[Emc-users] Vmc retrofit. Random position toolchanger, and rigid Tapping all go

[andrew beck]

Hey everyone.

Hopefully this is interesting.

https://youtu.be/C253C9ODMn4


Love linuxcnc!

Rigid Tapping just works.  I can tap m12 easy as.  And spindle orientation
works fine.

Plus the side mount toolchanger works good.

Toolchanger stuff was mostly done in classic ladder.

Sing out of you want the files.

Cheers

Andrew

___
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users

Re: [Emc-users] ProbeBasic

[Jose Luis]

you may also need to manually install the VTK library to get the 3D plotter

https://scottalford75.github.io/LinuxCNC-on-RPi/4.%20VTK%20for%20QtPyVCP.html

On 7/23/21 3:28 AM, Jose Luis wrote:

hello,

the installer is x86_64 only

to install on the pi you could install from sources

steps are on the developement install section

https://kcjengr.github.io/probe_basic/dev_install.html


Thanks

On 7/23/21 2:23 AM, John Dammeyer wrote:

Quick question.
Followed the instructions here:
https://kcjengr.github.io/probe_basic/quick_start.html
Downloaded the ProbeBasic-Installer onto the Pi4 which already has a 
functional LinuxCNC 2.8.2 with AXIS.
 From the command line in the downloads folder after I've set execute 
permission when I try and run I get:

"cannot execute binary file: Exec format error"
  Is it possible that this is only meant for PCs and won't run on a 
Pi4?  I thought it was purely a Python app.

Thanks
John

___
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users



___
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users

Re: [Emc-users] ProbeBasic

[Jose Luis]

hello,

the installer is x86_64 only

to install on the pi you could install from sources

steps are on the developement install section

https://kcjengr.github.io/probe_basic/dev_install.html


Thanks

On 7/23/21 2:23 AM, John Dammeyer wrote:

Quick question.
Followed the instructions here:
https://kcjengr.github.io/probe_basic/quick_start.html
Downloaded the ProbeBasic-Installer onto the Pi4 which already has a functional 
LinuxCNC 2.8.2 with AXIS.
 From the command line in the downloads folder after I've set execute 
permission when I try and run I get:
"cannot execute binary file: Exec format error"
  
Is it possible that this is only meant for PCs and won't run on a Pi4?  I thought it was purely a Python app.

Thanks
John
  


___
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users



___
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users

[Emc-users] ProbeBasic

[John Dammeyer]

Quick question.
Followed the instructions here:
https://kcjengr.github.io/probe_basic/quick_start.html
Downloaded the ProbeBasic-Installer onto the Pi4 which already has a functional 
LinuxCNC 2.8.2 with AXIS.
>From the command line in the downloads folder after I've set execute 
>permission when I try and run I get:
"cannot execute binary file: Exec format error"
 
Is it possible that this is only meant for PCs and won't run on a Pi4?  I 
thought it was purely a Python app.
Thanks
John
 

___
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users

Re: [Emc-users] The Code Of Conduct Fait Accompli

[Scott Harwell via Emc-users]

 So it is the thought police, just in case you might say something offensive. I 
think I saw this movie a few years ago. 
It is strange to watch those that seem to want to be in control.



On Thursday, July 22, 2021, 10:03:57 AM CDT, ken.stra...@gmail.com 
 wrote:  
 
 I think that you are missing the point. There MIGHT be something offensive and 
we have to be prepared to deal with a transgression. It's called being 
"proactive".

More seriously and without my stupid PC hat on, such rules are completely 
unneeded and offensive!

-Original Message-
From: Scott Harwell via Emc-users  
Sent: July 22, 2021 10:29 AM
To: Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC) 
Cc: Scott Harwell 
Subject: Re: [Emc-users] The Code Of Conduct Fait Accompli

 I'm a little slow on some of this. Could someone give me an example of a 
"rules violation" please refer to an actual post. I read every email and every 
recent topic post. In my unenlightened position I can't think of anything in 
the last year that I have seen that was offensive. 

Scott H


    On Thursday, July 22, 2021, 4:38:08 AM CDT, Valerio Bellizzomi 
 wrote:  
 
 I am making a big effort to understand why people is so adverse to rules. 
Every project on sourceforge/github has to follow rules of the site, and some 
projects have their own CoC.
If you agreed to behave correctly before, the CoC should not affect you, unless 
you want to misbehave now.



On Thu, 2021-07-22 at 03:02 -0400, Bruce Layne wrote:
> The "discussion" is apparently over and we still have the Code of 
> Conduct.
> 
> https://linuxcnc.org/CODE_OF_CONDUCT
> 
> It wasn't much of a discussion.  Questions were asked but there were 
> no meaningful answers.
> 
> At the risk of offending any programmers in the LinuxCNC community by 
> appropriating programmer culture, here is my pseudo code for the 
> LinuxCNC Code of Conduct Fait Accompli:
> 
> 
> 01  IMPOSE CODE OF CONDUCT ON LINUXCNC COMMUNITY
> 02  IF COMPLAINTS > 0 THEN GOTO 02
> 03  END
> 
> 
> All of the complaints by those who didn't feel a code of conduct was 
> needed have apparently now concluded and those who wanted a code of 
> conduct to regulate other people's behavior have won without ever 
> engaging on the issues... without ever justifying why their code of 
> conduct was needed, without explaining what event might have 
> precipitated the rules imposed on others, etc.
> 
> There was no need to explain who would decide what is "disinformation"
> or "conspiracy theories", or who would decide what is "other conduct 
> which could reasonably be considered inappropriate", or who would 
> decide what is "inappropriate language" or "inappropriate images".  
> There was no need to explain why the Code of Conduct was required when 
> there were no hostile comments on this group until the Code of Conduct 
> caused all of the recent animosity, resulting in exactly what it 
> purported to prevent.
> 
> One of the things I liked about LinuxCNC was that it was a community 
> effort.  Certainly there are a core group of contributors (greatly 
> appreciated), but nobody was perceived as being in charge.  There was 
> a spontaneous order arising from mutual cooperation.  This open source 
> community functioned very well without a lot of rules, and certainly 
> without any rulers.  I no longer feel that way.  At best, rather than 
> everyone behaving with courtesy and respect toward others because it's 
> the right thing to do, it now feels like coerced behavior.  I now feel 
> that this community is under the rule of unelected and as yet unnamed 
> rulers.
> 
> The process was so opaque that I still don't know if one person 
> unilaterally enacted the Code of Conduct, or was there some oligarchy 
> that made the decision after a secret discussion?
> 
> When someone violates one of the subjective rules in the new Code of 
> Conduct, will we then learn who the rulers are... or at least who the 
> enforcers are?  Or will dissidents be quietly disappeared in the 
> middle of the night?
> 
> An open source community that has always operated on mutual consent is 
> now operating under dictatorial decree with all objections ignored and 
> unanswered.  I think that's very sad.
> 
> I don't like the subjective rules in the Code of Conduct.  They seem 
> politically motivated and the vague rules can be selectively enforced.
> I also feel that the Code of Conduct will cause problems rather than 
> preventing problems.  That concern seems warranted based on the 
> hostile arguments we've already suffered as a direct result of the 
> Code of Conduct.  Mostly, I didn't like the way the Code of Conduct 
> was unilaterally decreed without discussion, and when a few people 
> tried to initiate a discussion, they were ignored by the person who 
> posted the Code of Conduct.  I'm left with the feeling that there 
> wasn't any explanation for why the Code of Conduct was needed because 
> there wasn't an actual need to regulate the behavior of a group that 
> 

