Re: [Emc-users] Controller/machine resolution

> Floating-point numbers have a huge range due to the floating-point > nature, but the dynamic range is limited. The mantissa of an IEEE 754 > double-precision float (8 bytes) has a width of 52 bits (not counting > the sign). This gives 52/log2(10)=15.7 decimal digits of accuracy. For > linear

Re: [Emc-users] Controller/machine resolution

Hi all, I have to admit that I've not read the rest of the discussion, so please excuse if that has already been said. On 03.04.2016 19:09, Mark wrote: > On 04/03/2016 12:41 PM, Jon Elson wrote: >> On 04/03/2016 09:46 AM, Mark wrote: >>> That's why in this theoretical discussion I asked to >>>

Re: [Emc-users] Controller/machine resolution

On Sunday 03 April 2016 09:38:59 Mark wrote: > On 04/03/2016 09:28 AM, Dave Caroline wrote: > > A number is a number regardless of trailing 0's, no affect on > > accuracy or resolution. > > Where users do get it wrong though, is not understanding how path > > following has a tolerance. This is

Re: [Emc-users] Controller/machine resolution

On Sunday 03 April 2016 09:37:05 Mark wrote: > I understand that, but that doesn't really answer the question - what > determines the machine/controller resolution/precision, the machine > and electronics notwithstanding. If I set the G Code coordinates to > x.x is the resolution/accuracy

Re: [Emc-users] Controller/machine resolution

On 04/03/2016 12:41 PM, Jon Elson wrote: > On 04/03/2016 09:46 AM, Mark wrote: >> That's why in this theoretical discussion I asked to >> disregard the actual machine accuracy and presume you had >> the so-called perfect machine. What I was looking for was >> how precise/accurate/resolute the

Re: [Emc-users] Controller/machine resolution

On 04/03/2016 09:46 AM, Mark wrote: > That's why in this theoretical discussion I asked to > disregard the actual machine accuracy and presume you had > the so-called perfect machine. What I was looking for was > how precise/accurate/resolute the controller would be. But, there is no "perfect

Re: [Emc-users] Controller/machine resolution

On 04/03/2016 08:37 AM, Mark wrote: > I understand that, but that doesn't really answer the question - what > determines the machine/controller resolution/precision, the machine and > electronics notwithstanding. If I set the G Code coordinates to x.x is > the resolution/accuracy actually 0.1" or

Re: [Emc-users] Controller/machine resolution

On 04/03/2016 07:48 AM, Mark wrote: > Friend of mine and I have had an email discussion going over the last > few days about movement precision, accuracy and resolution. > > Lets say there are three different G Code files, A, B and C. > > In file A, the coordinates are such: X x.x Y x.x > > In

Re: [Emc-users] Controller/machine resolution

On 04/03/2016 10:14 AM, Nicklas Karlsson wrote: >> On 04/03/2016 09:31 AM, Nicklas Karlsson wrote: Lets say there are three different G Code files, A, B and C. In file A, the coordinates are such: X x.x Y x.x In file B, the coordinates are such: X x.xx Y x.xx In

Re: [Emc-users] Controller/machine resolution

On 04/03/2016 09:42 AM, Dave Caroline wrote: > we are all saying it makes NO difference how many trailing 0s you have > the accuracy is machine and its maths, see Andy's answer > > Dave Caroline It's a theoretical discussion, hence my usage of the theoretically perfect machine, which has no slop

Re: [Emc-users] Controller/machine resolution

On 04/03/2016 09:55 AM, andy pugh wrote: > On 3 April 2016 at 14:47, Mark wrote: > >> Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Assuming the theoretically perfect >> machine, a commanded move in a straight line (keeping it >> simplified)would stop within >> >> x.x0" of

Re: [Emc-users] Controller/machine resolution

> On 04/03/2016 09:31 AM, Nicklas Karlsson wrote: > >> Lets say there are three different G Code files, A, B and C. > >> > >> In file A, the coordinates are such: X x.x Y x.x > >> > >> In file B, the coordinates are such: X x.xx Y x.xx > >> > >> In file C, the coordinates are such: X x.xxx Y

Re: [Emc-users] Controller/machine resolution

On 3 April 2016 at 14:47, Mark wrote: > Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Assuming the theoretically perfect > machine, a commanded move in a straight line (keeping it > simplified)would stop within > > x.x0" of it's commanded position, correct? Yes. Less

Re: [Emc-users] Controller/machine resolution

On 04/03/2016 09:34 AM, andy pugh wrote: > On 3 April 2016 at 13:48, Mark wrote: > >> Using file A for example, with the coordinates only given with 0.1" >> precision, what exactly does the controller do? Does it actually work >> to 0.1" precision or does it work to

Re: [Emc-users] Controller/machine resolution

On 04/03/2016 09:31 AM, Nicklas Karlsson wrote: >> Lets say there are three different G Code files, A, B and C. >> >> In file A, the coordinates are such: X x.x Y x.x >> >> In file B, the coordinates are such: X x.xx Y x.xx >> >> In file C, the coordinates are such: X x.xxx Y x.xxx >> >> For

Re: [Emc-users] Controller/machine resolution

we are all saying it makes NO difference how many trailing 0s you have the accuracy is machine and its maths, see Andy's answer Dave Caroline -- Transform Data into Opportunity. Accelerate data analysis in your

Re: [Emc-users] Controller/machine resolution

On 04/03/2016 09:28 AM, Dave Caroline wrote: > A number is a number regardless of trailing 0's, no affect on accuracy > or resolution. > Where users do get it wrong though, is not understanding how path > following has a tolerance. This is separate from the number and its > 0's but the speed of

Re: [Emc-users] Controller/machine resolution

I understand that, but that doesn't really answer the question - what determines the machine/controller resolution/precision, the machine and electronics notwithstanding. If I set the G Code coordinates to x.x is the resolution/accuracy actually 0.1" or is it 0.01" or 0.001" or something

Re: [Emc-users] Controller/machine resolution

On 3 April 2016 at 13:48, Mark wrote: > Using file A for example, with the coordinates only given with 0.1" > precision, what exactly does the controller do? Does it actually work > to 0.1" precision or does it work to moreprecision, vis-a-vis when > making moves? It will

Re: [Emc-users] Controller/machine resolution

> Lets say there are three different G Code files, A, B and C. > > In file A, the coordinates are such: X x.x Y x.x > > In file B, the coordinates are such: X x.xx Y x.xx > > In file C, the coordinates are such: X x.xxx Y x.xxx > > For simplicity's sake, no Z axis and the units are inches. >

Re: [Emc-users] Controller/machine resolution

A number is a number regardless of trailing 0's, no affect on accuracy or resolution. Where users do get it wrong though, is not understanding how path following has a tolerance. This is separate from the number and its 0's but the speed of how you can change direction. see

Re: [Emc-users] Controller/machine resolution

http://linuxcnc.org/docs/2.7/html/gcode/overview.html#_number JT On 4/3/2016 7:48 AM, Mark wrote: > Friend of mine and I have had an email discussion going over the last > few days about movement precision, accuracy and resolution. > > Lets say there are three different G Code files, A, B and C.