Re: [Emc-developers] How closely do we need to adhere to the NIST standard?
> On 9 Apr 2024, at 19:43, Nicklas SB Karlsson wrote: > > There might be requirements for safety reasons but do not think we need to > care about some standard require MDI commands > to be executed only with a physical button. This is actually already the case with Touchy, FWiW. And is one of the reasons I use it. ___ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
Re: [Emc-developers] How closely do we need to adhere to the NIST standard?
There might be requirements for safety reasons but do not think we need to care about some standard require MDI commands to be executed only with a physical button. For safety reasons I have a safety relay connected to physical buttons. Then power is turned off and energy stored stored in capacitors have been consumed computer can't start the machine even if it want to. Nicklas Karlsson tis 2024-04-09 klockan 13:59 +0100 skrev andy pugh: > Apart from anything else, I am not sure that it is a standard. > > This is based on bug report #2956. Our current behaviour does not match the > NIST RS274 interpreter "report" from 2000. > > The last actual "RS" standard (ie the RS in RS274) was issued in the 1970s. > There is an ISO standard from 1982, and then the NIST EMC report from 2000. > > My own feeling is that any deliberate deviation from the NIST v3 report is > not a "bug" as such, and that perhaps we should simply close the "bug" as a > "feature". > > Has anyone else looked at this bug report? What do you think? > > https://github.com/LinuxCNC/linuxcnc/issues/2956 > ___ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
Re: [Emc-developers] How closely do we need to adhere to the NIST standard?
I see no evidence that NIST wanted that document to serve as a standard. They don't generally issue their own standards, but when they do, they let you know. I don't think LCNC should be bound to that document, it was incomplete. I would close the bug report as a misunderstanding of LCNC's goals. Eric Keller Boalsburg, Pennsylvania On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 9:04 AM andy pugh wrote: > > Apart from anything else, I am not sure that it is a standard. > > This is based on bug report #2956. Our current behaviour does not match the > NIST RS274 interpreter "report" from 2000. > > The last actual "RS" standard (ie the RS in RS274) was issued in the 1970s. > There is an ISO standard from 1982, and then the NIST EMC report from 2000. > > My own feeling is that any deliberate deviation from the NIST v3 report is > not a "bug" as such, and that perhaps we should simply close the "bug" as a > "feature". > > Has anyone else looked at this bug report? What do you think? > > https://github.com/LinuxCNC/linuxcnc/issues/2956 > > -- > atp > "A motorcycle is a bicycle with a pandemonium attachment and is designed > for the especial use of mechanical geniuses, daredevils and lunatics." > — George Fitch, Atlanta Constitution Newspaper, 1912 > > ___ > Emc-developers mailing list > Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers ___ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
Re: [Emc-developers] How closely do we need to adhere to the NISTstandard?
On 4/9/24 09:02, andy pugh wrote: Apart from anything else, I am not sure that it is a standard. This is based on bug report #2956. Our current behaviour does not match the NIST RS274 interpreter "report" from 2000. The last actual "RS" standard (ie the RS in RS274) was issued in the 1970s. There is an ISO standard from 1982, and then the NIST EMC report from 2000. My own feeling is that any deliberate deviation from the NIST v3 report is not a "bug" as such, and that perhaps we should simply close the "bug" as a "feature". Has anyone else looked at this bug report? What do you think? https://github.com/LinuxCNC/linuxcnc/issues/2956 Currently we can click on a history line, re-use it or edit it before clicking on go or hitting enter. We are used to it. Please do not change it if the change disables our ability to edit before reuse. Cheers, Gene Heskett, CET. -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940) If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable. - Louis D. Brandeis ___ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
[Emc-developers] How closely do we need to adhere to the NIST standard?
Apart from anything else, I am not sure that it is a standard. This is based on bug report #2956. Our current behaviour does not match the NIST RS274 interpreter "report" from 2000. The last actual "RS" standard (ie the RS in RS274) was issued in the 1970s. There is an ISO standard from 1982, and then the NIST EMC report from 2000. My own feeling is that any deliberate deviation from the NIST v3 report is not a "bug" as such, and that perhaps we should simply close the "bug" as a "feature". Has anyone else looked at this bug report? What do you think? https://github.com/LinuxCNC/linuxcnc/issues/2956 -- atp "A motorcycle is a bicycle with a pandemonium attachment and is designed for the especial use of mechanical geniuses, daredevils and lunatics." — George Fitch, Atlanta Constitution Newspaper, 1912 ___ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
