#emc | Logs for 2005-05-30

[00:00:30] <paul_c> then when that is done....
[00:00:32] <paul_c> make
[00:01:54] <alex_joni> paul_c: the message is sent through the emcCommand from emcsh.cc
[00:02:05] <weyland> okay, done
[00:02:23] <alex_joni> yet it appears to reach simio (through toolCmd )
[00:02:31] <paul_c> cd ~/emc2/emc2jmk
[00:02:37] <alex_joni> I kinda find that strange..
[00:02:40] <weyland> k
[00:03:02] <paul_c> at which point, alex_joni will take over and tell you how to run it.
[00:03:23] <weyland> would it be teh same as before
[00:03:24] <weyland> ?
[00:03:55] <alex_joni> weyland: most probably
[00:04:06] <alex_joni> but at least now you are surely to receive bug fixes
[00:04:06] <weyland> okay, lemme try
[00:04:11] <alex_joni> when doing cvs up
[00:04:20] <weyland> ah, okay
[00:04:28] <alex_joni> paul_c: seems some NML messaging is screwed
[00:04:36] <alex_joni> the emc.nml looks fine though
[00:05:17] <anonimasu> * anonimasu yawns
[00:05:21] <anonimasu> back from work
[00:05:26] <anonimasu> need to re-charge the laptop
[00:05:28] <paul_c> is there any more to the debug ?
[00:06:50] <alex_joni> a lot, but right now I'm too tired for it :(
[00:07:21] <alex_joni> hmm.. seems a lot of messages end up in the wrong place
[00:07:34] <alex_joni> I tried the Settings->Debug (in tkemc)
[00:07:51] <alex_joni> I get the same error from simio: unknown command EMC_SET_DEBUG
[00:08:43] <alex_joni> very strange
[00:08:49] <alex_joni> it works when the machine is in ESTOP
[00:10:46] <alex_joni> errr.. no it doesn't, but the commands get queued
[00:10:58] <alex_joni> and when ESTOP is released they go all up
[00:11:37] <weyland> absolutely NO difference
[00:11:51] <weyland> I give up for tonight
[00:11:57] <weyland> have other things that have to get done
[00:12:10] <CIA-8> 03paul_c * 10emc2/configs/emc.ini: It does help if the directory is included with the tool table file parameter.
[00:12:16] <weyland> g41/42 does not work
[00:12:20] <weyland> I did that
[00:12:48] <weyland> will check baq later
[00:12:51] <weyland> gotta go
[00:14:09] <alex_joni> case EMC_TOOL_LOAD_TOOL_TABLE_TYPE:
[00:14:09] <alex_joni> case EMC_TOOL_SET_OFFSET_TYPE:
[00:14:09] <alex_joni> // send to IO
[00:14:09] <alex_joni> emcTaskQueueCommand(emcCommand);
[00:14:24] <alex_joni> that might mean that the same NML is sent to IO too?
[00:14:31] <alex_joni> might be a reason for it not working then
[00:17:05] <alex_joni> * alex_joni is starting to see clearly ;)
[00:17:48] <alex_joni> tool table is not implemented
[00:17:49] <alex_joni> :(
[00:18:17] <alex_joni> on emc1 it was under minimilltool.cc and bridgeporttool.cc
[00:18:28] <alex_joni> seems on emc2 this stuff is still missing
[00:21:23] <alex_joni> ok.. filed a bug report for it
[00:21:29] <alex_joni> * alex_joni crashes now
[00:21:31] <alex_joni> night guys
[00:21:41] <alex_joni> paul_c: it might be pretty late there too ;)
[00:22:05] <paul_c> 01:21
[00:22:15] <alex_joni> [03:21] <paul_c> 01:21
[00:22:25] <paul_c> * paul_c contemplates another kick.
[00:22:27] <jacky> ugh 02:30 :\
[00:22:32] <alex_joni> I'll hate myself in about 4 hours
[00:23:05] <alex_joni> paul_c: before the kick, one more bitching about bdi4
[00:23:19] <alex_joni> the load and shutdown splashes
[00:23:42] <alex_joni> I like the penguin, but I don't like that ugly gray bar that comes in front of the picture
[00:23:53] <alex_joni> the one for progress
[00:24:03] <alex_joni> it should be behind the pic
[00:25:21] <paul_c> You need to take that up with the bootsplash guys.
[00:25:55] <alex_joni> thought there might be an option for that
[00:26:15] <cradek> go to bed!
[00:28:40] <alex_joni> Option name: overpaintok
[00:28:40] <alex_joni> Possible values: 0 or 1 (no or yes)
[00:28:40] <alex_joni> Refreshes only the boxes (instead of the whole screen). This is a performace enhancement.
