my wallet is whimpering a bit (just won a couple ebay auctions)
* jmkasunich gets busy on the job that will pay for that
yay for tax refunds!
is it an interesting job?
more intake manifolds
48 of them this time - will be an interesting exercise in optimizing g-code
and fixturing - I'm making a set of soft jaws so I can get a better grip on the raw casting for the first operation
facing with the tormach face mill should be _much_ faster than using a small endmill, but I need a solid grip on the part
I'm also gonna be trying out "drill-mills" (endmills with 90 degree drill points on the end)
that will take me from 3 tools per part down to 2
face it with the facemill, then drill the screw holes, touch up the bore, and chamfer everything with the drill-mill
ah cool, I've been wanting to try those for something too.
I thought you needed ball end for the bore though
the carb end bore is just a very minor cleanup - a 45 deg chamfer will be fine for each step
the block end gets more radical internal bore work (the casting cores aren't very accurate)
but I think the 45 deg will work OK there too
cradek: I thought if you had separate limits you don't even need override limit to get off of the one you are on?
only need override limits if you are "on both" and EMC doesn't know which way is safe
that's incorrect. you always need to use override limits. if you have separate switches, it will only let you jog the correct way.
either way, you get only one jog and then the amps turn back off and you have to override again if you're still on the switch.
oops, I guess I'm spreading misinformation
if you are on both limits, it has to let you do any old jog - that's the only difference as far as I remember.
what are you using for your soft jaws? some kind of plastic?
just some scraps I had around
"soft" in this case just means "machined to suit the part"
can you fit two on the table at a time to minimize tool changes? either the same end, or opposite ends like those motor mounts we did?
I thought about that
maybe I should think some more
last time setup: http://willepadnos.net/jmkasunich/carb-flange-setup-1996.jpg
the part needs to be clamped very close to the side of the jaws, and hangs down quite a bit
that's why I had the vise on its side
was gonna do the same this time, which means one part only
but if I made the soft jaws hang out past the ends of the vise a bit, I could sit the vise upright and put a part on each end of the jaws
I'm not using the same vise - the one in the pic doesn't have removable jaws
that sounds great if it will be able to tighten on both
it would tighten fine
in fact, it would be a more balanced load on the vise
I think the problem will be supporting the lower ends of both parts
are you sure you need to?
they'll have to be rotated 90 deg around Z from what they are in the picture
I guess that depends on how hard I grab them
its basically a 2-point mount, unless the other end is tied down
the 3rd point makes things much more rigid, and much more repeatable
even with soft jaws milled to seat the part, it isn't very stable for rotation around Y
I thought you'd have four if you could go around the ears with your custom jaws
yeah, but it will be two pairs separated by maybe 1/4" tops
yeah I suppose not. would be better if the 'bottom' of the ears were flat, but I'm sure they're not
nope, casting draft plus roughness
how about around the neck below the ears?
lets see - 48 parts * 2 toolchanges doing it 1-up
24 parts * 2 changes doing it 2-up
savings of 48 changes
at 45 seconds each, = 36 minutes
I bet I'd spend that on setup
can't really grab the neck - 1) its thin walled, 2) would block the drill from coming thru when I drill the mounting holes
if you do 1-up and have jaws, maybe you can change parts much faster than you can change tools
thats a thought
also you could leave the spindle going then, if that's a problem
that depends on how safe I want to be
doesn't end of program stop the spindle?
m2 yes, % no, iirc
one of these days I'm gonna wire up that foot switch to the drill press
the problem is I never think of it when I'm not in the middle of a project
EMC: 03bigjohnt 07v2_3_branch * 10emc2/docs/src/gcode/overview.lyx: minor edits
EMC: 03bigjohnt 07TRUNK * 10emc2/docs/src/gcode/overview.lyx: minor edits
EMC: 03bigjohnt 07TRUNK * 10emc2/docs/src/hal/pyvcp.lyx: minor edits
steve_stallings is now known as steves_logging
I think what robert melville is suggesting is that in a system with both-limit-x, if emc was commanding x+ when the limit input went high, you can only jog x- off the limit
one input for the axis, but using extra information emc has to figure out which of two real switches it must have been
you may be right - good job divining that
read his message again and see if you think that's what it says
yes I think you are right
I can't decide what I think about that.
one way to hit a limit on a servo system is to loose feedback. if the axis was intended to be stationary when feedback was lost, it's even money which way it'll go. Imagine it went towards + but just before it hits the limit switch, emc starts commanding -. Now you can only jog further onto the limit switch.