Re: [Emc-users] A new lathe encoder option.

[Peter C. Wallace]

On Thu, 22 Jul 2021, Chris Albertson wrote:


Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2021 10:19:02 -0700
From: Chris Albertson 
Reply-To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"

To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)" 
Subject: Re: [Emc-users] A new lathe encoder option.

Yes, time-stamping the pulses works, if you have an accurate counter that
can be snap shotted by the pulse.  A modern microcontroller or FPGA can do
that. But as the pulses get faster you have to transition back to counting
pulses not "ticks" or you have the same quantization noise problem.I
think you have to run both algorithms and
then decide which number is most reliable in real-time.   I've tried to do
this a few times


You only need to count the edges and the total time between edges to get a
accurate velocity estimate, there is no need to change modes. The trick is that 
the velocity estimate is counts/time-between-counts rather than 
counts/sample-interval. With a velocity estimate you can also get an 
interpolated position estimate at the sample interval. Fancier quadrature
encoder velocity estimation systems catagorize edges into A and B rising and 
falling, and make velocity estimates from like edges. This eliminates

periodic errors from quadrature distortion (phase deviation from 90 degrees
and assymetry)






On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 10:05 PM dave engvall  wrote:




"The solution is to either add more counts per revolution or use a ten
timesmore complex control algorithm."

IIUC then the real problem here is statistical. That is the sample size is
too small to be significant. Maybe an over-simplification of the issue but:

I think there are a couple of ways to approach this. (1) time stamp the
index pulse.
  (2) use a high count encoder and scale as necessary. This
is clearly limited by the response of the  optics  for the disc.
100 - 200 KHz for the inexpensive stuff.
I don't think there is a one size fits all solution. In electronic terms
lathe spindles are pretty slow and have a lot of angular momentum. Most
lathe spindle
rpm range is not a lot over 5-6 binary bits.
I've actually considered putting a disc brake on the spindle. Not
exactly joking.

Just late evening rattling the cage.

Dave

>
>
>
>
 Could you solve the noise issue with a phase-locked loop?
>>> Yes, this would be a far better solution. But I didn't want to
>>> re-write the encoder counter from scratch.
>>>
>>> Ideally you would use two PLLs, one for the pulses and one for the
>>> index, to predict the pulse gap and extrapolate through it.
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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-users mailing list
>>> Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Emc-users mailing list
>> Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
>>
>



___
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users




--

Chris Albertson
Redondo Beach, California

___
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users

Peter Wallace
Mesa Electronics

(\__/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.
___
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users

Re: [Emc-users] A new lathe encoder option.

[Chris Albertson]

Yes, time-stamping the pulses works, if you have an accurate counter that
can be snap shotted by the pulse.  A modern microcontroller or FPGA can do
that. But as the pulses get faster you have to transition back to counting
pulses not "ticks" or you have the same quantization noise problem.I
think you have to run both algorithms and
 then decide which number is most reliable in real-time.   I've tried to do
this a few times

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 10:05 PM dave engvall  wrote:

>
>
> "The solution is to either add more counts per revolution or use a ten
> timesmore complex control algorithm."
>
> IIUC then the real problem here is statistical. That is the sample size is
> too small to be significant. Maybe an over-simplification of the issue but:
>
> I think there are a couple of ways to approach this. (1) time stamp the
> index pulse.
>   (2) use a high count encoder and scale as necessary. This
> is clearly limited by the response of the  optics  for the disc.
> 100 - 200 KHz for the inexpensive stuff.
> I don't think there is a one size fits all solution. In electronic terms
> lathe spindles are pretty slow and have a lot of angular momentum. Most
> lathe spindle
> rpm range is not a lot over 5-6 binary bits.
> I've actually considered putting a disc brake on the spindle. Not
> exactly joking.
>
> Just late evening rattling the cage.
>
> Dave
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>  Could you solve the noise issue with a phase-locked loop?
> >>> Yes, this would be a far better solution. But I didn't want to
> >>> re-write the encoder counter from scratch.
> >>>
> >>> Ideally you would use two PLLs, one for the pulses and one for the
> >>> index, to predict the pulse gap and extrapolate through it.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> 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-users mailing list
> >>> Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Emc-users mailing list
> >> Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> ___
> Emc-users mailing list
> Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
>


-- 

Chris Albertson
Redondo Beach, California

___
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users

Re: [Emc-users] The Code Of Conduct Fait Accompli

[Valerio Bellizzomi]

