Hello Guest it is July 18, 2019, 07:42:19 AM

Author Topic: Maximum processing speed?  (Read 7695 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hood

*
  •  25,849 25,849
  • Carnoustie, Scotland
    • View Profile
Re: Maximum processing speed?
« Reply #30 on: February 13, 2015, 06:29:22 AM »
Would be surprised if you do see it on the part.

Hood
Re: Maximum processing speed?
« Reply #31 on: February 13, 2015, 03:57:40 PM »
Only one way to find out.  Simulation window doesn't depict how the material actually reacts to tool strikes. 

Offline BR549

*
  •  6,874 6,874
    • View Profile
Re: Maximum processing speed?
« Reply #32 on: February 13, 2015, 05:37:05 PM »
ALSO look to reduce the feedrate to just above the average you see when running the code. Trying to run the machine at 500 when the best it will average with combined moves is about 100  can SLOW the overall process. 

Just a thought, (;-) TP
Re: Maximum processing speed?
« Reply #33 on: February 14, 2015, 03:44:32 AM »
I don't see how reducing the feedrate alone would improve it.  Now you often can improve acceleration if you reduce feedrate, and then the greater acceleration will help, but using a slower speed alone will always be worse.

I found 0.004 tolerance DID notably degrade the wood's appearance.  However, 0.002 was only marginally slower than 0.004 and I didn't see any artifacts.

Offline BR549

*
  •  6,874 6,874
    • View Profile
Re: Maximum processing speed?
« Reply #34 on: February 14, 2015, 03:02:16 PM »
We did a LOT of 3d testing in the early days of Mach3 (;-)

(;-) TP
Re: Maximum processing speed?
« Reply #35 on: February 14, 2015, 04:15:05 PM »
Well, I did look at lowered feedrates BTW.  It's always the same or slightly worse to lower the feedrate.  I don't understand how it could  improve it??
Re: Maximum processing speed?
« Reply #36 on: April 23, 2016, 03:04:28 PM »
With linuxcnc you have a path tolerance..  Times are as follows..  (btw the linuxcnc has a very poorly implemented run time estimate - doesn't take into account acceleration - says 8.1 minutes. ;) )

Follow path within (using 40in/s^2-600ipm for xy and 50in/s^2-200ipm for z)
.001" = 44min21sec http://electronicsam.com/images/KandT/testing/forum/Screenshot%20from%202015-02-12%2017:27:51.png
.005" = 32min25sec http://electronicsam.com/images/KandT/testing/forum/Screenshot%20from%202015-02-12%2016:15:06.png
.010" = 25min27sec http://electronicsam.com/images/KandT/testing/forum/Screenshot%20from%202015-02-12%2016:41:28.png

Follow path within (using 200in/s^2-600ipm for xy and 200in/s^2-600ipm for z)
.001" = 21min16sec http://electronicsam.com/images/KandT/testing/forum/Screenshot%20from%202015-02-12%2018:12:31.png
.005" = 15min43sec http://electronicsam.com/images/KandT/testing/forum/Screenshot%20from%202015-02-12%2018:32:46.png
.010" = 12min33sec http://electronicsam.com/images/KandT/testing/forum/Screenshot%20from%202015-02-12%2018:58:18.png

Now one with Follow path within (using 300in/s^2-600ipm for xy and 300in/s^2-600ipm for z)
.001" = 17min45sec http://electronicsam.com/images/KandT/testing/forum/Screenshot%20from%202015-02-12%2019:49:09.png

This is using the new 2.7 pre-release version of linuxcnc (2.6.4 is current release).  It has a lot better trajectory planner in it.  (hope to release soon)  But it seems not too far off from what mach was doing.  (although increasing acc does increase cut speed)

sam

It's been awhile skunkworks, but if you're still around, plz tell me- HOW do you get these figures?  Did you actually have to spend 44 min of real time measuring the run, or is there an effective simulator that doesn't actually spend realtime?