I can come up with situations where this heuristic can be wrong, but they all seem pretty contrived
yeah there are all sorts of reasons you can hit a limit switch. I think the situation he's talking about, where he's jogging around on purpose, is fixed by homing + soft limits
for a machine without homing and soft limits, I can see where you'd want it more, since you'd regularly hit the switches - maybe even in normal operation.
like "lifting Z up to the top"
so I wonder what the real "use case" is here, and what problem we're trying to solve.
btw, please carefully spell lose "lose" to help stop the spread of that particular insanity
I've done that twice recently that I'm aware of
maybe the internet is slowly making you stupid
I'd rather believe that than think I was always stupi
steves_logging is now known as steve_stallings
I am pretty sure that Robert was indeed thinking about using knowledge of last commanded direction to supplement the decision about locking out movement.
He is surely thinking about stepper systems. In that case the needed signals are available to implement his needs using HAL>
A single limit switch pin can be fed to two EMC inputs based on last direction commanded.
I bet you're right - he may be able to rig it up in HAL.
IMO, his time would be better spent setting up correct homing and soft limits, though.
he could home to his existing limit switches with no hardware changes needed.
Agreed, but sometimes that can be more than just an electrical thing. Many machines come with a single switch and two trip dogs on an axis.
Also, many stepper systems users are struggling to maximize usage of the few available inputs on a parallel port.
yeah, but you can still home to that single switch and then have soft limits
Yes, soft limits are a good solution. Many people, myself included, fail to take advantage of that.
2 inputs (all limit, all home) is probably the setup I'd recommend for an input-limited system
FYI, my Thinkpad boot problems got solved by BIOS settings, now I get to fix the wired Ethernet driver problem. I get to download and compile an installable module for the driver. Should be fun for a Linux newbie (still).
it's pretty easy to build a driver to suit your installed kernel nowadays.
(if the driver author/distributor has a clue)
We shall see.... I plan to use another system with working net connection to do the build. Since both were installed from EMC live CD, I assume just copying over the compiled binary will work.
yes if they have the same kernel.
Driver is from Intel, lots of info about this chip and 8.04 LTS available on the net. Early attempts at driver caused dead machines because driver left EEPROM mapped as R/W memory and other bugs in Linux wrote over it. Now solved.
Well, dead Ethernet port. At the time beta testers did not know what was happening and laptop vendors just replaced motherboards as the standard fix.
ouch, sounds very painful.
Yea, some of the comments on developer forums were not too kind.
I suppose ibm does not make the needed information available.
EEPROM was left mapped so ethernet tools in Linux could edit MAC address. Actual bug was related to function trace (ftrace) and malloc problems not caused by driver.
IBM/Lenovo just recommends using maint release of 8.04 LTS or 8.10, either of which contains the fix.
Unfortunately that avenue is not available to me if I want RTAI.
yeah, not easily anyway.
you would have to build it yourself, which is painful. building the driver should be easier.
Hope to try this afternoon if things are relatively quiet at the office today.
Matt will be my lifeline... 8-)
steve_stallings is now known as steves_logging
in TRUNK messages in rs274ngc_return.hh are not translatable even if they have _ prefix
thanks for the note. I'll fix it, I think I know the reason
EMC: 03jepler 07TRUNK * 10emc2/src/po/Submakefile: this file has user messages in it
EMC: 03eric-johnson 07TRUNK * 10emc2/src/hal/components/feedcomp.comp: Cosmetic change, mainly adding license information.
EMC: 03eric-johnson 07TRUNK * 10emc2/src/hal/components/joyhandle.comp: *** empty log message ***