On Wednesday 30 June 2021 14:47:57 Les Newell wrote:
> On 30/06/2021 12:52, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > This is good to know Les, thank you. But for those who don't know
> > how to achieve that, a 1 axis example would be a huge help.
>
> In your INI file, there are two places where you can set the
I upgraded our 4-axis hotwire foam cutter to 2.8
recently, and have not been able to get it running
again yet. The auto conversion doesn't seem to
be quite sufficient for foam cutter configurations.
I now have homing on all four axes working (XY;UV),
but once homing is finished I can't jog U or
I never thought it needed one either. My reaction when I read the CoC
was pretty much 'Yeah, that makes sense' and until the list blew up
that's about all I thought about it. Most mailing lists and forums have
something similar.
The SheetCam forum shows a CoC as part of the registration
OK. Just a quick video with of course some questions.
https://youtu.be/BpafBR_Cfuw
Here's the cutting of one flat. As the video comments state:
Spindle RPM 833, Feed Rate 3 ipm, Cutter size 14mm (0.55")
Stepover is 0.15" or about 25% of cutter diameter (2 flute HSS)
Depth of cut is 0.025" per
On Wednesday 30 June 2021 21:31:28 Matthew Herd wrote:
> Gene, that’s very odd behavior. My machine isn’t homed (still just
> working on basic tuning) when I’m doing my tests and your behavior
> sounds similar. I wonder if we could determine the reason for this
> difference in behavior.
>
I'd
Jeff,
Noted thank you,
See you regards,
Jean-François
Le 29/06/2021 à 03:25, Jeff Epler a écrit :
The LinuxCNC community including this mailing list now has a written
code of conduct. Unless it's your idea of fun to harass other people,
this is a big non-event for you.
You can read the code
Gene, that’s very odd behavior. My machine isn’t homed (still just working on
basic tuning) when I’m doing my tests and your behavior sounds similar. I
wonder if we could determine the reason for this difference in behavior.
> On Jun 30, 2021, at 9:25 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> On
On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 23:49 +0100, Les Newell wrote:
> I never thought it needed one either. My reaction when I read the
> CoC
> was pretty much 'Yeah, that makes sense' and until the list blew up
> that's about all I thought about it. Most mailing lists and forums
> have
> something similar.
I'm not familiar with the Pico interface. Basee upon the docs it looks to
be a velocity mode stepgen.
I have a mesa velocity mode Stephen to servo system on my router.
This site was helpful to me getting this set up.
https://gnipsel.com/linuxcnc/tuning/servo.html.
If I recall I had to tune the
On Wednesday 30 June 2021 14:47:57 Les Newell wrote:
> On 30/06/2021 12:52, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > This is good to know Les, thank you. But for those who don't know
> > how to achieve that, a 1 axis example would be a huge help.
>
> In your INI file, there are two places where you can set the
Hi
I'd go for something similar to the picture, but simpler.
Make the two cylinders and use a piece of angle iron for the sensor support.
Two holes for the bolts to go through. Offset so that the side of the
angle that is parallel to the shaft (and the bolts) clears the outside
of the round
Ahh, thanks Les. I like the simulated encoder option. The best part is it’s
as easy as flipping a switch. Unfortunately wiring up the drive is a bit more
of an ordeal, although I do have a bunch of steppers and drives as they were
what was replaced. If I get desperate I’ll go that route.
> From: andy pugh [mailto:bodge...@gmail.com]
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 00:57, John Dammeyer wrote:
>
> > Well, sure enough...
>
> Another advantage of tapping the bolt and not the casting
>
>
> --
> atp
Of course the mill was apart in more than one place when this happened but I've
> From: andy pugh [mailto:bodge...@gmail.com]
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 08:54, John Dammeyer wrote:
>
> > I couild buy a couple of bolts but might spend more time and fuel looking
> > for a couple to buy than using free cast-off bits in the
> junk pail.
>
> That does leave the (more work)
On 6/29/21 4:57 PM, Les Newell wrote:
Valerio, I agree completely. I also think we should give Jeff a break
here. LinuxCNC is a loosely organized group and things only really get
done when someone sees a problem and tries to fix it. Many open source
projects have a CoC so Jeff put something
Anno domini 2021 Wed, 30 Jun 05:01:18 -0400
Mark scripsit:
>
> On 6/29/21 4:57 PM, Les Newell wrote:
> > Valerio, I agree completely. I also think we should give Jeff a break
> > here. LinuxCNC is a loosely organized group and things only really get
> > done when someone sees a problem and
On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 00:57, John Dammeyer wrote:
> Well, sure enough...
