On 10/23/2014 8:59 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> If you want the fan to not fail again, use a drop of silicone oil on
>> its bearings. Silicone brake fluid is ideal for the job. It's
>> essentially silicone oil with a touch of purple dye and possibly some
>> corrosion inhibitors.
>>
>> It has much be
On Friday 24 October 2014 04:24:20 Gregg Eshelman did opine
And Gene did reply:
> On 10/23/2014 8:59 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >> If you want the fan to not fail again, use a drop of silicone oil on
> >> its bearings. Silicone brake fluid is ideal for the job. It's
> >> essentially silicone oil wit
On 10/23/2014 8:59 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> If you want the fan to not fail again, use a drop of silicone oil on
>> its bearings. Silicone brake fluid is ideal for the job. It's
>> essentially silicone oil with a touch of purple dye and possibly some
>> corrosion inhibitors.
>>
>> It has much be
On Thursday 23 October 2014 03:22:11 Gregg Eshelman did opine
And Gene did reply:
> On 10/22/2014 2:18 PM, jrmitchellj . wrote:
> > As an example of what I am talking about, a couple of years ago, I
> > had a film scanner, costing new several hundreds of thousand of
> > dollars, fail. The service
You could also go the way of the VAXbar... Perhaps modernize it ala RaspberryPi
and an automated drink mixing system?
--Original Mail--
From: "Dave Cole"
To:
Sent: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 10:06:17 -0400
Subject: Re: [Emc-users] part 2 - Mach3 to LinuxCNC
Years ago I used to t
Years ago I used to tie control systems into PDPs and Vax systems..
this was in the days of fast 9600 baud serial links.
I have a never used PDP 6 foot plus rack in my garage. It still had
the shrink wrapped when I got it. Back in the early 80's they were
going to toss it into a dumpster, s
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:50 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
>
>
> The component distributor that I worked for in the 80's ran a PDP8 and a
> PDP11 running 100 sales desks and worked well most of the time. At the
> same time I had a VAX hidden away in the plant room which just had two
> terminals for doi
On 23/10/14 02:30, andy pugh wrote:
>> My first exposure to Unix was PDP-11 with 64K words of memory.
> I was using a PDP for a real-time control task two years ago. It still
> did the same job as when it was installed in 1982. (running an engine
> dyno)
The component distributor that I worked fo
On 10/22/2014 2:18 PM, jrmitchellj . wrote:
> As an example of what I am talking about, a couple of years ago, I had a
> film scanner, costing new several hundreds of thousand of dollars, fail.
> The service tech came out and stated a box in the system had failed, and
> would cost $6500 + labor to
Reminds me of when I worked for an ISP and telco at the turn of the
century. They installed a calling card phone at a food processing plant.
The thing looked massive and it was quite expensive. The heavy steel box
was 99.9% empty space. The phone electronics were on a circuit board the
size of
On 10/22/2014 10:40 AM, Stuart Stevenson wrote:
> I see service guys (here in Wichita) that will not 'consider' putting a
> garden variety PC on a machine tool. That would be heresy.
> It is difficult to get some of them to come in and service the commercial
> controls they specialize in.
>
> They
On 23 October 2014 02:22, John Dammeyer wrote:
> It's not so much an Arduino as a small embedded processor be it a PIC,
> ATMEL, TI, etc...
Yes. However Arduino just needs a USB cable rather an a JTAG or
equivalent programmer, and you can program it in C rather an PIC
machine code or whatever.
It
ct
is dirt simple.
John Dammeyer
> -Original Message-
> From: andy pugh [mailto:bodge...@gmail.com]
> Sent: October-22-14 5:59 PM
> To: Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)
> Subject: Re: [Emc-users] part 2 - Mach3 to LinuxCNC
>
>
> On 23 October 2014 01:19, Dav
On 23 October 2014 01:19, Dave Cole wrote:
> So a command line would be a luxury??
