Chris Radek wrote: > (I don't recommend any of this. Getting a suitable encoder or > suitable hardware to read the existing one is so much better.) > > Yes, a slight fudging of the encoder signals to keep within software range might be OK, but the extreme case presented by the OP is so FAR away that it seems like one of those "will never work" situations. If I remember the numbers right, he is about 4.44 times to slow to track the quadrature counter at 1000 RPM. His reading of losing track at ~200 RPM also indicates that is the right figure. Some people might be OK with threading at 200 RPM, but once you have CNC, there's no need to restrict yourself to that.
Either a hardware encoder counter or a MUCH lower-resolution encoder is the solution. (As a seller of hardware encoder counters, I may be biased as to the correct solution to this problem.......) Jon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