Another advantage of tapping the bolt and not the casting
--
atp
"A motorcycle is a bicycle with a pandemonium attachment and is
designed for the especial use of mechanical geniuses, daredevils and
lunatics."
—
The angle iron would only provide a base for mounting the sensors. The
vertical part could be used for cable clamps, so that the cables are
directed down (relative to the position in the picture), not radially.
The sensors would be positioned in an arc, of course, not aligned to the
straight
John, Matt isn't using a stepgen. The Pico USC board uses it's own step
generator. Stepgen expects a position command. As far as I can tell from
the USC docs the USC step generator expects a velocity command, hence
the need for a PID loop.
Matt, Do you happen to have a spare stepper and drive
On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 11:21 +0100, Les Newell wrote:
> > And that's the key point Les. There was no prior discussion. As
> > was
> > pointed out in another post, this CoC was created and implemented
> > with
> > no input from the group at large.
>
> Um, I don't know if you noticed but we are
On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 08:54, John Dammeyer wrote:
> I couild buy a couple of bolts but might spend more time and fuel looking for
> a couple to buy than using free cast-off bits in the junk pail.
That does leave the (more work) option of making special bolts with
stud heads. I see them
And that's the key point Les. There was no prior discussion. As was
pointed out in another post, this CoC was created and implemented with
no input from the group at large.
Um, I don't know if you noticed but we are having that discussion right
now. The CoC is not set in stone. It's just
On a trivkins machine I don't think it matters much. In coordinated mode
the lowest speed/acceleration for a given axis will win. In joint mode
(mainly jogging while unhomed) the joint's speed + acceleration are used.
If you are using soft limits it pays to have to have the axis limits
On Wednesday 30 June 2021 06:21:01 Les Newell wrote:
[...]
> Could Jeff have worded his announcement better? In hindsight yes but
> remember the only way anything gets done around here is if someone
> volunteers to do it. How many of the people here screaming about their
> rights have actually
On Wednesday 30 June 2021 06:30:30 Les Newell wrote:
> On a trivkins machine I don't think it matters much. In coordinated
> mode the lowest speed/acceleration for a given axis will win. In joint
> mode (mainly jogging while unhomed) the joint's speed + acceleration
> are used.
>
> If you are
Anno domini 2021 Wed, 30 Jun 12:31:54 +0200
Valerio Bellizzomi scripsit:
> On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 11:21 +0100, Les Newell wrote:
> > > And that's the key point Les. There was no prior discussion. As
> > > was
> > > pointed out in another post, this CoC was created and implemented
> > > with
>
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 8:24 AM andy pugh wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 13:01, Mark Wendt wrote:
>
> > being born where liberty
> > and freedom is guaranteed by my Constitution,
>
> As an aside, it seems to me that a written CoC should find more
> support in the USA, which is very proud of
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 03:28:11PM -0700, David Bagby wrote:
> As far as I know, a CoC for LinuxCNC was NOT "created, reviewed and accepted
> by community members". It was just simply announced as a fait accomli.
>
> Thus it should not be a surprise that there is was no consensus re its
>
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 9:26 AM Jeff Epler wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 03:28:11PM -0700, David Bagby wrote:
> > As far as I know, a CoC for LinuxCNC was NOT "created, reviewed and
> accepted
> > by community members". It was just simply announced as a fait accomli.
> >
> > Thus it should
On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 09:29 -0400, Mark Wendt wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 9:26 AM Jeff Epler
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 03:28:11PM -0700, David Bagby wrote:
> > > As far as I know, a CoC for LinuxCNC was NOT "created, reviewed
> > > and
> > accepted
> > > by community members".
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 9:44 AM Valerio Bellizzomi
wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 09:29 -0400, Mark Wendt wrote:
>
> > We still have not heard any reason(s) as to the necessity of having a
> > code
> > of conduct for this list.
> >
> > Mark
>
> In my organization I have established codes of
On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 17:30 +0200, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote:
> Anno domini 2021 Wed, 30 Jun 17:21:08 +0200
> Valerio Bellizzomi scripsit:
> > On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 16:14 +0200, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote:
> > > Anno domini 2021 Wed, 30 Jun 16:04:47 +0200
> > > Valerio Bellizzomi scripsit:
> > > >
I hate to point this out, but this response appears to be a violation of the
CoC.