Well, to be fair you can output to a serial log, unless you are using
those pins for something else, but there is no OS, it really is just a
uP doing a job.
> Yeah.. and now I remember why I have avoided Arduinos
On 10/22/2014 6:10 PM, andy pugh wrote:
> unless you get really creative with leds and morse.:-)
Morse ...as in Morse Code?? 8-O
So a command line would be a luxury??
Yeah.. and now I remember why I have avoided Arduinos..
Dave
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! A
On 22 October 2014 21:24, Charles Steinkuehler wrote:
>
> I'm working on "beating the drum" (with the last point especially), but
> it's hard to convince folks of what they're missing (halscope, run time
> editable configurations, etc) when they are used to having to compile
> firmware to do somet
ed Machine Controller (EMC)
> Subject: Re: [Emc-users] part 2 - Mach3 to LinuxCNC
>
> On 10/22/2014 3:40 PM, Dave Cole wrote:
> >>> To be fair, some 3D printers *DO* run Mach.
> >
> > I didn't know that, thanks for correcting me.
> >
> > How are t
On 10/22/2014 3:40 PM, Dave Cole wrote:
>>> To be fair, some 3D printers *DO* run Mach.
>
> I didn't know that, thanks for correcting me.
>
> How are they doing temperature control with Mach3 ?? Or are they not doing
> that.
I believe most of the RepStrap style mill refits use off-the-shelf
st
>>To be fair, some 3D printers *DO* run Mach.
I didn't know that, thanks for correcting me.
How are they doing temperature control with Mach3 ?? Or are they not doing
that.
Dave
On 10/22/2014 4:24 PM, Charles Steinkuehler wrote:
> On 10/22/2014 12:38 PM, Dave Cole wrote:
>> LinuxCNC is cons
On 10/22/2014 12:38 PM, Dave Cole wrote:
>
> LinuxCNC is constantly being developed and redeveloped. Do you see any
> derivation of Mach3/4 being used on 3D printers. No.
To be fair, some 3D printers *DO* run Mach. AFAIK, it's not that many,
and mostly the "retrofit" sort of printer where s
As an example of what I am talking about, a couple of years ago, I had a
film scanner, costing new several hundreds of thousand of dollars, fail.
The service tech came out and stated a box in the system had failed, and
would cost $6500 + labor to replace. I sent him home!
I pulled the box out of
unfortunately that is completely accurate. There is BIG money in keeping
the commercial controls proprietary and away from the open source cheap and
free options. In my view that is never gonna change but what it does do is
make THOUSANDS of nice used machines available for scrap prices just
becau
If those service techs understood what is really inside, at the core of
those expensive, name brand control systems!
Their job is to sell the end user module based repairs that cost several
thousands of dollars.
The commodity based solution, like a LinuxCNC installation, does not fit
that paradigm,
On 10/22/2014 1:40 PM, andy pugh wrote:
> Hmm, thinking about it, how hard would it be for CL to drive axes
> directly? Perhaps that would go a long way towards helping.
I think I have done what you are talking about.
The limit3 component was key.
CL can load a new position and limit3 controls t
On 22 October 2014 18:03, Pete Matos wrote:
> There are a lot of things that I was able to do
> on the Haas control that I would need to add custom work for in the
> linuxCNC control.
A list would be a good starting point.
I have wondered if a generic toolchanger is possible, a component that
ta
Comparing LinuxCNC to Mach3 is really comparing apples to oranges.
They are totally different.
If someone wants to do a xyz mini mill and has no knowledge of Linux but
can "sort of run" a Windows PC, why would he want to use LinuxCNC?
Assuming he doesn't want to do rigid tapping ( an advanced
Stuart,
I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. Anyone that has run a
commercial control can see that there are quite a few differences and
options that are not build into the basic linuxCNC control. Sure you can
add a lot of whatever you want but it seems like some should work or at
leas
Gentlemen,
I guess I was not clearly expressing myself.
