Hello Guest it is July 12, 2020, 12:26:52 AM

Author Topic: More inputs and outputs needed in Mach3  (Read 8844 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: More inputs and outputs needed in Mach3
« Reply #10 on: December 25, 2015, 06:08:37 PM »
CL-Labs CISMO
Website: http://www.cs-lab.eu/en/sklep-dzial-2,-,-CNC_Motion_control_systems_CSMIO_products_sets.html

3 x Offerings, really, in your case of I/O's you would be looking at the CSMIO/IP-S
If you scroll to the bottom of this page there is a comparison of all of the devices:
http://www.cs-lab.eu/en/produkt-2,2-CSMIOIPS___6_axis_Ethernet_Motion_Controller_STEPDIR_with_connectors.html

Costs, module options are here: http://www.cs-lab.eu/en/sklep-dzial-2,-,-CNC_Motion_control_systems_CSMIO_products_sets.html

Manual here: http://www.cs-lab.eu/en/upload/pdf/User_Manual_CSMIOIPS_EN_v2.1.pdf

personally I really like them, and nearly bought one, what slowed me down... cost... but then I did not account for my final break out board solution.

What I really like... ethernet (same as the ESS), and 24V input.... much less prone to noise and interference (especially when running a plasma).

I may still buy one depending upon M4 development of the ESS.  At the moment there seems little point to jump ship when a new M4 plugin is upcoming for the ESS.   Also suffering from "sunk cost effect" considering the ESS cost + bob costs.

What put me off (at that time).... torch height control... they are basically running it using the Mach3 THC plugin and using their analog inputs ... what you have to do is get (or build) an isolated voltage divider circuit to read your torch voltage in simple terms.   I have designed my own THC, just need to get around to finishing it, and now understand a whole load more than I did when I was shopping around for an USBSS replacement.  THC with motion controllers can be problematic a) it's not implemented, b) its rudimentary, c) requires other hardware from the same manufacturer.

One of the concerns with THC and using the M3 plugin is the M3 loop speed.... on a fast plasma cut M3 will lag quite far behind in mm before responding.

Plus looks like they have issued their M4 plugin in line with the latest M4 update at this time (2803)

May not have implemented M10/M11 (yet either, but believe that it will be implemented in M4 plugin) older post here on it (but does not really apply to the original posters requirements from the above responses). http://www.machsupport.com/forum/index.php/topic,30020.0.html
Rob

Albert Einstein ― “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

Offline BR549

*
  •  6,932 6,932
    • View Profile
Re: More inputs and outputs needed in Mach3
« Reply #11 on: December 25, 2015, 06:43:46 PM »
You also need to understand is the ESS has larger memory and I think A larger faster processor. THAT can make a BIG difference in what you can have programmed on the motion unit itself.  With an outside controller the controller has to be the Big Brain and do ALL of teh actual motion through pulsing ect AND do limits homing,probing. The PC just becomes the basic  planner.

Commercial CNCs have been using that scheme for decades Most also run Windows as the user interface and either use Ethernet or Fiber ethernet for teh Com link. Fiber link is also nothing new for CNC it has been around for a long time now and very stable. When the USB SS  was first being planned I talked to Greg about fiber link (;-). Other controllers had been using it for years even some DIY units.

The New UC400 ETH  from CNCdrives is reported to have a  large memory and a wickedly fast processor and ethernet with their OWN com protocol that makes the Com side almost real time in nature. Contrary to popular believe even real time controllers have a buffer (;-)

Also the old MsDOS 6.0  made a nice controller and it was real time as well.  There are STILL modern Commercial controllers that run MSdos as it's OS.

Just  a thought, (;-) TP
Re: More inputs and outputs needed in Mach3
« Reply #12 on: December 26, 2015, 12:16:13 AM »
So traditional or old things may not be no good, like LDPT. If I am not run out of I/Os, I would not intend to use the other additional plugins. Noise interference is very problematic and root causes are needed to be addressed in first hand, I would do it later ......My cases are..

My diy sinker edm machine releases a 600w power in a spark which is at high frequency. For the diy circuit boards, diy housing compartments, even the diy shelding cables and a large number of wrap wires inside, it is not unlikely has interference issue. It works in LinuxCNC on a desktop computer. Usually, computers are designed with better noise immunity which have multi-layer boards that includes a ground plane whereas my diy boards cannot have. However, the big spark also caused the computer screen disappeared a second, I didn't measure and know if the cnc portion, that is the motion path had the affect or not at that time.

My cnc router, on the other hand, is a completely European-factory made. The complete set came along with all cables, I only added a second hand old type desktop computer. It locates at my room. At the early time of usage, this happened. In the midst of running codes and cutting. Wenever I swiched on the room's ceiling fluorescent/neon? lamp, it went wrongly and the workpiece and cutting tool were ruined. From that time onwards, I got an habit to pause the running codes before doing any switching of my room's light. As I tolerate it, I don't do any further investigations and fixing that issue. The stepper controller box was a  well-built one with ac line filters, only small size Nema 23 stepper motors, a only 1000W Kress spindle, computer runs Windows XP on a AMD CPU.....who know what's the problem!
Re: More inputs and outputs needed in Mach3
« Reply #13 on: December 26, 2015, 03:03:18 AM »
UC400 ETH sounds interesting, there other boards seem well supported (although m3 only).  Can't see anything on their website.
Rob

Albert Einstein ― “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”
Re: More inputs and outputs needed in Mach3
« Reply #14 on: December 26, 2015, 04:54:32 AM »
Raychar

Other options could be arduino or Pokeys u57 as well as modbus.