[00:28:40] <alex_joni> Versions 3 and up
[00:28:44] <alex_joni> make that 0 ;)
[00:28:47] <alex_joni> * alex_joni gone
[00:32:38] <jacky> this switch is drive me crazy :(������
[00:32:49] <jacky> * jacky go to bed
[00:32:58] <jacky> night all
[00:34:28] <CIA-8> 03cradek * 10emc2/src/emc/task/emccanon.cc:
[00:34:29] <CIA-8> fix patch brought forward incorrectly from emc1. This is for the
[00:34:29] <CIA-8> problem with velocity on g0 being too high when using g54.
[00:41:29] <CIA-8> 03cradek 07bdi-4 * 10emc2/src/emc/task/emccanon.cc:
[00:41:29] <CIA-8> fix patch brought forward incorrectly from emc1. This is for the
[00:41:29] <CIA-8> problem with velocity on g0 being too high when using g54.
[01:08:27] <fenn_afk> my brain hurts
[01:08:46] <cradek> I take excedrin
[01:09:59] <fenn_afk> no i dont have a headache
[01:10:37] <fenn_afk> i'm surveying all the different inter-process control libraries out there
[01:11:07] <cradek> that sounds like a terrible way to spend a Sunday evening
[01:12:01] <fenn_afk> that's why i'm going to sleep on it for a while
[01:15:48] <anonimasu> isnt today sat?
[01:15:58] <cradek> not here it isn't
[01:16:05] <anonimasu> hm, ok
[01:16:08] <anonimasu> I wish it was sat..
[01:16:10] <anonimasu> :/
[01:16:19] <anonimasu> I need to sleep for a hour then back to work
[01:17:31] <anonimasu> night
[01:17:37] <cradek> g'night
[01:19:32] <anonimasu> hm, nah
[01:19:38] <anonimasu> I'll code some more then go to bed
[01:19:41] <anonimasu> and sleep a bit longer
[01:21:16] <jmk_away> jmk_away is now known as jmkasunich
[01:21:23] <cradek> hi jmk
[01:21:28] <jmkasunich> hi
[01:21:38] <jmkasunich> seems like I missed some fun with tooltables
[01:21:45] <cradek> I guess they don't work
[01:21:50] <cradek> (in emc2)
[01:21:58] <cradek> (in emc2 head)
[01:22:05] <jmkasunich> so it seems
[01:22:14] <cradek> * cradek shrugs
[01:22:19] <jmkasunich> never tested them, but didn't think I did anything that would have affected that
[01:22:29] <jmkasunich> never touched the interpreter, doesn't it handle tooltable?
[01:22:40] <cradek> I've never used them! I carefully set my tools all the same length
[01:22:50] <cradek> yeah, surely it does
[01:22:52] <jmkasunich> tooltable also has tool diameters....
[01:23:02] <cradek> I think the message is dropped somewhere
[01:23:10] <jmkasunich> I think dia is what weyland is needing
[01:23:23] <cradek> aren't len and dia in the same file?
[01:23:31] <jmkasunich> I think
[01:36:41] <CIA-8> 03jmkasunich * 10emc2/src/libnml/posemath/Makefile: removed a duplicate definition of the kclean target
[01:50:49] <SWP_Away> the tool table stuff is passed to minimillio or bridgeportio, I think
[01:51:07] <SWP_Away> there are NML messages for tool functions
[01:51:31] <SWP_Away> (1017 is EMC_TOOL_LOAD_TOOL_TABLE, which is unknown in EMC2)
[01:51:42] <jmkasunich> and the new io module doesn't do anything with them yet.. hence the problem
[01:51:56] <jmkasunich> unknown?
[01:52:04] <jmkasunich> as in it was deleted from emc.hh?
[01:52:17] <Jymmm> Some of the drillrod I got has scratches, any suggestions to get rid of them without makign gouges (nothing to turn them on)?
[01:53:00] <SWP_Away> no -as in alex saw the message get sent, and a status of "unknown message type" or something
[01:53:43] <jmkasunich> 1107 in emc.hh
[01:54:13] <jmkasunich> so it exists, but the io module isn't doing anything with it
[01:54:15] <SWP_Away> right - unknown in the module that's supposed to deal with it
[01:54:58] <SWP_Away> issuing EMC_TOOL_LOAD_TOOL_TABLE (...., emc.tbl)
[01:55:00] <SWP_Away> emcTaskIssueCommand() ....
[01:55:01] <SWP_Away> ...
