At 10:36 AM 3/25/2010, you wrote:
>On 25 March 2010 14:16, Mark Wendt (Contractor)
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, I knew it was close to somewhere around 1500 something. So,
> > based on the 190.985, that would cause resolution problems at .1"
> > moves too? Guessing that the only way to fix this then would be to
> > use a different pulley then
>
>Is it really a problem? It isn't like the inaccuracy is cumulative.
>Any position of the axis will be +/- a few thou, partly made up of
>stepper errors, partly of rack backlash plus all the other factors. It
>is most noticable on tiny moves, but I doubt that this machine is
>intended to create 0.01" width features.
>
>--
>atp
Andy,
I'm not sure at this point. I'm not sure if the errors
showing up are cumulative or not. I've only been able to test over a
1 1/2" stretch on the X axis. The typical cut run down the X axis
will be between 42" and 52". I guess I need to see how much it's
going to be off at those ranges. Actually, I am looking for + or -
.001" accuracy on the strips I'm going to be cutting. That accuracy
will be the height of the triangular cross section of the strip. On
the tips of some of the rods I make, I routinely hand plane down to a
.025" flat to apex height, and can usually hit that measurement
within a thou. If the machine can't do that in production, it ain't
gonna work for me. So, I need to make it accurate.
Mark
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
Emc-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