Scott(still working on the smiley face thing)
On Wednesday, June 30, 2021, 10:42:15 AM CDT, Valerio Bellizzomi
wrote:
On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 17:30 +0200, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote:
> Anno domini 2021 Wed,
Anno domini 2021 Wed, 30 Jun 17:40:09 +0200
Valerio Bellizzomi scripsit:
> On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 17:30 +0200, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote:
> > Anno domini 2021 Wed, 30 Jun 17:21:08 +0200
> > Valerio Bellizzomi scripsit:
> > > On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 16:14 +0200, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote:
> > > > Anno
it's true, never talk to detractors, they bring you to their level and
beat you for experience.
On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 15:52 +, Scott Harwell via Emc-users wrote:
> I hate to point this out, but this response appears to be a
> violation of the CoC.
> Scott(still working on the smiley face
Anno domini 2021 Wed, 30 Jun 17:56:38 +0200
Valerio Bellizzomi scripsit:
> it's true, never talk to detractors, they bring you to their level and
> beat you for experience.
So pointing out that a CoC is pointless unless you have an agenda you want to
force onto others - which by the way you
On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 16:14 +0200, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote:
> Anno domini 2021 Wed, 30 Jun 16:04:47 +0200
> Valerio Bellizzomi scripsit:
> > On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 15:46 +0200, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote:
> > > Anno domini 2021 Wed, 30 Jun 15:41:13 +0200
> > > Valerio Bellizzomi scripsit:
> > > >
I can live with the new CoC.
I will try to limit any response to two or three words and end any statement
with a smiley face emoji (as soon as I find out how to attach one).
I admit that I am very limited in LinuxCNC knowledge, but I have managed around
45 years of NC and CNC control and
Anno domini 2021 Wed, 30 Jun 17:21:08 +0200
Valerio Bellizzomi scripsit:
> On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 16:14 +0200, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote:
> > Anno domini 2021 Wed, 30 Jun 16:04:47 +0200
> > Valerio Bellizzomi scripsit:
> > > On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 15:46 +0200, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote:
> > > > Anno
On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 15:46 +0200, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote:
> Anno domini 2021 Wed, 30 Jun 15:41:13 +0200
> Valerio Bellizzomi scripsit:
> > On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 09:29 -0400, Mark Wendt wrote:
> > > We still have not heard any reason(s) as to the necessity of
> > > having a
> > > code
> > > of
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 10:07 AM Valerio Bellizzomi
wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 15:46 +0200, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote:
> > Anno domini 2021 Wed, 30 Jun 15:41:13 +0200
> > Valerio Bellizzomi scripsit:
> > > On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 09:29 -0400, Mark Wendt wrote:
> > > > We still have not heard
Then you should have no trouble at all .
I like the wizards, but completely understand where you're coming from with
configuring hal. You can do anything and everything you want with it. On
the flip side, coming from an industry where plc is still king, I love
being able to use classicladder and
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 6:24 AM Les Newell
wrote:
> > And that's the key point Les. There was no prior discussion. As was
> > pointed out in another post, this CoC was created and implemented with
> > no input from the group at large.
>
>
> Um, I don't know if you noticed but we are having
On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 13:01, Mark Wendt wrote:
> being born where liberty
> and freedom is guaranteed by my Constitution,
As an aside, it seems to me that a written CoC should find more
support in the USA, which is very proud of its Constitution.
Whereas in the UK we have managed fine all this
Agreed!
Don’t let the differences of a few over something that is almost certainly
going to be less significant than they fear, spoil the good work, camaraderie
and international community that’s been built up over many years by people with
no other agenda than to support each other with their
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 10:13 AM Valerio Bellizzomi
wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 09:58 -0400, Mark Wendt wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 9:44 AM Valerio Bellizzomi <
> > vale...@selnet.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 09:29 -0400, Mark Wendt wrote:
> > >
> > > > We still have
On 6/30/21 7:58 AM, Mark Wendt wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 9:44 AM Valerio Bellizzomi
wrote:
On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 09:29 -0400, Mark Wendt wrote:
We still have not heard any reason(s) as to the necessity of having a
code
of conduct for this list.
Mark
In my organization I have
Little saddened at the backlash to this. Its a generic CoC, that many open
source projects use. It's not much different than a generic GPL open-source
projects use.
Engineers and Blue collar have a bad enough reputation for being not so nice to
outsiders. The backlash to this definitely
Don't go. This is a ridiculous storm in a teacup that has triggered a
few very vocal people. It will blow over. Block the thread and ignore it.