On Thu, 2021-07-22 at 17:13 +0200, grumpy via Emc-users wrote:
> > 
> > From: Valerio Bellizzomi 
> > Sent: Thu Jul 22 11:35:44 CEST 2021
> > To: 
> > Subject: Re: [Emc-users] The Code Of Conduct Fait Accompli
> > 
> > 
> > I am making a big effort to understand why people is so adverse to
> > rules. Every project on sourceforge/github has to follow rules of
> > the
> > site, and some projects have their own CoC.
> > If you agreed to behave correctly before, the CoC should not affect
> > you, unless you want to misbehave now.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, 2021-07-22 at 03:02 -0400, Bruce Layne wrote:
> > > The "discussion" is apparently over and we still have the Code of
> > > Conduct.
> > > 
> > > https://linuxcnc.org/CODE_OF_CONDUCT
> > > 
> > > It wasn't much of a discussion.  Questions were asked but there
> > > were
> > > no 
> > > meaningful answers.
> > > 
> > > At the risk of offending any programmers in the LinuxCNC
> > > community
> > > by 
> > > appropriating programmer culture, here is my pseudo code for the 
> > > LinuxCNC Code of Conduct Fait Accompli:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 01  IMPOSE CODE OF CONDUCT ON LINUXCNC COMMUNITY
> > > 02  IF COMPLAINTS > 0 THEN GOTO 02
> > > 03  END
> > > 
> > > 
> > > All of the complaints by those who didn't feel a code of conduct
> > > was 
> > > needed have apparently now concluded and those who wanted a code
> > > of 
> > > conduct to regulate other people's behavior have won without
> > > ever 
> > > engaging on the issues... without ever justifying why their code
> > > of 
> > > conduct was needed, without explaining what event might have 
> > > precipitated the rules imposed on others, etc.
> > > 
> > > There was no need to explain who would decide what is
> > > "disinformation" 
> > > or "conspiracy theories", or who would decide what is "other
> > > conduct 
> > > which could reasonably be considered inappropriate", or who would
> > > decide 
> > > what is "inappropriate language" or "inappropriate
> > > images".  There
> > > was 
> > > no need to explain why the Code of Conduct was required when
> > > there
> > > were 
> > > no hostile comments on this group until the Code of Conduct
> > > caused
> > > all 
> > > of the recent animosity, resulting in exactly what it purported
> > > to
> > > prevent.
> > > 
> > > One of the things I liked about LinuxCNC was that it was a
> > > community 
> > > effort.  Certainly there are a core group of contributors
> > > (greatly 
> > > appreciated), but nobody was perceived as being in charge.  There
> > > was
> > > a 
> > > spontaneous order arising from mutual cooperation.  This open
> > > source 
> > > community functioned very well without a lot of rules, and
> > > certainly 
> > > without any rulers.  I no longer feel that way.  At best, rather
> > > than 
> > > everyone behaving with courtesy and respect toward others because
> > > it's 
> > > the right thing to do, it now feels like coerced behavior.  I now
> > > feel 
> > > that this community is under the rule of unelected and as yet
> > > unnamed 
> > > rulers.
> > > 
> > > The process was so opaque that I still don't know if one person 
> > > unilaterally enacted the Code of Conduct, or was there some
> > > oligarchy 
> > > that made the decision after a secret discussion?
> > > 
> > > When someone violates one of the subjective rules in the new Code
> > > of 
> > > Conduct, will we then learn who the rulers are... or at least who
> > > the 
> > > enforcers are?  Or will dissidents be quietly disappeared in the
> > > middle 
> > > of the night?
> > > 
> > > An open source community that has always operated on mutual
> > > consent
> > > is 
> > > now operating under dictatorial decree with all objections
> > > ignored
> > > and 
> > > unanswered.  I think that's very sad.
> > > 
> > > I don't like the subjective rules in the Code of Conduct.  They
> > > seem 
> > > politically motivated and the vague rules can be selectively
> > > enforced.  
> > > I also feel that the Code of Conduct will cause problems rather
> > > than 
> > > preventing problems.  That concern seems warranted based on the
> > > hostile 
> > > arguments we've already suffered as a direct result of the Code
> > > of 
> > > Conduct.  Mostly, I didn't like the way the Code of Conduct was 
> > > unilaterally decreed without discussion, and when a few people
> > > tried
> > > to 
> > > initiate a discussion, they were ignored by the person who posted
> > > the 
> > > Code of Conduct.  I'm left with the feeling that there wasn't
> > > any 
> > > explanation for why the Code of Conduct was needed because there
> > > wasn't 
> > > an actual need to regulate the behavior of a group that has been
> > > self 
> > > regulated for decades.  The Code of Conduct couldn't be
> > > justified,
> > > so 
> > > there was no effort to justify it.  If there was an actual need,
> > > why 
> > > wasn't there a discussion that led to community standards that
> > > were 
> > > 

Re: [Emc-users] The Code Of Conduct Fait Accompli

[grumpy via Emc-users]

> 
> From: Valerio Bellizzomi 
> Sent: Thu Jul 22 11:35:44 CEST 2021
> To: 
> Subject: Re: [Emc-users] The Code Of Conduct Fait Accompli
> 
> 
> I am making a big effort to understand why people is so adverse to
> rules. Every project on sourceforge/github has to follow rules of the
> site, and some projects have their own CoC.
> If you agreed to behave correctly before, the CoC should not affect
> you, unless you want to misbehave now.
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 2021-07-22 at 03:02 -0400, Bruce Layne wrote:
> > The "discussion" is apparently over and we still have the Code of
> > Conduct.
> > 
> > https://linuxcnc.org/CODE_OF_CONDUCT
> > 
> > It wasn't much of a discussion.  Questions were asked but there were
> > no 
> > meaningful answers.
> > 
> > At the risk of offending any programmers in the LinuxCNC community
> > by 
> > appropriating programmer culture, here is my pseudo code for the 
> > LinuxCNC Code of Conduct Fait Accompli:
> > 
> > 
> > 01  IMPOSE CODE OF CONDUCT ON LINUXCNC COMMUNITY
> > 02  IF COMPLAINTS > 0 THEN GOTO 02
> > 03  END
> > 
> > 
> > All of the complaints by those who didn't feel a code of conduct was 
> > needed have apparently now concluded and those who wanted a code of 
> > conduct to regulate other people's behavior have won without ever 
> > engaging on the issues... without ever justifying why their code of 
> > conduct was needed, without explaining what event might have 
> > precipitated the rules imposed on others, etc.
> > 
> > There was no need to explain who would decide what is
> > "disinformation" 
> > or "conspiracy theories", or who would decide what is "other conduct 
> > which could reasonably be considered inappropriate", or who would
> > decide 
> > what is "inappropriate language" or "inappropriate images".  There
> > was 
> > no need to explain why the Code of Conduct was required when there
> > were 
> > no hostile comments on this group until the Code of Conduct caused
> > all 
> > of the recent animosity, resulting in exactly what it purported to
> > prevent.
> > 
> > One of the things I liked about LinuxCNC was that it was a community 
> > effort.  Certainly there are a core group of contributors (greatly 
> > appreciated), but nobody was perceived as being in charge.  There was
> > a 
> > spontaneous order arising from mutual cooperation.  This open source 
> > community functioned very well without a lot of rules, and certainly 
> > without any rulers.  I no longer feel that way.  At best, rather
> > than 
> > everyone behaving with courtesy and respect toward others because
> > it's 
> > the right thing to do, it now feels like coerced behavior.  I now
> > feel 
> > that this community is under the rule of unelected and as yet
> > unnamed 
> > rulers.
> > 
> > The process was so opaque that I still don't know if one person 
> > unilaterally enacted the Code of Conduct, or was there some
> > oligarchy 
> > that made the decision after a secret discussion?
> > 
> > When someone violates one of the subjective rules in the new Code of 
> > Conduct, will we then learn who the rulers are... or at least who
> > the 
> > enforcers are?  Or will dissidents be quietly disappeared in the
> > middle 
> > of the night?
> > 
> > An open source community that has always operated on mutual consent
> > is 
> > now operating under dictatorial decree with all objections ignored
> > and 
> > unanswered.  I think that's very sad.
> > 
> > I don't like the subjective rules in the Code of Conduct.  They seem 
> > politically motivated and the vague rules can be selectively
> > enforced.  
> > I also feel that the Code of Conduct will cause problems rather than 
> > preventing problems.  That concern seems warranted based on the
> > hostile 
> > arguments we've already suffered as a direct result of the Code of 
> > Conduct.  Mostly, I didn't like the way the Code of Conduct was 
> > unilaterally decreed without discussion, and when a few people tried
> > to 
> > initiate a discussion, they were ignored by the person who posted
> > the 
> > Code of Conduct.  I'm left with the feeling that there wasn't any 
> > explanation for why the Code of Conduct was needed because there
> > wasn't 
> > an actual need to regulate the behavior of a group that has been
> > self 
> > regulated for decades.  The Code of Conduct couldn't be justified,
> > so 
> > there was no effort to justify it.  If there was an actual need, why 
> > wasn't there a discussion that led to community standards that were 
> > established by the community?  That would have been a far less 
> > contentious process than someone posting the new Code of Conduct for 
> > everyone else to follow without prior discussion and without any 
> > community consensus.