[01:55:03] <SWP_Away> unknown command EMC_TOOL_LOAD_TOOL_TABLE
[01:55:08] <SWP_Away> that was from alex a while back
[01:55:36] <jmkasunich> so the gawdawfull switch in io or simio is missing some cases
[01:55:54] <SWP_Away> also, later, he mentioned that the command to change DEBUG states was unknown
[01:55:58] <SWP_Away> (from the GUI)
[01:56:05] <SWP_Away> SWP_Away is now known as SWPadnos
[01:58:53] <jmkasunich> hmmm... ioControl.cc has many of the TOOL messages, but not TOOL_LOAD_TOOL_TABLE
[01:59:09] <SWPadnos> where is that file?
[01:59:18] <jmkasunich> src/emc/iotask
[01:59:41] <jmkasunich> starting at line 547 are the tool message handlers
[02:00:08] <jmkasunich> TOOL_INIT, TOOL_HALT, TOOL_ABORT, TOOL_PREPARE, TOOL_LOAD, TOOL_UNLOAD have cases to handle them
[02:00:21] <jmkasunich> but not TOOL_LOAD_TOOL_TABLE
[02:01:00] <SWPadnos> hmmm
[02:02:19] <SWPadnos> right - those used to be in bridgeporttool and minimilltool
[02:03:05] <jmkasunich> looks like TOOL_SET_OFFSET is also missing
[02:03:48] <SWPadnos> well - I'd imagine a bunch of things are problematic if a tool table can't be loaded
[02:03:57] <jmkasunich> yeah
[02:04:12] <jmkasunich> you can tell I don't have a real machine to test with, or real parts to make
[02:04:27] <jmkasunich> I mostly worked on the motion control, so that is what I tested
[02:04:35] <SWPadnos> heh - I've got a machine, but no time to make it work (or CNC to make motor mounts)
[02:04:59] <jmkasunich> it is very tempting to just lift the relevant code from bridgeporttool.cc
[02:05:56] <SWPadnos> there's just a function call to loadtooltable - haven't looked to see where that is
[02:06:11] <SWPadnos> OK- same file
[02:08:47] <jmkasunich> I wonder what is the least messy way to get that functionality into the new code
[02:10:36] <SWPadnos> not sure - it's really a helper task, so it makes sense to have a "tool.cc" file
[02:10:51] <jmkasunich> there is actually a heirarchy of controllers...
[02:11:08] <jmkasunich> looks like alex was flattening that out with inControl.cc
[02:12:06] <SWPadnos> I guess it would depend on whether all aspects of toolchanges should be in one place (logical and mechanical), or whether it should be split
[02:13:02] <SWPadnos> I'd go for a split, since the tool parameters should be largely the same for all machines
[02:13:11] <SWPadnos> (though lathes might want other params)
[02:13:29] <jmkasunich> * jmkasunich is getting a sinking feeling in his stomach
[02:14:46] <jmkasunich> Ray is (maybe was now) willing to use emc2/hal for the Mazak conversion at Roland's event
[02:15:06] <SWPadnos> yeah - I see where you're headed
[02:15:40] <jmkasunich> I had no idea that this stuff was so broken... I knew we would need to connect the actual I/O, but I didn't know that the io controller was responsible for reading the tool table and sending tool info to the interp...
[02:15:40] <SWPadnos> it's in a month, but there may be more to do than was thought
[02:16:04] <jmkasunich> that means even if you don't have a toolchanger, you need a io controller to read the tooltable
[02:16:15] <SWPadnos> well - the tool load is just a file parser that populates a data array
[02:18:23] <SWPadnos> it may be better to have the task controller do that anyway
[02:18:40] <jmkasunich> it looks like alex based ioControl.c on "dumbio.cc"
[02:19:08] <jmkasunich> that's apparently a highly simplified io controller that doesn't do tool tables
[02:20:31] <SWPadnos> the tables are still there - in emc.{cc,hh}
[02:20:57] <SWPadnos> they're just not getting filled with TOOL_LOAD_TOOL_TABLE
[02:20:57] <jmkasunich> tables?
[02:21:15] <jmkasunich> right, dumbio.cc didn't do that, so neither does ioControl.cc
[02:22:12] <jmkasunich> I guess that can be a two stage project
[02:22:26] <jmkasunich> first, just add the code to fill in the table, and add the missing cases to iocontrol.cc
[02:22:28] <SWPadnos> yep - the tool table should be part of iostatus
[02:22:41] <jmkasunich> that should provide tool diameter compensation for weyland
[02:23:25] <jmkasunich> next port over the complete heirarchical (sp?) io controller from emc1 for complete toolchanger support
[02:23:40] <jmkasunich> or maybe not, I don't know
[02:23:59] <SWPadnos> 'd say load the tool parameters first, and leave the toolchanging for later
[02:24:04] <SWPadnos> I'd ...
