Hello, Sorry if I came out rude, that was not my intention.
As for BBB and EtherCat, if you use the ”standard” one with a LAN port you dont need a cape at all, assuming that you would be able to sacrifice the ring topology. Running it headless and using a usb wlan, you would be able to keep the “wlan part”. The igh EtherCat master stack can be installed to the BBB and there is an EtherCat Hal driver https://github.com/sittner/linuxcnc-ethercat And yes BBB is a popular “mcu”. My talk about mcu’s was related to slave nodes. As it will be pretty much impossible to make a cape that suits everyones needs, maybe a practical way would be to put the most common stuff in while still maintaining a decent price and foot print. With the popular mcu, I meant something like pairing and STM32 with the EtherCat slave controller. Then either have the pins exposed or let the community make different slaves (or both). I mean using an arduino IDE to make EtherCat slaves, I doubt Beckhoff guys were imagining that 5 years ago. The HW part of and EtherCat slave, if you just consider a slave controller and mcu, is not very difficult to make. I apologize as I’m probably steering the conversation a bit away from the original cape discussion. keskiviikko 10. kesäkuuta 2020 Stephen Bell <[email protected]> kirjoitti: > The BBB would be the master for my use case, with devices such as > servomotor drivers as slaves in a dual-redundant topology. I use the BBB > Wireless, and thus don't have the onboard RJ-45. > > The other industrial connections would also be necessary, particularly in > a push-connector form factor, rather than screw terminals (additional > points if they can be accessed when on a *DIN rail* > <https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07DS2G78J/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1> > ). > > Isn't the BBB a 'popular MCU'? The thread is intended to take suggestions > for a new machinekit cape design, not alternative MCUs. But if an EtherCAT > cape is as trivial as you describe, send me a production sample and I'll > pay a lot more than 2 cents. > > On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 4:25:43 PM UTC-4, Juha Heikkila wrote: >> >> Hmm out of curiosity why would you require 2 separate EtherCat ports or >> is it just for a ring topology? >> >> If you can settle for just one, you could run the igh EtherCat master >> stack on the BBB and use available LAN port. So if one is enough, no need >> to mixup the cape with the EtherCat stuff. >> >> ”Ideally” for an industrial approach you could do ”minimal” setup on the >> cape and then (I think someone suggested this in the past) make a bunch of >> EtherCat slaves. Using a microchip LAN9252 coupled with a microcontoller is >> relatively simple to make and somewhat cheap. From the top of my head ill >> say the 9252 requires some 50 components around it and most just resistors >> and capacitors. The EtherCat slave license ”comes with” the LAN9252 so no >> issues >> >> If you pair the slave controller with a popular mcu I think the community >> could do a lot in the EtherCat slave world. >> >> Just my 2 cents. >> >> tiistai 9. kesäkuuta 2020 Stephen Bell <[email protected]> kirjoitti: >> >>> Agreed on the massive requirements disparity. In my view, given how >>> saturated the market is for stepper-motor based control boards >>> (particularly the Duet 3, which can be controlled by a BBB/RPi) I'd prefer >>> a more Break-out-Board style cape to make industrial-level control more >>> accessible. >>> >>> My ideal cape would have dual etherCAT RJ45 ports, an RS422 or 485 >>> header with voltage selection for PLC/spindle vfd control, UART headers, >>> dual CAN headers and a small array of optoisloators for the other GPIO. >>> Biggest problem for this is the ethercat license, which is somewhat of a >>> pain... >>> >>> I also prefer the web-based GUIs locally hosted on the device, which can >>> be accessed across the network and use less resources than a driven display >>> and a native GUI, so I'd prefer a cape NOT be limited by a desire to have a >>> screen/monitor from the BBB. >>> >>> just my 2C >>> >>> On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 12:46:01 AM UTC-4, Malte Schmidt wrote: >>>> >>>> I think the issue is always that the requirements with these machines >>>> are very different and that you never quite get what is needed. >>>> >>>> When I build the cape I use on my lathe I sort of used a modular >>>> design. I based this on a prototype cape and used those small optocoupler >>>> and level shift modules that you get from China for the maker scene. It >>>> looks quite like a hack but you might see the three opto modules in the >>>> back and the two level shifters here: >>>> https://forum.zerspanungsbude.net/download/file.php?id=188366&mode=view >>>> There is an external pwm-> 0-10V module as well (not shown) for spindle >>>> control >>>> >>>> I always thought about making this nicer. I would have done it this way: >>>> A cape that: >>>> - Make PRU and GPIO Pins available in sets of 4? pins on standardized >>>> PIN headers + power. >>>> - Makes the terminals for connecting the cables available >>>> >>>> PLUS >>>> >>>> Small modules for level shift, opto isolation , spindle control (as >>>> desired). These would use the standardized connectors on the cape. >>>> For this I would actually rely on stuff that is already available (if >>>> so). >>>> >>>> -- >>> website: http://www.machinekit.io blog: http://blog.machinekit.io >>> github: https://github.com/machinekit >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Machinekit" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ms >>> gid/machinekit/4e75a7ba-b13f-4579-a7f1-09211ff4cbd7o%40googlegroups.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/machinekit/4e75a7ba-b13f-4579-a7f1-09211ff4cbd7o%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> -- > website: http://www.machinekit.io blog: http://blog.machinekit.io github: > https://github.com/machinekit > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Machinekit" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ > msgid/machinekit/61c7c2b7-e1bb-4c2c-8556-355bf16645b2o%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/machinekit/61c7c2b7-e1bb-4c2c-8556-355bf16645b2o%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- website: http://www.machinekit.io blog: http://blog.machinekit.io github: https://github.com/machinekit --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Machinekit" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/machinekit/CAMNBL%3DzrhOgcsCqHw-apKP4AmiLqzbLNuoDsBek7th58L6dRww%40mail.gmail.com.