It's about changing horses in midstream.
When we joined this group there were certain rules we agreed to.
Now one person decided it's their way or the highway.
Jeff will ban you from the list if he doesn't like your post.

Re: [Emc-users] The Code Of Conduct Fait Accompli

[ken.strauss]

I think that you are missing the point. There MIGHT be something offensive and 
we have to be prepared to deal with a transgression. It's called being 
"proactive".

More seriously and without my stupid PC hat on, such rules are completely 
unneeded and offensive!

-Original Message-
From: Scott Harwell via Emc-users  
Sent: July 22, 2021 10:29 AM
To: Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC) 
Cc: Scott Harwell 
Subject: Re: [Emc-users] The Code Of Conduct Fait Accompli

 I'm a little slow on some of this. Could someone give me an example of a 
"rules violation" please refer to an actual post. I read every email and every 
recent topic post. In my unenlightened position I can't think of anything in 
the last year that I have seen that was offensive. 

Scott H


On Thursday, July 22, 2021, 4:38:08 AM CDT, Valerio Bellizzomi 
 wrote:  
 
 I am making a big effort to understand why people is so adverse to rules. 
Every project on sourceforge/github has to follow rules of the site, and some 
projects have their own CoC.
If you agreed to behave correctly before, the CoC should not affect you, unless 
you want to misbehave now.



On Thu, 2021-07-22 at 03:02 -0400, Bruce Layne wrote:
> The "discussion" is apparently over and we still have the Code of 
> Conduct.
> 
> https://linuxcnc.org/CODE_OF_CONDUCT
> 
> It wasn't much of a discussion.  Questions were asked but there were 
> no meaningful answers.
> 
> At the risk of offending any programmers in the LinuxCNC community by 
> appropriating programmer culture, here is my pseudo code for the 
> LinuxCNC Code of Conduct Fait Accompli:
> 
> 
> 01  IMPOSE CODE OF CONDUCT ON LINUXCNC COMMUNITY
> 02  IF COMPLAINTS > 0 THEN GOTO 02
> 03  END
> 
> 
> All of the complaints by those who didn't feel a code of conduct was 
> needed have apparently now concluded and those who wanted a code of 
> conduct to regulate other people's behavior have won without ever 
> engaging on the issues... without ever justifying why their code of 
> conduct was needed, without explaining what event might have 
> precipitated the rules imposed on others, etc.
> 
> There was no need to explain who would decide what is "disinformation"
> or "conspiracy theories", or who would decide what is "other conduct 
> which could reasonably be considered inappropriate", or who would 
> decide what is "inappropriate language" or "inappropriate images".  
> There was no need to explain why the Code of Conduct was required when 
> there were no hostile comments on this group until the Code of Conduct 
> caused all of the recent animosity, resulting in exactly what it 
> purported to prevent.
> 
> One of the things I liked about LinuxCNC was that it was a community 
> effort.  Certainly there are a core group of contributors (greatly 
> appreciated), but nobody was perceived as being in charge.  There was 
> a spontaneous order arising from mutual cooperation.  This open source 
> community functioned very well without a lot of rules, and certainly 
> without any rulers.  I no longer feel that way.  At best, rather than 
> everyone behaving with courtesy and respect toward others because it's 
> the right thing to do, it now feels like coerced behavior.  I now feel 
> that this community is under the rule of unelected and as yet unnamed 
> rulers.
> 
> The process was so opaque that I still don't know if one person 
> unilaterally enacted the Code of Conduct, or was there some oligarchy 
> that made the decision after a secret discussion?
> 
> When someone violates one of the subjective rules in the new Code of 
> Conduct, will we then learn who the rulers are... or at least who the 
> enforcers are?  Or will dissidents be quietly disappeared in the 
> middle of the night?
> 
> An open source community that has always operated on mutual consent is 
> now operating under dictatorial decree with all objections ignored and 
> unanswered.  I think that's very sad.
> 
> I don't like the subjective rules in the Code of Conduct.  They seem 
> politically motivated and the vague rules can be selectively enforced.
> I also feel that the Code of Conduct will cause problems rather than 
> preventing problems.  That concern seems warranted based on the 
> hostile arguments we've already suffered as a direct result of the 
> Code of Conduct.  Mostly, I didn't like the way the Code of Conduct 
> was unilaterally decreed without discussion, and when a few people 
> tried to initiate a discussion, they were ignored by the person who 
> posted the Code of Conduct.  I'm left with the feeling that there 
> wasn't any explanation for why the Code of Conduct was needed because 
> there wasn't an actual need to regulate the behavior of a group that 
> has been self regulated for decades.  The Code of Conduct couldn't be 
> justified, so there was no effort to justify it.  If there was an 
> actual need, why wasn't there a discussion that led to community 
> standards that were established by the community?  That would have 

Re: [Emc-users] The Code Of Conduct Fait Accompli

[Mark Wendt]

Good luck finding one.  The CoC is a solution in search of a problem.