[02:24:09] <jmkasunich> not much later I'm afraid
[02:24:54] <SWPadnos> There was a discussion with Ry about toolchangers and spindle controllers and stuff - I can't remember if you were on atthe time (I think not)
[02:25:16] <SWPadnos> do you have a minute to talk about that type of thing?
[02:25:22] <jmkasunich> sure, why not
[02:25:27] <SWPadnos> cool
[02:25:46] <SWPadnos> remember at Fest that Ray was pretty set on having ladder logic for machine functions?
[02:25:51] <jmkasunich> yes
[02:26:17] <SWPadnos> I think that he now is open to the idea of having a library of HAL modules that encapsulate different types of machine logic
[02:26:32] <SWPadnos> this doesn't preclude a HAL_Ladder module in the future
[02:26:46] <SWPadnos> (since you can load whatever you want to get the job done)
[02:26:48] <jmkasunich> I think the experience of writing toolchanger logic for matts lathe directly in tcl opened his eyes
[02:26:53] <SWPadnos> heh
[02:27:04] <SWPadnos> could be
[02:27:14] <jmkasunich> we talked on the phone a few days ago about the mazak
[02:27:27] <SWPadnos> There seems to be a paradigm shift happening (which I think is good)
[02:27:40] <SWPadnos> less "it *must* be done this way"
[02:27:50] <jmkasunich> he wants hooks so he can manipulate HAL signals and pins from tcl, and he plans to write most of the logic and sequencing in tcl
[02:27:51] <SWPadnos> more "I'd like it this way, but your way could work too"
[02:28:21] <SWPadnos> I hope I'm not just being overly optimistic :)
[02:28:38] <jmkasunich> I think ladder has a place - for rungs that must be "live", IOW, just like real relays... they are hard realtime, and respond immediatley
[02:28:47] <SWPadnos> how familiar are you with LabView?
[02:29:12] <jmkasunich> things that are more sequential, like "do A until you see B, then stop" can be in a procedural language like tcl
[02:29:28] <SWPadnos> not good for things related to RT though
[02:29:30] <jmkasunich> never used labview, but heard of it and seen it... i
[02:29:47] <SWPadnos> lucky ba57arD
[02:29:52] <jmkasunich> it influenced the design of hal a little
[02:30:00] <SWPadnos> I sort of see that
[02:30:18] <SWPadnos> we were discussing the spindle speed change on the Mazak
[02:30:28] <jmkasunich> yeah, the GUI part of labview never appealed to me
[02:30:36] <SWPadnos> there's a low-high gear change that needs to be done
[02:30:54] <SWPadnos> I hate LabView, and so do most real programmers.
[02:31:21] <jmkasunich> so if the previous speed was below some magic number, and the new one is above it, the change is more complex than if both are above or below that number
[02:31:45] <SWPadnos> if you look at an overview of machines that have a controllable speed and a 2-gear shifter, there are a bunch of things that can be generalized
[02:31:46] <SWPadnos> yes
[02:31:52] <jmkasunich> ever heard of something called dSpace?
[02:31:54] <SWPadnos> actually, I was thinking of hysteresis as well
[02:32:13] <SWPadnos> above X, change. below Y change, otherwise leave it alone, Y<X
[02:32:18] <SWPadnos> nope
[02:32:36] <SWPadnos> if Y=X, you have no hysteresis
[02:32:46] <jmkasunich> something like labview on steroids... the control theory guys at work use it for development
[02:32:59] <jmkasunich> dsp based
[02:33:17] <jmkasunich> anyway, enough of labview and friends, lets talk spindles
[02:33:29] <SWPadnos> OK
[02:33:41] <SWPadnos> so, you have a 2-gear spindle, and some way of changing gears
[02:33:46] <jmkasunich> right
[02:34:00] <jmkasunich> speeds less than A, must use low gear
[02:34:08] <jmkasunich> speeds greater than B must use high gear
[02:34:25] <jmkasunich> if A > B, there is an overlap where you can use either (probably use what you had before)
[02:34:30] <SWPadnos> yes, and between A and B don't need a change (if A!=B)
[02:34:41] <jmkasunich> if B > A, there is a no-mans-land of speeds you cant achieve
[02:34:49] <SWPadnos> but the operator may want to have an option for preferring high gear or low gear
[02:34:59] <SWPadnos> low gear gives better cutting torque
[02:35:07] <SWPadnos> high gear reduces motor bearing wear
[02:35:30] <SWPadnos> so you want several shift modes (looks like a parameter to me)
[02:35:46] <jmkasunich> could handle that by having A and B, the machine limits, and then A' and B', actually used by the algorithm
[02:35:55] <SWPadnos> the gear change could be a single output that toggles gears, or two outputs that each shift into one of the gears
[02:36:03] <jmkasunich> if you prefer low gear. make both A' and B' = the lower of A and B
[02:36:22] <SWPadnos> it may be a job to job option
[02:36:49] <SWPadnos> cutting stainless, you'd go for low gear. for most tasks, use high to save the motor
[02:36:52] <jmkasunich> the mapping from A and B to A' and B' could be changed on a job basis
[02:37:25] <SWPadnos> sure - the concept is that it's a user-settable parameter, and it doesn't change the internal logic
[02:37:36] <jmkasunich> IOW, if you have speed changing code that works with A and B, you can get any desired behavior by manipulating the A and B that you give it
[02:38:06] <SWPadnos> like a LabView vi, it's the same code, but it may do slightly different things depending on the current configuration
[02:38:48] <jmkasunich> did ray say how the mazak changes speed? VFD?