This may be a little more direct.
I don't see ANY competition between Mach and LinuxCNC. When you compare the
quality of apple to the quality of oranges any argument fails.
The competition between the "new" youngsters and "old" cnc guys does n
On 10/22/2014 08:24 AM, Charles Buckley wrote:
... snip
> You want people to adopt LinuxCNC? You have to tie it to a new machine that
> is cutting edge, then bill it as open source. Right now, Instructables is
... snip
Hows about:
http://www.tormach.com/product_lathe.html
--
Kirk Wallace
http:/
On 22 October 2014 15:00, Stuart Stevenson wrote:
> I am at a loss as to why the LinuxCNC community cares about
> Mach(whatever)'s market share or usability or capabilities.
It doesn't bother me at all, except in one particular situation.
On (for example) CNCzone someone arrives and says "I need
Personally I feel like linuxCNC has nothing to prove to Mach3. It is a far
superior product in my mind and from what I have seen of it. Having built
and run a machine on both systems now I feel that LinuxCNC is a much more
pro control in the way it works. It feels and runs a lot more like
somethi
The real impediment to LinuxCNC having a larger adoption is.. Arduino.
Not Mach. Not LinuxCNC itself.
The whole way the younger generation is being taught that what they are
doing is cutting edge and new and exciting and that there is nothing to
learn from CNC as it is old and outdated is the r
Except that is totally false. See my other post for the reasons Mach3 is more
popular with new users.
--Original Mail--
From: "Len Shelton"
To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
Sent: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 09:24:39 -0500
Subject: Re: [Emc-users] part 2 - Mach3 to L
On Wednesday 22 October 2014 10:00:21 Stuart Stevenson did opine
And Gene did reply:
> Gentlemen,
> I am at a loss as to why the LinuxCNC community cares about
> Mach(whatever)'s market share or usability or capabilities. This
> applies to all other control systems as well.
>
> Also, the only reas
Except that the only reason that Mach3 is popular is because it runs on
Windows, which is a feature that LinuxCNC will never have :-P
>Len
On 10/22/2014 9:20 AM, p...@wpnet.us wrote:
> I think there is plenty of reason to care about why another control may be
> more popular, including comme
larger volumes
of users come larger volumes of unique perspectives and feedback on what could
be better.
--Original Mail--
From: "Stuart Stevenson"
To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
Sent: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 09:00:21 -0500
Subject: Re: [Emc-users] part 2 - Mach3 to
that I found the
issue myself.
--Original Mail--
From: "John Alexander Stewart"
To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
Sent: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 08:57:13 -0400
Subject: [Emc-users] part 2 - Mach3 to LinuxCNC
I'm always interested to see how "the younger set" bu
Well spoken Stuart and dead on. :-)
Dave
On Wed, 2014-10-22 at 09:00 -0500, Stuart Stevenson wrote:
> Gentlemen,
> I am at a loss as to why the LinuxCNC community cares about
> Mach(whatever)'s market share or usability or capabilities. This applies to
> all other control systems as well.
>
> A
Gentlemen,
I am at a loss as to why the LinuxCNC community cares about
Mach(whatever)'s market share or usability or capabilities. This applies to
all other control systems as well.
Also, the only reason to promote LinuxCNC is to enhance the capabilities
for our own use.
It matters not if anyone e
or it. So there is hope...
-- Ralph
From: John Alexander Stewart [ivatt...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 5:57 AM
To: Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)
Subject: [Emc-users] part 2 - Mach3 to LinuxCNC
I'm always interested to see how &q
I'm always interested to see how "the younger set" build things.
Quite often they use Mach3 - here's an example:
http://www.buildlog.net/sm_laser/drawings.html
Charles and Co. are doing great things with Machinekit and 3D printers,
but, how do we get the "younger set" to use LinuxCNC more?
I don
41 matches
Mail list logo