Mark

On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 10:32 AM Scott Harwell via Emc-users <
emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:

>  I'm a little slow on some of this. Could someone give me an example of a
> "rules violation" please refer to an actual post. I read every email and
> every recent topic post. In my unenlightened position I can't think of
> anything in the last year that I have seen that was offensive.
>
> Scott H
>
>
> On Thursday, July 22, 2021, 4:38:08 AM CDT, Valerio Bellizzomi <
> vale...@selnet.org> wrote:
>
>  I am making a big effort to understand why people is so adverse to
> rules. Every project on sourceforge/github has to follow rules of the
> site, and some projects have their own CoC.
> If you agreed to behave correctly before, the CoC should not affect
> you, unless you want to misbehave now.
>
>
>
> On Thu, 2021-07-22 at 03:02 -0400, Bruce Layne wrote:
> > The "discussion" is apparently over and we still have the Code of
> > Conduct.
> >
> > https://linuxcnc.org/CODE_OF_CONDUCT
> >
> > It wasn't much of a discussion.  Questions were asked but there were
> > no
> > meaningful answers.
> >
> > At the risk of offending any programmers in the LinuxCNC community
> > by
> > appropriating programmer culture, here is my pseudo code for the
> > LinuxCNC Code of Conduct Fait Accompli:
> >
> >
> > 01  IMPOSE CODE OF CONDUCT ON LINUXCNC COMMUNITY
> > 02  IF COMPLAINTS > 0 THEN GOTO 02
> > 03  END
> >
> >
> > All of the complaints by those who didn't feel a code of conduct was
> > needed have apparently now concluded and those who wanted a code of
> > conduct to regulate other people's behavior have won without ever
> > engaging on the issues... without ever justifying why their code of
> > conduct was needed, without explaining what event might have
> > precipitated the rules imposed on others, etc.
> >
> > There was no need to explain who would decide what is
> > "disinformation"
> > or "conspiracy theories", or who would decide what is "other conduct
> > which could reasonably be considered inappropriate", or who would
> > decide
> > what is "inappropriate language" or "inappropriate images".  There
> > was
> > no need to explain why the Code of Conduct was required when there
> > were
> > no hostile comments on this group until the Code of Conduct caused
> > all
> > of the recent animosity, resulting in exactly what it purported to
> > prevent.
> >
> > One of the things I liked about LinuxCNC was that it was a community
> > effort.  Certainly there are a core group of contributors (greatly
> > appreciated), but nobody was perceived as being in charge.  There was
> > a
> > spontaneous order arising from mutual cooperation.  This open source
> > community functioned very well without a lot of rules, and certainly
> > without any rulers.  I no longer feel that way.  At best, rather
> > than
> > everyone behaving with courtesy and respect toward others because
> > it's
> > the right thing to do, it now feels like coerced behavior.  I now
> > feel
> > that this community is under the rule of unelected and as yet
> > unnamed
> > rulers.
> >
> > The process was so opaque that I still don't know if one person
> > unilaterally enacted the Code of Conduct, or was there some
> > oligarchy
> > that made the decision after a secret discussion?
> >
> > When someone violates one of the subjective rules in the new Code of
> > Conduct, will we then learn who the rulers are... or at least who
> > the
> > enforcers are?  Or will dissidents be quietly disappeared in the
> > middle
> > of the night?
> >
> > An open source community that has always operated on mutual consent
> > is
> > now operating under dictatorial decree with all objections ignored
> > and
> > unanswered.  I think that's very sad.
> >
> > I don't like the subjective rules in the Code of Conduct.  They seem
> > politically motivated and the vague rules can be selectively
> > enforced.
> > I also feel that the Code of Conduct will cause problems rather than
> > preventing problems.  That concern seems warranted based on the
> > hostile
> > arguments we've already suffered as a direct result of the Code of
> > Conduct.  Mostly, I didn't like the way the Code of Conduct was
> > unilaterally decreed without discussion, and when a few people tried
> > to
> > initiate a discussion, they were ignored by the person who posted
> > the
> > Code of Conduct.  I'm left with the feeling that there wasn't any
> > explanation for why the Code of Conduct was needed because there
> > wasn't
> > an actual need to regulate the behavior of a group that has been
> > self
> > regulated for decades.  The Code of Conduct couldn't be justified,
> > so
> > there was no effort to justify it.  If there was an actual need, why
> > wasn't there a discussion that led to community standards that were
> > established by the community?  That would have been a far less
> > contentious process than someone posting the 

Re: [Emc-users] The Code Of Conduct Fait Accompli

[Scott Harwell via Emc-users]

 I'm a little slow on some of this. Could someone give me an example of a 
"rules violation" please refer to an actual post. I read every email and every 
recent topic post. In my unenlightened position I can't think of anything in 
the last year that I have seen that was offensive. 

Scott H


On Thursday, July 22, 2021, 4:38:08 AM CDT, Valerio Bellizzomi 
 wrote:  
 
 I am making a big effort to understand why people is so adverse to
rules. Every project on sourceforge/github has to follow rules of the
site, and some projects have their own CoC.
If you agreed to behave correctly before, the CoC should not affect
you, unless you want to misbehave now.



