On Saturday 12 April 2014 00:10:38 Jon Elson did opine:
> On 04/11/2014 09:35 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > I agree Jon, but I think its me that needs to learn how
> > more than LCNC needs to be trained.
>
> I had the capability of putting home switches on my machine from
> the VERY beginning, but
On 04/11/2014 10:00 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> All that Jon, may get done, but ATM I am out of I/O pins, waiting on a low
> profile back plate for a 5i25. Then the fun begins, trying to re-create in
> the 5i25, what I have now with a normal, but single parport.
>
And, I think home switches are mo
On 04/11/2014 09:35 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> I agree Jon, but I think its me that needs to learn how
> more than LCNC needs to be trained.
I had the capability of putting home switches on my machine from
the VERY beginning, but I was lazy, didn't quite know how it
was supposed to work, etc. etc.
On Friday 11 April 2014 22:53:00 Jon Elson did opine:
> Gene,
>
> Anyway, I strongly suggest you set up home switches and
> establish
> axis limits from the home position. I didn't do this for a LONG
> time on my mill, and was VERY happy with the result when I
> finally got around to doing it!
On Friday 11 April 2014 22:36:19 Jon Elson did opine:
> On 04/11/2014 12:07 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > In actual practice, at least here Jon, hitting the +Z
> > limit is astronomically unlikely, assume +Z is to the
> > right when viewing the lathe from the normal, spindle on
> > the left, perspec
On Friday 11 April 2014 22:21:53 Jon Elson did opine:
> On 04/11/2014 01:35 PM, John Kasunich wrote:
> > I'm pretty sure that Gene doesn't "touch off" in the way
> > we think of it. If I've followed past conversations correctly,
> > he actually homes the machine using contact between
> > tool and
Gene,
Anyway, I strongly suggest you set up home switches and
establish
axis limits from the home position. I didn't do this for a LONG
time on my mill, and was VERY happy with the result when I
finally got around to doing it! I use the touch-off button in
Axis to set the offsets for various wo
On 04/11/2014 12:07 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> In actual practice, at least here Jon, hitting the +Z
> limit is astronomically unlikely, assume +Z is to the
> right when viewing the lathe from the normal, spindle on
> the left, perspective. But my homing procedure, sets Z0.0
> at the face of the
On 04/11/2014 01:35 PM, John Kasunich wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that Gene doesn't "touch off" in the way
> we think of it. If I've followed past conversations correctly,
> he actually homes the machine using contact between
> tool and work (or tool and a widget that gives him a
> reference point).
On Friday 11 April 2014 16:25:14 John Kasunich did opine:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014, at 12:11 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
> > On 04/11/2014 12:41 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > And I haven't checked (I have to think about this stuff &
> > > then go back & check) as to whether the soft limits move
> > > with
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014, at 12:11 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
> On 04/11/2014 12:41 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > And I haven't checked (I have to think about this stuff &
> > then go back & check) as to whether the soft limits move
> > with the touchoff or not.
> The soft limits are in machine coordinate
On Friday 11 April 2014 12:37:38 Jon Elson did opine:
> On 04/11/2014 12:41 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > The main reason I was concentrating on the limits, using
> > the same code, was that I had written a peck cycle wrapped
> > around a G33.1, which advanced half a turn per run in. I
> > had moved
On 04/11/2014 12:41 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> The main reason I was concentrating on the limits, using
> the same code, was that I had written a peck cycle wrapped
> around a G33.1, which advanced half a turn per run in. I
> had moved the code back away from the workpiece, basically
> cutting a
On Friday 11 April 2014 08:22:36 John Thornton did opine:
> This is another example of why you should always have a preamble to set
> up the conditions you expect to have before the code runs.
>
> http://gnipsel.com/linuxcnc/g-code/gen01.html
Precisely John, and I am learning that, belatedly but
This is another example of why you should always have a preamble to set
up the conditions you expect to have before the code runs.
http://gnipsel.com/linuxcnc/g-code/gen01.html
JT
On 4/10/2014 11:14 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> If I load some code that expects to run in G20, and before I exec it,
On Friday 11 April 2014 01:42:26 Sebastian Kuzminsky did opine:
> On 04/10/2014 10:14 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > If I load some code that expects to run in G20, and before I exec it,
> > goto MDI and issue a G21, the only F command in it, f1.5 (was
> > polishing a taper with a diamond wheel in a
On Friday 11 April 2014 00:59:31 Sebastian Kuzminsky did opine:
> On 04/10/2014 11:38 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > I believe a similar gotcha exists in the MIN_LIMIT/MAX_LIMIT of the
> > .ini files. They are not, when given in inches, scaled to match
> > actual distances without a trip into gedit f
On 04/10/2014 10:14 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> If I load some code that expects to run in G20, and before I exec it, goto
> MDI and issue a G21, the only F command in it, f1.5 (was polishing a taper
> with a diamond wheel in a dremel when I cut that code) and then run it, it
> takes the f1.5 as 1
On 04/10/2014 11:38 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> I believe a similar gotcha exists in the MIN_LIMIT/MAX_LIMIT of the .ini
> files. They are not, when given in inches, scaled to match actual distances
> without a trip into gedit for a metric translation. I got used to the old
> way, and its going t
On Friday 11 April 2014 00:07:59 Sebastian Kuzminsky did opine:
> On 04/10/2014 06:36 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Thursday 10 April 2014 20:29:33 Andy Pugh did opine:
> >>> On 10 Apr 2014, at 18:38, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Fspeed for instance, is not scaled up to the metric equ, so th
On 04/10/2014 06:36 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Thursday 10 April 2014 20:29:33 Andy Pugh did opine:
>
>>> On 10 Apr 2014, at 18:38, Gene Heskett wrote:
>>>
>>> Fspeed for instance, is not scaled up to the metric equ, so the sim
>>> runs painfully slow
>>
>> How do you think it should be done?
>
you could do something as simple as
G20
F15
G21
On 04/10/2014 08:03 PM, Eric Keller wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
>> I don't think it was quite all that encompassing before, Andy, and you are
>> by pure common sense correct. So if I run in metric mode, I'll hav
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> I don't think it was quite all that encompassing before, Andy, and you are
> by pure common sense correct. So if I run in metric mode, I'll have to
> recall that F is in mm per min. That means a bunch of them. As in 15
> ipm=384mm-min.
On Thursday 10 April 2014 20:29:33 Andy Pugh did opine:
> > On 10 Apr 2014, at 18:38, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >
> > Fspeed for instance, is not scaled up to the metric equ, so the sim
> > runs painfully slow
>
> How do you think it should be done?
> Are you suggesting that after switching to metr
> On 10 Apr 2014, at 18:38, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> Fspeed for instance, is not scaled up to the metric equ, so the sim runs
> painfully slow
How do you think it should be done?
Are you suggesting that after switching to metric and the interpreter seeing
f15 it should guess you meant inches
25 matches
Mail list logo