You have two LPT ports which you can consider as your high speed IO's now consider to free us some space on the two LTP ports if you cannot remove some of the lower speed stuff to use arduino or Pokeys u57 as a keyboard emulator to use oemtriggers to do some of the more mundane stuff like coolant pumps, fans or whatever else you have that only requires 10hz.

This would be similar to modus and using brains.

Have you got a pinout list of your two LTP ports of what you are using each pin for?

Rob
Rob

Albert Einstein ― “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”
Re: More inputs and outputs needed in Mach3
« Reply #15 on: December 26, 2015, 08:33:07 AM »
Rob,

>As mentioned before, my second LDPT is for the toolchanger box use. Since there are a lot of hardware keys, Leds, limit switches and two d.c. motors to be controlled, a Microchip MCU is installed there. There is program, together with V.B. program in marcopump, they colaborate with each other to do logical functions/control on those hardwares. It demonstrated to work well. However,  in the very near future, I will make the version two. In that, less amount hardware keys will be used, each manual tool holder selection buttons still preserve but thet will be resided to Mach3 screen as virtual keys and leds.

For five tool holders which have their individual sensors, 5 inputs. Two motors, one is for door cover which will be sensed bytwo limit switches, another 2 inputs and 4 outputs(each motorneed to be controlled in forward and backward directions). The lock motor needs 1 input more for some special function as well. In that configuration, I intend to delete the MCU in the toolchanger box and to solely do the control by marcopump program...

> The first LDPT has some ports for coolant pump and spindle controls, when they are controlled by codes and run in M-codes, they are not supposed to resided to the external control by Arduino nor MCU. Pokeys is not my choice at the time being, it says it can be easily programmed graphically, personally, I like to do them by C in MCU or Arduino that I learned, at least, I know every inside them...
Re: More inputs and outputs needed in Mach3
« Reply #16 on: December 26, 2015, 09:18:32 AM »
For the noise interference, I also recalll that...

> when I designed a small electronic item which involved the using a MCU, I was told that different brands have different level of interference susceptibility. Even a substitution one which has exactly the same function and which can directly run same program code, they exhibit a slight difference in this level. A tester which output an in-rush cuurent was demonstrated and proved at that time. That told me layout inside the I.C. is of important. Of course better IC didn't resolve the problem all. I can say only 20 percent roughly, another may be the circuit, pcb layout designs....Later on, a small a.c. line filter (choke coil and capacitors) was added. By using the cheaper grade substituted MCU, the product passed the test and were shipped out.

> for a diy project some time ago, it involved the using a real time clock I.C., I run it in dry battery or d.c. and it posed no problem at all. But it failed in rectified d.c. (from a.c. line)...even though how well I made on the rectified circuit. The I.C. is not a new one and widerly used in a.c. operated products. This may tell me that a same type I.C. which is of different batch in production or there is minor malfunction inside, they may affect its interference susceptibility.

Offline BR549

*
  •  6,932 6,932
    • View Profile
Re: More inputs and outputs needed in Mach3
« Reply #17 on: December 26, 2015, 12:39:44 PM »
I would consider moving all teh axis control over to a LPT port the use teh left over pins for other I/O control or another means of I/O (modbus,etc) for the non critical I/O.  Doing the Tool Changer as a PLC is always a good idea as then you just talk to teh PLC to request and confirm a ttol change and not use up valueable port/ pins.

Then you can consider moving to an outside controller as is mentioned that way with a controller like teh UC300 you have 5 ports plus analog in and out to have available.
Re: More inputs and outputs needed in Mach3
« Reply #18 on: December 26, 2015, 02:00:55 PM »
Hi to all.
I've been reading this post as I have build my CNC router 10 years ago with Rutex servo drivers and like you have had these problems, particularly interference. The most important thing is to ground ONLY at one end of the shielding, don't connect or bridge from another end and the most important is to ground at the power supply. This has been my experience both as a CNC hobbyist and as a professional at work.

I too am planning to build my second CNC and since Rutex (the place I bought my servo drivers) are no longer functional, have been looking at CNCdrives, from what I see and read, these look sturdy, however have not seen much posts on the forum of how others who bought are doing with them.

Offline BR549

*
  •  6,932 6,932
    • View Profile
Re: More inputs and outputs needed in Mach3
« Reply #19 on: December 26, 2015, 05:40:16 PM »
I know several people using their servo drives and they love them. VERY dependable.

The CNCdrive  controllers are ALSO supported in their OWN CNC software Interface  > UCCNC , also very nice to use, very easy to setup. It is NICE when the Same people design and build both the Controller Hardware and Controller software . Hard to be able to make any excuses as to why things do not work properly.

(;-) TP