mach in either form is not the limiting factor. The limiting factor is the hardware being used to generate the steps.
A computer printer port is only good to 100kHz, but reliability at anything above the lower settings (33 & 40Khz?) can be an issue.

What you need is some form of external controller, such as a SmoothStepper which is good to 4Mhz. Another possible options that I can think of are a KFlop, or a CS-Lab whatever (CSMIO?), but there are others offering various features.
Re: Mach4 question
« Reply #8 on: October 08, 2013, 07:11:39 PM »
What I was missing was the use of an external motion controller to the computer. I have always used the parallel port for my motion control with very good success. This spindle application is the first time I have had an issue. I thought the method of the Mach 3 processing was limiting the step speed not the parallel port. This is why I thought mach 4 could have helped.
Thanks for the suggestions. I will look at the smooth stepper.
Paul