On Thu, 2021-07-22 at 03:02 -0400, Bruce Layne wrote:
> The "discussion" is apparently over and we still have the Code of
> Conduct.
> 
> https://linuxcnc.org/CODE_OF_CONDUCT
> 
> It wasn't much of a discussion.  Questions were asked but there were
> no 
> meaningful answers.
> 
> At the risk of offending any programmers in the LinuxCNC community
> by 
> appropriating programmer culture, here is my pseudo code for the 
> LinuxCNC Code of Conduct Fait Accompli:
> 
> 
> 01  IMPOSE CODE OF CONDUCT ON LINUXCNC COMMUNITY
> 02  IF COMPLAINTS > 0 THEN GOTO 02
> 03  END
> 
> 
> All of the complaints by those who didn't feel a code of conduct was 
> needed have apparently now concluded and those who wanted a code of 
> conduct to regulate other people's behavior have won without ever 
> engaging on the issues... without ever justifying why their code of 
> conduct was needed, without explaining what event might have 
> precipitated the rules imposed on others, etc.
> 
> There was no need to explain who would decide what is
> "disinformation" 
> or "conspiracy theories", or who would decide what is "other conduct 
> which could reasonably be considered inappropriate", or who would
> decide 
> what is "inappropriate language" or "inappropriate images".  There
> was 
> no need to explain why the Code of Conduct was required when there
> were 
> no hostile comments on this group until the Code of Conduct caused
> all 
> of the recent animosity, resulting in exactly what it purported to
> prevent.
> 
> One of the things I liked about LinuxCNC was that it was a community 
> effort.  Certainly there are a core group of contributors (greatly 
> appreciated), but nobody was perceived as being in charge.  There was
> a 
> spontaneous order arising from mutual cooperation.  This open source 
> community functioned very well without a lot of rules, and certainly 
> without any rulers.  I no longer feel that way.  At best, rather
> than 
> everyone behaving with courtesy and respect toward others because
> it's 
> the right thing to do, it now feels like coerced behavior.  I now
> feel 
> that this community is under the rule of unelected and as yet
> unnamed 
> rulers.
> 
> The process was so opaque that I still don't know if one person 
> unilaterally enacted the Code of Conduct, or was there some
> oligarchy 
> that made the decision after a secret discussion?
> 
> When someone violates one of the subjective rules in the new Code of 
> Conduct, will we then learn who the rulers are... or at least who
> the 
> enforcers are?  Or will dissidents be quietly disappeared in the
> middle 
> of the night?
> 
> An open source community that has always operated on mutual consent
> is 
> now operating under dictatorial decree with all objections ignored
> and 
> unanswered.  I think that's very sad.
> 
> I don't like the subjective rules in the Code of Conduct.  They seem 
> politically motivated and the vague rules can be selectively
> enforced.  
> I also feel that the Code of Conduct will cause problems rather than 
> preventing problems.  That concern seems warranted based on the
> hostile 
> arguments we've already suffered as a direct result of the Code of 
> Conduct.  Mostly, I didn't like the way the Code of Conduct was 
> unilaterally decreed without discussion, and when a few people tried
> to 
> initiate a discussion, they were ignored by the person who posted
> the 
> Code of Conduct.  I'm left with the feeling that there wasn't any 
> explanation for why the Code of Conduct was needed because there
> wasn't 
> an actual need to regulate the behavior of a group that has been
> self 
> regulated for decades.  The Code of Conduct couldn't be justified,
> so 
> there was no effort to justify it.  If there was an actual need, why 
> wasn't there a discussion that led to community standards that were 
> established by the community?  That would have been a far less 
> contentious process than someone posting the new Code of Conduct for 
> everyone else to follow without prior discussion and without any 
> community consensus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Emc-users mailing list
> Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users



___
Emc-users 

Re: [Emc-users] A new lathe encoder option.

[andy pugh]

On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 at 04:01, Chris Albertson  wrote:
>
> The noise here is not electrical noise on the cables.  We assume the signal
> is perfect square waves.This is "quantization noise".

No, I am talking _specifically_ about electrical noise. With a single
pulse counter electrical noise can cause a small position error and a
huge velocity error.
One extra pulse at a speed where there is one pulse per servo period
will double the apparent speed. I have seen single real-pulse errors
of 10x the real velocity in counter-mode.

> The solution is to either add more counts per revolution or use a ten times
> more complex control algorithm.

Bear in mind that LinuxCNC timestamps the encoder pulses, and uses
that to calculate velocity and  position-interpolated.

If there has been an encoder pulse this servo-period it takes the time
between the last pulse of the previous servo thread when a pulse was
seen, and the timestamp of the last pulse of the current servo period
and uses that (and the total number of pulses) to calculate the
velocity.

It then uses that velocity to output a position-interpolated which is
an extrapolation of the position at the current velocity since the
last pulse was seen.

If there has _not_ been a pulse then it calculates the velocity as if
there was just about to be a pulse. This should only ever be an
over-estimate, and is probably the best choice, but I had to over-ride
that in missing-tooth mode for at least the tooth gap time.

There is quantisation noise in this scheme, as the timestamping of the
pulses can only be at base-thread resolution. (or clock-rate in the
case of the FPGA counters, where it is _much_ less of an issue)

-- 
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-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users

Re: [Emc-users] A new lathe encoder option.

[Gene Heskett]

On Thursday 22 July 2021 01:02:26 dave engvall wrote:

> "The solution is to either add more counts per revolution or use a ten
> timesmore complex control algorithm."
>
> IIUC then the real problem here is statistical. That is the sample
> size is too small to be significant. Maybe an over-simplification of
> the issue but:
>
> I think there are a couple of ways to approach this. (1) time stamp
> the index pulse.
>           (2) use a high count encoder and scale as necessary.
> This is clearly limited by the response of the  optics  for the
> disc. 100 - 200 KHz for the inexpensive stuff.
> I don't think there is a one size fits all solution. In electronic
> terms lathe spindles are pretty slow and have a lot of angular
> momentum. Most lathe spindle
> rpm range is not a lot over 5-6 binary bits.
> I've actually considered putting a disc brake on the spindle. Not
> exactly joking.

Needless mechanical complexity if you use a vfd to drive the lathe 
spindle. vfd's do not come programmed out of the box. Properly 
programmed, and despite the mass of an 8" 4 jaw mounted, I can rigid tap 
on that lathe at slower speeds. I've carved up some hal code driving a 
pyvcp display that displays the overtravel of the spindle after motion 
has issued the reversal at the bottom of a g33.1 move, actually anytime 
the spindle is reversed, and with proper programming of the vfd, I get 
at 100 rpms, an overshoot of .247 turns. It gets much worse at higher 
spindle speeds since nothing can repeal the stored energy represented by 
e=mv2. At 500 revs, its several turns and the belts are complaining. But 
the vfd is not complaining. its simply doing what it was told to do. An 
m5 from the keyboard stops the spindle dead in about a turn. vfd's, 

Ditto an error from one of the 3 phase stepper-servo's now moving it.

Properly programmed, vfd's are indeed full 4 quadrant controllers. They 
can stop just as quick as they can start. But they don't come tuned like 
that out of the box. Thats a travesty out of the box.