[02:39:08] <SWPadnos> even better, would be that the integrator (or whoever sets up the machine) puts in the correct values for A and B, and the module chooses how to use the parameters based on a separate user-supplied mode parameter
[02:39:14] <SWPadnos> yes - I was just getting to that :)
[02:39:47] <SWPadnos> it's two outputs - logically like a latching relay
[02:40:00] <SWPadnos> He thought that it was a dual-acting air cylinder
[02:40:14] <jmkasunich> that's to change gears, right?
[02:40:17] <SWPadnos> there is a sensor for low gear, I assume there's also one for high gear engaged
[02:40:19] <SWPadnos> yep
[02:40:24] <SWPadnos> right - sirry
[02:40:27] <SWPadnos> sorry
[02:40:28] <jmkasunich> what about speed within a range?
[02:40:57] <SWPadnos> I don't remember the speed change method - but that could also change from machine to machine (the bridgeport uses a crank)
[02:41:32] <jmkasunich> I was asking specifically about the mazak
[02:41:41] <SWPadnos> the spindle speed controller would output a number (probably from 0 to 1), and have an external HAL module take it from there
[02:41:52] <SWPadnos> I don't know - I don't think Ray ever mentioned that
[02:41:55] <jmkasunich> ok
[02:42:13] <jmkasunich> lets assume a vfd
[02:42:26] <SWPadnos> it doesn't matter if the spindle output goes to a pin
[02:42:31] <jmkasunich> so the spindle speed control must decide if a gear change is needed
[02:42:37] <SWPadnos> yes
[02:42:59] <jmkasunich> if not, just scale the speed command based on the gear ratio, to a motor speed command, and send to the vfd
[02:43:00] <SWPadnos> and that raises some sticky points for an "external" spindle speed logic module
[02:43:19] <jmkasunich> if a change is needed, it must stop the vfd, change gears, and restart
[02:43:25] <SWPadnos> the actual sewuence is around 12 steps:
[02:43:29] <A-L-P-H-A> :( I made the spindle... but I bored it... it's like 1.1255" or something. As the bearings can be pushed out... though with a little force. it's not a perfect hole. :/
[02:43:31] <SWPadnos> sequence
[02:43:44] <A-L-P-H-A> bored=reamed.
[02:43:45] <SWPadnos> hold on a sec - I'll point you to the log for that
[02:44:13] <jmkasunich> cmd motor to stop, wait for stop, cmd gears to change, wait for change, cmd motor to start, wait for at speed
[02:44:18] <jmkasunich> I only get 6 ;-)
[02:44:35] <SWPadnos> even worse
[02:44:39] <SWPadnos> stop spindle
[02:44:57] <jmkasunich> you gotta "dink" it a little to get the gears to mesh?
[02:45:02] <SWPadnos> yep
[02:45:21] <SWPadnos> so you need a spindle back at -1 RPM to unset the gear
[02:45:40] <SWPadnos> then stop when the sensor indicates you're in gear
[02:45:48] <SWPadnos> then go forward to the setpoint
[02:46:04] <SWPadnos> or hte other way around, depending on the gears
[02:46:15] <SWPadnos> (the Bridgeport reverses spindle direction in one gear)
[02:46:20] <jmkasunich> right
[02:46:41] <jmkasunich> * jmkasunich hides
[02:47:13] <bpmw_> What from me!
[02:47:25] <bpmw_> I have good news for you
[02:47:28] <jmkasunich> yeah (you still having problems?)
