On 30 May 2012 03:42, Jon Elson el...@pico-systems.com wrote:
When the home command is given, both motors are given
identical step
rates toward the home position. When the first motor trips the home
switch, the
step pulses are interrupted to that motor.
I think that one would have to do
2012/5/30 andy pugh bodge...@gmail.com:
On 30 May 2012 03:42, Jon Elson el...@pico-systems.com wrote:
When the home command is given, both motors are given
identical step
rates toward the home position. When the first motor trips the home
switch, the
step pulses are interrupted to that
On 30 May 2012 10:50, Viesturs Lācis viesturs.la...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/5/30 andy pugh bodge...@gmail.com:
I think that one would have to do more than simply interrupt the
steps, as that would cause the motor to slip
And why would it do so?
Because the motor is spinning and the gantry is
2012/5/30 andy pugh bodge...@gmail.com:
On 30 May 2012 10:50, Viesturs Lācis viesturs.la...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/5/30 andy pugh bodge...@gmail.com:
I think that one would have to do more than simply interrupt the
steps, as that would cause the motor to slip
And why would it do so?
On 30 May 2012 11:15, Viesturs Lācis viesturs.la...@gmail.com wrote:
I am sure that it would work, if it is done the way I suggest:
1) home gantry with slave connected to a home switch on slave end;
2) when it is stopped; disconnect slave step signal and change X
home switch to one on master
2012/5/30 andy pugh bodge...@gmail.com:
On 30 May 2012 11:15, Viesturs Lācis viesturs.la...@gmail.com wrote:
I am sure that it would work, if it is done the way I suggest:
1) home gantry with slave connected to a home switch on slave end;
2) when it is stopped; disconnect slave step signal
On 30 May 2012 12:10, Viesturs Lācis viesturs.la...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that, while one stepgen would be disabled,
axis.0.pos-cmd would change its value and, when the stepgen would be
enabled again, it would jump to the axis.0.pos-cmd, which is exactly
what we do not want it to
2012/5/30 andy pugh bodge...@gmail.com:
On 30 May 2012 12:10, Viesturs Lācis viesturs.la...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that, while one stepgen would be disabled,
axis.0.pos-cmd would change its value and, when the stepgen would be
enabled again, it would jump to the axis.0.pos-cmd, which
2012/5/30 Jon Elson el...@pico-systems.com:
On 30 May 2012 12:10, Viesturs Lācis viesturs.la...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that, while one stepgen would be disabled,
axis.0.pos-cmd would change its value and, when the stepgen would be
enabled again, it would jump to the axis.0.pos-cmd,
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Viesturs Lācis viesturs.la...@gmail.comwrote:
2012/5/28 Bryce Johnson sie...@gmail.com:
I've just been trying to tune my gantry setup and I have had a few
problems. I am using 2.5.
I am using gantrykins with XYZX. I am trying to set up my limits for for
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 2:55 PM, andy pugh bodge...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 May 2012 20:34, Bryce Johnson sie...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems like I lose some flexibility when using gantrykins vs just
slaving
the drives together (although I would like to be able to home both X1 and
X2
2012/5/29 Bryce Johnson sie...@gmail.com:
If I remember correctly on my previous machine (3axis 3 motors), even if
the jog speed was high, it would get limited by the axis speed in the ini.
This was nice so I could jog my x and y at high speed and then my z was
limited. If on my new machine
Viesturs,
I'll grab the code and give it a try. So is Gantrykins just a trivkins
that someone compiled for those changes?
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Viesturs Lācis viesturs.la...@gmail.comwrote:
2012/5/29 Bryce Johnson sie...@gmail.com:
If I remember correctly on my previous machine
2012/5/29 Bryce Johnson sie...@gmail.com:
Viesturs,
I'll grab the code and give it a try. So is Gantrykins just a trivkins
that someone compiled for those changes?
Oh, no, far from it! Gantrykins allows any combination. You can assign
5 joints to 1 axis, if You want. It is generalised, so
On 28 May 2012 20:34, Bryce Johnson sie...@gmail.com wrote:
I am using gantrykins with XYZX. I am trying to set up my limits for for
speed on my Z axis of 180ipm. In joint mode, jogging around, it seems to
obey this. When I switch to world it doesn't listen to that limit anymore
Playing
That is true, but then I will lose the ability to square off my gantry when
I do homing. I suppose what I could open an linuxcnc with one ini in joint
mode. Close that down and open my slaved one up and home it again in place.
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 1:11 PM, andy pugh bodge...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 May 2012 19:45, Bryce Johnson sie...@gmail.com wrote:
That is true, but then I will lose the ability to square off my gantry when
I do homing.
You could just unpower the drives with F2 and push to end-stops.
I imagine (with no evidence) that the JA3 branch of LinuxCNC (which
attempts to
2012/5/29 Bryce Johnson sie...@gmail.com:
That is true, but then I will lose the ability to square off my gantry when
I do homing. I suppose what I could open an linuxcnc with one ini in joint
mode. Close that down and open my slaved one up and home it again in place.
And how will You
andy pugh wrote:
Playing with the gantry sim it seems that your observations are
correct. The axis MAX_VELOCITY INI file options are ignored in World
Mode.
This has been reported sporadically for some time, maybe at least a year.
This does seem a little unexpected. However, I have been
Bryce Johnson wrote:
That is true, but then I will lose the ability to square off my gantry when
I do homing. I suppose what I could open an linuxcnc with one ini in joint
mode. Close that down and open my slaved one up and home it again in place.
Horrors! No, there are other ways to do
On 28 May 2012 20:34, Bryce Johnson sie...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems like I lose some flexibility when using gantrykins vs just slaving
the drives together (although I would like to be able to home both X1 and
X2 independently). Is there a way to home the drives and then run it as if
they
On Mon, 28 May 2012, andy pugh wrote:
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 20:55:47 +0100
From: andy pugh bodge...@gmail.com
Reply-To: Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)
emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
To: Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC) emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Emc-users
On 28 May 2012 22:08, Peter C. Wallace p...@mesanet.com wrote:
Probably a C10 config is no big deal I would just need to know when inputs and
outputs are, and if there is a chargepump, preferred step/dir pins etc
It looks to be an uncommitted breakout, so the physical wires could
be arranged
23 matches
Mail list logo