> Just late evening rattling the cage.
>
> Dave
>
>  Could you solve the noise issue with a phase-locked loop?
> >>>
> >>> Yes, this would be a far better solution. But I didn't want to
> >>> re-write the encoder counter from scratch.
> >>>
> >>> Ideally you would use two PLLs, one for the pulses and one for the
> >>> index, to predict the pulse gap and extrapolate through it.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> 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-users mailing
> >>> list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Emc-users mailing list
> >> Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
>
> ___
> Emc-users mailing list
> Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page 


___
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users

Re: [Emc-users] The Code Of Conduct Fait Accompli

[Valerio Bellizzomi]

I am making a big effort to understand why people is so adverse to
rules. Every project on sourceforge/github has to follow rules of the
site, and some projects have their own CoC.
If you agreed to behave correctly before, the CoC should not affect
you, unless you want to misbehave now.



On Thu, 2021-07-22 at 03:02 -0400, Bruce Layne wrote:
> The "discussion" is apparently over and we still have the Code of
> Conduct.
> 
> https://linuxcnc.org/CODE_OF_CONDUCT
> 
> It wasn't much of a discussion.  Questions were asked but there were
> no 
> meaningful answers.
> 
> At the risk of offending any programmers in the LinuxCNC community
> by 
> appropriating programmer culture, here is my pseudo code for the 
> LinuxCNC Code of Conduct Fait Accompli:
> 
> 
> 01  IMPOSE CODE OF CONDUCT ON LINUXCNC COMMUNITY
> 02  IF COMPLAINTS > 0 THEN GOTO 02
> 03  END
> 
> 
> All of the complaints by those who didn't feel a code of conduct was 
> needed have apparently now concluded and those who wanted a code of 
> conduct to regulate other people's behavior have won without ever 
> engaging on the issues... without ever justifying why their code of 
> conduct was needed, without explaining what event might have 
> precipitated the rules imposed on others, etc.
> 
> There was no need to explain who would decide what is
> "disinformation" 
> or "conspiracy theories", or who would decide what is "other conduct 
> which could reasonably be considered inappropriate", or who would
> decide 
> what is "inappropriate language" or "inappropriate images".  There
> was 
> no need to explain why the Code of Conduct was required when there
> were 
> no hostile comments on this group until the Code of Conduct caused
> all 
> of the recent animosity, resulting in exactly what it purported to
> prevent.
> 
> One of the things I liked about LinuxCNC was that it was a community 
> effort.  Certainly there are a core group of contributors (greatly 
> appreciated), but nobody was perceived as being in charge.  There was
> a 
> spontaneous order arising from mutual cooperation.  This open source 
> community functioned very well without a lot of rules, and certainly 
> without any rulers.  I no longer feel that way.  At best, rather
> than 
> everyone behaving with courtesy and respect toward others because
> it's 
> the right thing to do, it now feels like coerced behavior.  I now
> feel 
> that this community is under the rule of unelected and as yet
> unnamed 
> rulers.
> 
> The process was so opaque that I still don't know if one person 
> unilaterally enacted the Code of Conduct, or was there some
> oligarchy 
> that made the decision after a secret discussion?
> 
> When someone violates one of the subjective rules in the new Code of 
> Conduct, will we then learn who the rulers are... or at least who
> the 
> enforcers are?  Or will dissidents be quietly disappeared in the
> middle 
> of the night?
> 
> An open source community that has always operated on mutual consent
> is 
> now operating under dictatorial decree with all objections ignored
> and 
> unanswered.  I think that's very sad.
> 
> I don't like the subjective rules in the Code of Conduct.  They seem 
> politically motivated and the vague rules can be selectively
> enforced.  
> I also feel that the Code of Conduct will cause problems rather than 
> preventing problems.  That concern seems warranted based on the
> hostile 
> arguments we've already suffered as a direct result of the Code of 
> Conduct.  Mostly, I didn't like the way the Code of Conduct was 
> unilaterally decreed without discussion, and when a few people tried
> to 
> initiate a discussion, they were ignored by the person who posted
> the 
> Code of Conduct.  I'm left with the feeling that there wasn't any 
> explanation for why the Code of Conduct was needed because there
> wasn't 
> an actual need to regulate the behavior of a group that has been
> self 
> regulated for decades.  The Code of Conduct couldn't be justified,
> so 
> there was no effort to justify it.  If there was an actual need, why 
> wasn't there a discussion that led to community standards that were 
> established by the community?  That would have been a far less 
> contentious process than someone posting the new Code of Conduct for 
> everyone else to follow without prior discussion and without any 
> community consensus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Emc-users mailing list
> Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users



___
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users

Re: [Emc-users] A new lathe encoder option.

[Gene Heskett]

On Wednesday 21 July 2021 22:58:21 Chris Albertson wrote:

> The noise here is not electrical noise on the cables.  We assume the
> signal is perfect square waves.This is "quantization noise".
>
> Here is what happens...   Say you have 50 slots on the spindle and the
> motor is turning at 100 RPM.   This is 1.67 revolutions per second so
> 350 pulses per second.  Now let's say your PID algorithm samples the
> encoder 100 times per second.  On average, it will get 3.5 pulses, but
> the count must always be a whole number so sometimes it gets 3 and
> sometimes 4.  Each time, the PID sees this as an error and tries to
> correct it.
>  Quantization noise is what happens when the measurement lacks enough
> resolution.
>
> Noise is defined as an error in the signal and there will always, on
> average be 1/2 count of noise error in the signal, even if it is
> electrically perfect.  If the typical number of counts is 100 per
> period than a 1/2 count noise is only 0.5% but at low speed where you
> expect only 2 counts the 1/2 count error is 25%
>
> The solution is to either add more counts per revolution or use a ten
> times more complex control algorithm.
>
100% correct Chris. so I added resolution. My working scale's for that 
are now in the low 7000's in high gear, and the low 14,000's in low 
gear, all switched by tally switches on the gear shift knobs skirt.

My Pgain in use went from 2.5 to as high as 40, but 20 is good enough 
that the only indication of loading I get is the iron in the motor 
chirping when the servo amps current limits kick in at around 17 amps.
Since the motor is a 9.7 fla motor, I figure its peaking right at 2hp 
when I hear the iron chirp.

I also took advantage of the huge gap in time when neither is valid when 
turniing the knob, so I'm not stopping the motor to save the gears, but 
running it at about 60 rpm when the knob is between positions, doing 
away with the need to reach the spindle and turn it by hand to engage 
the gear being entered. This speed reduction is done long before the 
gear being switched from is dis-engaged.