Les
On 30/06/2021 13:47, Chad Woitas wrote:
Little saddened at the backlash to this. Its a generic CoC, that many open
source projects use. It's not
Anno domini 2021 Wed, 30 Jun 08:23:49 -0500
Jeff Epler scripsit:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 03:28:11PM -0700, David Bagby wrote:
> > As far as I know, a CoC for LinuxCNC was NOT "created, reviewed and accepted
> > by community members". It was just simply announced as a fait accomli.
> >
> >
On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 08:23 -0500, Jeff Epler wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 03:28:11PM -0700, David Bagby wrote:
> > As far as I know, a CoC for LinuxCNC was NOT "created, reviewed and
> > accepted
> > by community members". It was just simply announced as a fait
> > accomli.
> >
> > Thus it
Anno domini 2021 Wed, 30 Jun 15:41:13 +0200
Valerio Bellizzomi scripsit:
> On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 09:29 -0400, Mark Wendt wrote:
> > We still have not heard any reason(s) as to the necessity of having a
> > code
> > of conduct for this list.
> >
> > Mark
>
> In my organization I have
On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 09:58 -0400, Mark Wendt wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 9:44 AM Valerio Bellizzomi <
> vale...@selnet.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 09:29 -0400, Mark Wendt wrote:
> >
> > > We still have not heard any reason(s) as to the necessity of
> > > having a
> > > code
>
Anno domini 2021 Wed, 30 Jun 16:04:47 +0200
Valerio Bellizzomi scripsit:
> On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 15:46 +0200, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote:
> > Anno domini 2021 Wed, 30 Jun 15:41:13 +0200
> > Valerio Bellizzomi scripsit:
> > > On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 09:29 -0400, Mark Wendt wrote:
> > > > We still
I've been a member of this community for approximately 14 years. In
that time, I've almost exclusively witnessed camaraderie with good
people helping each other and learning together. In the short time
since the introduction of the Code of Conduct, I've seen arguing,
acrimony, ad hominem
On 6/30/21 12:59 PM, Scott Harwell via Emc-users wrote:
I wish there was a little more "mansplaining" in some of the "docs". I still haven't decided how
to set center of rotation for "A" and "C" in the Kinematics example.
I agree. Can we adopt a code of technical writing or CoT for short?
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 5:31 PM Les Newell
wrote:
> On 29/06/2021 22:06, R C wrote:
> >
> -- snipped
>
> The sad thing is that in 6 months everyone will have forgotten about
> this and the list will continue just as it was, with or without a CoC.
>
> Les
>
>
>
> If that is the expected case then
Bruce,
You left out "KISS".
We seem to have a solution in search of a problem.
Scott
On Wednesday, June 30, 2021, 12:21:23 PM CDT, Bruce Layne
wrote:
I've been a member of this community for approximately 14 years. In
that time, I've almost exclusively witnessed camaraderie with
CoC doesn't really affect me because I don't deliberately try to be a
d-bag. In the time I've been on these mailing lists, I haven't seen any
misconduct. I think it's pretty much a moot point and it'll be forgotten
about as quickly as it came to attention.
Going back to something that was said
I wish there was a little more "mansplaining" in some of the "docs". I still
haven't decided how to set center of rotation for "A" and "C" in the Kinematics
example.
Scott
On Wednesday, June 30, 2021, 12:43:30 PM CDT, Feral Engineer
wrote:
CoC doesn't really affect me because I
That much I'll definitely agree with!
Phil T.
The Feral Engineer
Check out my LinuxCNC tutorials, machine builds and other antics at
www.youtube.com/c/theferalengineer
Help support my channel efforts and coffee addiction:
www.patreon.com/theferalengineer
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021, 2:03 PM Scott
On 30/06/2021 12:52, Gene Heskett wrote:
This is good to know Les, thank you. But for those who don't know how to
achieve that, a 1 axis example would be a huge help.
In your INI file, there are two places where you can set the MIN_LIMIT
and MAX_LIMIT (joint and axis). Just make sure you hit
Hi Gene,
I don't think it was a NIH issue, more a lack of resources and
motivation. As you know getting LCNC working on the Pi platform is hard
work and it is rather under powered for the task. X86 boxes are well
supported and are easy to obtain, often for free. If you need low power
I understand that people assume you are up to speed on their project. I can be
a little slow on picking up something in the middle without examples and
comments. It's a lot like reading someone else's code (or your own code a month
later).I know I am guilty of this, my presentations on my
Les, to be clear I never thought this group needed a CoC, I always got
more or less the help I wanted, on the rare occasions when I needed to
ask and the time spent on IRC or on the list was well spent. When Jeff
announced the CoC it was a well-received surprise, I don't care at all
if it wasn't
65 matches
Mail list logo