[02:47:31] <SWPadnos> ah - here it is
[02:47:47] <SWPadnos> 16:31:21 <SWPadnos> 1) get spindle command - if 0, just output zero speed, and don't change gears
[02:47:48] <SWPadnos> 16:31:55 <SWPadnos> 2) else, if above XX speed, skip to (A)
[02:47:50] <SWPadnos> 16:32:26 <SWPadnos> 3) (low speed) check current gear position - skip to (B) if already in low speed
[02:47:51] <SWPadnos> 16:32:54 <SWPadnos> 4) (need low, but in high now) energize "LOW_GEAR" output
[02:47:53] <SWPadnos> 16:33:10 <SWPadnos> 5) output slow reverse spindle speed
[02:47:54] <SWPadnos> 16:33:21 <SWPadnos> 6) wait for "LOW GEAR" input
[02:47:56] <SWPadnos> 16:33:36 <SWPadnos> 7) stop spindle, and go to B
[02:47:57] <SWPadnos> 16:33:42 <A-L-P-H-A> 8) PROFIT
[02:47:59] <SWPadnos> 16:34:38 <SWPadnos> 8, A) (high speed) basically repeat steps 3-7, swapping LOW and HIGH
[02:48:01] <SWPadnos> 16:35:15 <SWPadnos> 12, B) if low speed, output minus SPEED, else output plus SPEED (or the other way around)
[02:48:09] <SWPadnos> (from
[02:48:46] <jmkasunich> looks like a state machine to me
[02:49:02] <jmkasunich> IMO it should be coded that way
[02:49:13] <bpmw_> John got x & y axis to calibrate just fine after i figured out why I was getting eronious readings.
[02:49:21] <jmkasunich> what was wrong?
[02:49:24] <SWPadnos> I was opinting out to Fenn that it's not well suited to stringing together lots of HAL modules
[02:50:08] <jmkasunich> right - it is a sequential operation...
[02:50:14] <jmkasunich> hal is better for periodic stuff
[02:50:35] <SWPadnos> in any case - it would be pretty simple to code the logic, and then add some use parameters like:
[02:50:42] <bpmw_> John, was pushing against spindle that was not locked, was turning slightly every time i did a jog.
[02:50:52] <jmkasunich> I see...
[02:50:55] <SWPadnos> I hate that
[02:50:58] <jmkasunich> tricksy spindle
[02:51:07] <SWPadnos> I had a similar problem with my Bridgeport
[02:51:13] <SWPadnos> though it was the ram sliding
[02:51:24] <jmkasunich> from machine to hal module: desired speed
[02:51:35] <jmkasunich> bad wording
[02:51:50] <jmkasunich> from io module to spindle control module: desired speed
[02:52:00] <jmkasunich> from spindle modiule to io module: at speed
[02:52:16] <SWPadnos> yes - there's a halpin that takes in a desired speed, and probably one that says "go" (or continuous - for small changes)
[02:52:28] <jmkasunich> from spindle module to hal and eventually to physical io: vfd command (dac), high and lo outputs, high and lo sensors
[02:52:33] <SWPadnos> but those are control pins, not configuration pins
[02:52:59] <bpmw_> Now just have to work on z -axis, it's on a worm gear. I just have to figure out how to "tighten" it up.
[02:52:59] <SWPadnos> this is where it gets ugly (and more like LabView) :)
[02:53:13] <jmkasunich> the actual spindle control module could be an ordinary user space process
[02:53:24] <jmkasunich> running either C, or tcl, or basic for that matter
[02:53:58] <SWPadnos> sort of, but it may need to be RT (for spindle slowdown / speedup based on machining profile)
[02:54:11] <jmkasunich> how RT do you need?
[02:54:20] <SWPadnos> essentially electronic gearing of the spindle speed to the trajectory path
[02:54:29] <SWPadnos> (just looking ahead :) )
[02:54:51] <jmkasunich> kinda hard to do if your speed change requires a gearshift
[02:55:10] <SWPadnos> true
[02:55:24] <jmkasunich> I think at least for now we should be thinking of speed changes as done by the spindle speed g-code (or is it an m-code?)
[02:55:48] <jmkasunich> code is parsed, command issued, machine waits for "at speed", then the next code is executed
[02:56:17] <SWPadnos> sure - but a TCL script may not be the best thing for that, though it would work in the short term
[02:56:22] <jmkasunich> I agree there should be a "go" signal
[02:56:45] <SWPadnos> and it would require an integrator to change the TCL if their machine is slightly different
[02:56:54] <SWPadnos> which is what we're trying to avoid
[02:57:10] <jmkasunich> I'm thinking only short term - the mazak
[02:57:29] <SWPadnos> heh - OK. I'm thinking in terms of system design
[02:57:42] <jmkasunich> well for system design, there are just too many possibilities
[02:57:48] <SWPadnos> not really
[02:58:05] <jmkasunich> vfd's, cranks on bports, belt changing, ...
