I'm working with the Daniel's lathe style toolchange patch to
get it into master branch. Aside from fixing it to use an INI switch
and a small bug with loading tools without wear offsets.
I have questions:
Some back ground:
This patch allows tool changes by just issuing the T code, no M6
required.
It also applies geometry offsets and optionally, wear offsets at the same
time.
By geometry offsets - I mean the nominal tool length offsets and insert
orientation.
T1 would index to tool 1 and apply geometry offsets (no wear offsets)
T101 would index to tool 1 and apply wear offsets # 1
T102 would index to tool 1 and apply wear offsets #2
Note: wear offsets and tool number do not need to be the same.
Ok all pretty standard lathe stuff.
To cover this in the tool file there are entries for tool geometry and entries
for wear.
To differentiate between them there is an 10000 offset added to the geometry
number.
That is tool 1 is entered in the toolfile as tool 10001
tool 2 is 10002 etc.
wear offsets are entered as wear offset # 1 is tool 1
wear offset is tool # 2
Because of this 10000 offset (which is a Fanuc thing by the way) and the way it
was applied
linuxcnc current pops up a dialog to ask for tool 10001 instead of tool 1.
Ok here comes the questions.
The patch references a cnc book 'cnc fundamentals' by Peter Smid.
I can't find a reference on the web for this particular title. Anyone got one?
The patch applies the 10000 offset to the geometry entry rather then the wear
offset entry.
To me this is a bit confusing. In a tool file I would think tool 1 basic info
would be under tool 1,
not tool 10001. I can more easily wrap my head around wear offsets under the
10001.
While I can easily hide this problem under a special tool editor program, it
also affects the tool dialog pop that requests a manual tool change -hmm and
probably an automatic tool change - I never checked the hal pin number.
I propose that I switch it the geometry would be entered under tool n and wear
offsets under tool 1000n.
Is there any foreseeable problem with that?
By that I mean compared to common practice of other controls.
This patch will be used with the Tormach lathe as I understand it - it would be
nice if their way was the same as ours.
I have referenced what I could find on the web about Fanuc lathes and this
seems to be the way they had it - at least for A/B controls (roughly anyways, A
and B did it slightly different from each other).
Chris M
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AlienVault Unified Security Management (USM) platform delivers complete
security visibility with the essential security capabilities. Easily and
efficiently configure, manage, and operate all of your security controls
from a single console and one unified framework. Download a free trial.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/alienvault_d2d
_______________________________________________
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
