On 6 November 2012 00:28, Sven Wesley <svenne.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > Wow, sensitive subject. Are _you_ serious?
Getting cold up there in the Baltic? It seems you are both getting a bit too excited by this subject. You can skate across and fight it out in the middle soon :-) > I have also already stated that latency dropped > with 50 % on the existing controller when it was running headless If 50% improvement is all that you need, then this might be worthwhile. My scepticism is based on a more subtle consideration which applies to stepper systems, however I think yours is a step-servo system so this might not apply. When you are pushing software step generation to its limits you find that the gaps between the available step rates get wider. Taking the example of a 25uS base thread, you can either step every 1, 2 or 3 threads, giving you top-end pulse frequencies of 40kHz, 20kHz or 13kHz. At some point the steps become bigger than the physical system can follow and the motors will stall somewhere short of the theoretical top speed. In systems where the step generation clock is a few MHz (Pico or Mesa FPGAs, SmoothStepper, other stuff I can't recall right now) this "granularity" limit is well above the practical speed limits of a stepper system. A step-servo system will have its own internal position-tracking control loops and may be immune to this issue. -- atp If you can't fix it, you don't own it. http://www.ifixit.com/Manifesto ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LogMeIn Central: Instant, anywhere, Remote PC access and management. Stay in control, update software, and manage PCs from one command center Diagnose problems and improve visibility into emerging IT issues Automate, monitor and manage. Do more in less time with Central http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein12331_d2d _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