[02:58:08] <SWPadnos> 99% o fthe machines would be taken care of with just a few parameters
[02:58:26] <jmkasunich> gears that you change only when stopped, vari-speed belts that you change only when running
[02:58:36] <SWPadnos> belt changing is manual, so we're not concerned with it here
[02:58:50] <jmkasunich> vari-speed belts and gears (like bp)
[02:59:15] <SWPadnos> but that's another reason why there needs to be a way for HAL to send a dialog box to the operator, and get a "done" (or "cancel") response back
[02:59:42] <jmkasunich> I see two approaches, and I don't know if we're on the same page
[03:00:06] <SWPadnos> shoot
[03:00:06] <jmkasunich> one approach... make a very powerfull and configurable spindle controller (hal module or not), then config it for whatever you have
[03:01:08] <jmkasunich> the other, provide hooks between HAL and tcl or basic or something like that, and let the integator write his own controller, to handle only his machines needs
[03:01:22] <SWPadnos> write his controller with what?
[03:01:25] <jmkasunich> (could also provide a number of pre-written ones for common configs)
[03:01:37] <jmkasunich> tcl or basic (or ladder)
[03:02:13] <SWPadnos> they're both good in some ways
[03:02:25] <SWPadnos> my approach is closes to number one, but not quite
[03:02:31] <jmkasunich> where I'm going is the idea of very simple controllers that do exactly what the specific machine requires, and nothing more
[03:02:57] <SWPadnos> I would make a really great 2-gear controller, which is configurable for most 2-gear machines
[03:03:01] <jmkasunich> downside I guess is support... if there is one all-powerfull controller, then we can just help the integrator configure it
[03:03:16] <SWPadnos> someone with wacky machinery can write their own or commission it
[03:03:26] <jmkasunich> if there are multiple controllers, including ones designed by integrtors, support is harder
[03:03:40] <SWPadnos> this controllerwouldn't be used for single-gear machines - those would have a different controller
[03:04:00] <SWPadnos> 3-gear has its own controller (maybe two)
[03:04:05] <jmkasunich> ok, that is about halfway between the two ideas... probably a good comproise
[03:04:09] <SWPadnos> if it gets too complex, then it gets split
[03:04:37] <jmkasunich> hmmm... bport could use cascaded controllers
[03:04:46] <jmkasunich> first, two gear controller for the back gears
[03:05:01] <SWPadnos> yes - actually some parts may make sense as separate pieces - like the actual motor speed
[03:05:07] <jmkasunich> second, the "vfd" speed command from that controller goes to a vari-speed belt controller
[03:05:28] <SWPadnos> yes and no - you have to look at what needs to be controlled from each module
[03:05:53] <SWPadnos> the problem I saw was that some module other than the spindle speed controller would need to set spindle speed *for a speed change*
[03:05:58] <jmkasunich> I think CNC bports replace the crank with an air motor... I wonder how they know when to stop "cranking"? speed feedback from spindle?
[03:06:19] <SWPadnos> (ie - task says go to 200 RPM, but to change gears you have to go to -10 RPM - oops)
[03:06:25] <SWPadnos> probably
[03:06:26] <anonimasu> iab
[03:06:45] <jmkasunich> right - that's why the command from task goes to the gear controller first
[03:06:46] <SWPadnos> hi
[03:06:49] <anonimasu> hey
[03:07:02] <bpmw_> Before I go I want to thank all of you who helped me out this weekend, I'm one axis away from making parts. I could't have done it without you. I sincerly appreciate all your time and effort. THANKS vern...
[03:07:04] <SWPadnos> but then task has to know how to run the gear change
[03:07:23] <SWPadnos> you're welcome (if I helped any :) )
[03:07:30] <anonimasu> * anonimasu just stopped working
[03:07:33] <jmkasunich> the gear controller's "vfd command" output drives the vfd or whatever, and the gear controller can slow it down for the gear change
[03:07:42] <jmkasunich> you're welcome bpmw
[03:07:59] <anonimasu> 19 hour workday.
[03:08:02] <jmkasunich> meanwhile, task is just waiting for "at speed" from the gear controller
[03:08:05] <bpmw_> Bye for now!
