On 04/03/2016 12:41 PM, Jon Elson wrote: > On 04/03/2016 09:46 AM, Mark wrote: >> That's why in this theoretical discussion I asked to >> disregard the actual machine accuracy and presume you had >> the so-called perfect machine. What I was looking for was >> how precise/accurate/resolute the controller would be. > But, there is no "perfect machine". All machines have some > system for measuring position, whether stepper motors or > encoders. These MUST have some fixed resolution that can be > either moved to (stepper) or measured (encoders). While > there are physical positions that exist BETWEEN these > resolved points, they cannot be moved to by the motion > control hardware. So, all machines have a lower limit to > positional resolution. In practically ALL cases, this is > much coarser than the numerical resolution used in LinuxCNC. > > Jon
Understood there's no "perfect " machine. I was just looking for the ultimate theoretical accuracy/precision/resolution that could be gotten from the controller. Which is why I didn't want to concern the discussion with the actual machine limitations. This was started with basically a coffee table discussion on controller resolution. My original query was worded poorly because I didn't know what I didn't know, to paraphrase a certain Secretary of Defense. ;-) Thanks all for the enlightenment. Mark ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Transform Data into Opportunity. Accelerate data analysis in your applications with Intel Data Analytics Acceleration Library. Click to learn more. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=278785471&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