With Jon's controller, I can do this gear shift at wide open motor 
speeds, 3000 spindle revs in high gear, because the motor is reduced to 
this inbetween speed in about 50 milliseconds, and turning that slow the 
next gear is engaged without giving it help by hand. Normal control is 
restored only when the gears are fully engaged, and 50 milliseconds 
after the new switch has closed, its back up to top speed for whichever 
gear its now in.

However, despite that the gearing between he motor and spindle is random,  
I can still rigid tap with it, because the index pulse is now an ats-667 
watching a steel screw silly glued to the side of the drawbar cap, so I 
still have a once per turn index coming in.

> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 3:36 PM John Dammeyer 
>
> wrote:
> > It's been a while since I did quadrature programming but if you have
> > two sensors don't the two work together to validate signals because
> > they can only change under certain conditions.  So noise can't
> > totally screw things up.
> >
> > Now having said that of course I did change from US Digital on my DC
> > Servos to CUI because they were impacted by noise and over time
> > there were more counts in one direction than the other.  So a return
> > to zero wasn't the original zero.
> >
> > So I'm probably all wet.  But 60 pulses per rev is a lot different
> > from thousands.  Might be better to clean up the signals at the
> > source before they are ever counted.
> >
> > John
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: andy pugh [mailto:bodge...@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: July-21-21 11:54 AM
> > > To: Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)
> > > Subject: Re: [Emc-users] A new lathe encoder option.
> > >
> > > On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 at 19:49, Chris Albertson
> > > 
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > Could you solve the noise issue with a phase-locked loop?
> > >
> > > Yes, this would be a far better solution. But I didn't want to
> > > re-write the encoder counter from scratch.
> > >
> > > Ideally you would use two PLLs, one for the pulses and one for the
> > > index, to predict the pulse gap and extrapolate through it.
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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-users mailing list
> > > Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
> >
> > ___
> > Emc-users mailing list
> > Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire 

Re: [Emc-users] The Code Of Conduct Fait Accompli

[Bari]

https://forum.linuxcnc.org/29-forum-announcements/42898-linuxcnc-code-of-conduct

"You cannot reply to this topic."

And if he decides to not reply to you or anyone else, what are you or 
anyone else going to do about it? Not a threat, just asking.


Should be clear how this was and will be handled by now and by whom. 
Whoever has admin, Op, kick, ban, etc. etc. status for the mail list, 
IRC, forums. wiki, etc.etc.



On 7/22/21 2:02 AM, Bruce Layne wrote:
I now feel that this community is under the rule of unelected and as 
yet unnamed rulers.


The process was so opaque that I still don't know if one person 
unilaterally enacted the Code of Conduct, or was there some oligarchy 
that made the decision after a secret discussion?


When someone violates one of the subjective rules in the new Code of 
Conduct, will we then learn who the rulers are... or at least who the 
enforcers are?  Or will dissidents be quietly disappeared in the 
middle of the night?


An open source community that has always operated on mutual consent is 
now operating under dictatorial decree with all objections ignored and 
unanswered.  I think that's very sad. 



___
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users

[Emc-users] The Code Of Conduct Fait Accompli

[Bruce Layne]

The "discussion" is apparently over and we still have the Code of Conduct.

https://linuxcnc.org/CODE_OF_CONDUCT

It wasn't much of a discussion.  Questions were asked but there were no 
meaningful answers.


At the risk of offending any programmers in the LinuxCNC community by 
appropriating programmer culture, here is my pseudo code for the 
LinuxCNC Code of Conduct Fait Accompli:



01  IMPOSE CODE OF CONDUCT ON LINUXCNC COMMUNITY
02  IF COMPLAINTS > 0 THEN GOTO 02
03  END


All of the complaints by those who didn't feel a code of conduct was 
needed have apparently now concluded and those who wanted a code of 
conduct to regulate other people's behavior have won without ever 
engaging on the issues... without ever justifying why their code of 
conduct was needed, without explaining what event might have 
precipitated the rules imposed on others, etc.


There was no need to explain who would decide what is "disinformation" 
or "conspiracy theories", or who would decide what is "other conduct 
which could reasonably be considered inappropriate", or who would decide 
what is "inappropriate language" or "inappropriate images".  There was 
no need to explain why the Code of Conduct was required when there were 
no hostile comments on this group until the Code of Conduct caused all 
of the recent animosity, resulting in exactly what it purported to prevent.


One of the things I liked about LinuxCNC was that it was a community 
effort.  Certainly there are a core group of contributors (greatly 
appreciated), but nobody was perceived as being in charge.  There was a 
spontaneous order arising from mutual cooperation.  This open source 
community functioned very well without a lot of rules, and certainly 
without any rulers.  I no longer feel that way.  At best, rather than 
everyone behaving with courtesy and respect toward others because it's 
the right thing to do, it now feels like coerced behavior.  I now feel 
that this community is under the rule of unelected and as yet unnamed 
rulers.


The process was so opaque that I still don't know if one person 
unilaterally enacted the Code of Conduct, or was there some oligarchy 
that made the decision after a secret discussion?


When someone violates one of the subjective rules in the new Code of 
Conduct, will we then learn who the rulers are... or at least who the 
enforcers are?  Or will dissidents be quietly disappeared in the middle 
of the night?


An open source community that has always operated on mutual consent is 
now operating under dictatorial decree with all objections ignored and 
unanswered.  I think that's very sad.


I don't like the subjective rules in the Code of Conduct.  They seem 
politically motivated and the vague rules can be selectively enforced.  
I also feel that the Code of Conduct will cause problems rather than 
preventing problems.  That concern seems warranted based on the hostile 
arguments we've already suffered as a direct result of the Code of 
Conduct.  Mostly, I didn't like the way the Code of Conduct was 
unilaterally decreed without discussion, and when a few people tried to 
initiate a discussion, they were ignored by the person who posted the 
Code of Conduct.  I'm left with the feeling that there wasn't any 
explanation for why the Code of Conduct was needed because there wasn't 
an actual need to regulate the behavior of a group that has been self 
regulated for decades.  The Code of Conduct couldn't be justified, so 
there was no effort to justify it.  If there was an actual need, why 
wasn't there a discussion that led to community standards that were 
established by the community?  That would have been a far less 
contentious process than someone posting the new Code of Conduct for 
everyone else to follow without prior discussion and without any 
community consensus.







___
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users