On 23 October 2014 08:26, Gregg Eshelman <g_ala...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> The complexity arises in detecting failures and responding >> appropriately. (imagine if the air went off and the spindle didn't >> release). > > Wire an air pressure sensor switch into the e-stop circuit, same as you > would any other system you want to have stop the machine if it fails.
My point was that normal G-code just implicitly assumes that everything works. If you are coding a tool-changer as a G-code routine then you can't just issue a sequence of moves and rotations, you have to make sure that nothing has gone wrong at every stage and respond appropriately. And it might not be as simple as E-stop. (As an example, my Z axis is a moving table. It drops when the power goes off. I wouldn't want that to happen part way through a tool-change if I had a rack toolchanger, so the correct response to a failed tool-release or loss of air would not be to e-stop in that situation) I am not saying that it is difficult as such, but that the underlying paradigm is not the same as a normal G-code routine. -- atp If you can't fix it, you don't own it. http://www.ifixit.com/Manifesto ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