[03:08:11] <anonimasu> bye bpmw_
[03:08:28] <SWPadnos> then the gear controller has to have control over the spindle speed output, which the spindle speed controller should have control over (two writers)
[03:08:34] <jmkasunich> nope
[03:08:56] <jmkasunich> damn I wish I could sketch something
[03:09:02] <jmkasunich> * jmkasunich can't talk without a pencil
[03:09:06] <SWPadnos> heh
[03:09:09] <jmkasunich> ok, task sends NML to io
[03:09:14] <jmkasunich> io sets HAL spindle spd command
[03:09:20] <jmkasunich> that goes to gear controller
[03:09:39] <SWPadnos> OK - I see
[03:09:40] <jmkasunich> when it changes, gear controller clears "at speed", and io starts waiting for it to get uncleared
[03:09:55] <jmkasunich> gear controller has an output to the vfg, and can do whatever it wants with that
[03:10:08] <SWPadnos> you've added in the gear controller as a step above the spindle speed in a hiererchy
[03:10:13] <jmkasunich> scale it based on which gear ratio is in effect, or run it backwards
[03:10:16] <jmkasunich> yes, exactly
[03:10:27] <SWPadnos> OK - I like that idea
[03:10:28] <jmkasunich> I would say below
[03:10:41] <jmkasunich> io sends cmd to gear, which in turn controls vfd
[03:10:48] <SWPadnos> I only said above because it's between spindlespeed and task
[03:12:20] <SWPadnos> so in the case of a varispeed belt system, the spindle has to be on before the change occurs - that seems to be no problem
[03:12:31] <jmkasunich> well I think of "spindlespeed" as being from io (or task) and going down to the generic box that is spindle controller... which might actually be more than one box
[03:12:38] <jmkasunich> gear would be the upper box
[03:12:49] <SWPadnos> eh - whichever
[03:12:57] <jmkasunich> and motor speed would go down from gear to the vfd (or to a varispeed controller)
[03:13:00] <SWPadnos> right - so gear is above spindle :)
[03:13:19] <SWPadnos> ah - it's inside spindle - I get it now
[03:13:46] <jmkasunich> yeah.. from tas/io's perspective, it's one big box,
[03:14:10] <SWPadnos> let's look at the possibilities for the gearchanger module
[03:14:14] <jmkasunich> but inside it might be made of smaller controllers, one for gear, one for varispeed, or vfd
[03:14:21] <SWPadnos> I think it turns into the spindle controller I was talking about
[03:15:12] <SWPadnos> the connections on the top of this box (under task control) are speed and execute inputs, and status output
[03:15:20] <jmkasunich> yeah
[03:15:37] <jmkasunich> I would call "status" something like "at speed", but that's nitpicking
[03:16:05] <SWPadnos> there could be an error detected - but you're right - it probaby needs to be a different pin
[03:16:37] <SWPadnos> for a single gear VFD, speed connects to an analog output pin, and "at speed" connects to a logic input (from the VFD)
[03:16:56] <SWPadnos> plus a "gate" from the execute input
[03:17:07] <jmkasunich> yes... there is no real control logic at all in the PC
[03:17:37] <SWPadnos> does PC mean personal computer in that context?
[03:17:41] <jmkasunich> yes
[03:17:43] <SWPadnos> OK
[03:18:23] <SWPadnos> if you have a varispeed system, then the (gated) speed output and at speed input will be connected to something that resembles a servo axis
[03:18:36] <SWPadnos> (a motor turns the crank, a sensor tells when it's at the right spot)
[03:18:44] <jmkasunich> yep
[03:19:19] <SWPadnos> if you have a 2-speed system, then you have several almost identical gear changers to deal with
[03:19:23] <jmkasunich> sensor might be looking at the position of the sheaves, or simply measuring spindle speed with a tach
[03:19:35] <SWPadnos> that's up to the varispeed module you use
[03:19:39] <jmkasunich> right
[03:19:46] <SWPadnos> and immaterial to the spindle speed controller
[03:19:50] <jmkasunich> right
[03:20:11] <SWPadnos> so - gearchanges have several variants
[03:20:28] <SWPadnos> some need to invert the spindle direction in one gear (or the other gear)
[03:21:05] <SWPadnos> some need to deal with reversing the motor or "jogging" into gear
[03:21:30] <SWPadnos> the actual speeds that require a gearchange will be different for every machine, etc
[03:21:42] <jmkasunich> right
[03:21:53] <SWPadnos> the output may be a single high/low, or multiple active (whatever) outputs
[03:22:02] <SWPadnos> ther emay be sensors or a time constant
[03:22:08] <SWPadnos> etc.
[03:22:32] <SWPadnos> I'd say that a gearchanger that has the following parameters would be a good module:
[03:22:37] <jmkasunich> if the "gearchange" controller, or the "varispeed" controller, or whatever, needs configuration like speed thresholds, ratios, polarity, etc, I would address that with HAL parameters
[03:22:49] <SWPadnos> right
[03:23:32] <SWPadnos> I'm looking at a varispeed controller as a more complex analog output (as would be used for a VFD)
[03:23:45] <SWPadnos> but it doesn't deal with gears
[03:24:06] <jmkasunich> right - when I said varispeed, I mean the belt/crank part of a bport, for example
[03:24:12] <SWPadnos> the varispeed module is a subordinate of the gearchanger in my view
[03:24:21] <jmkasunich> skip varispeed for now
[03:24:24] <SWPadnos> sure - just trying to keep confusion down :)
[03:24:42] <jmkasunich> yes, if there are gears, varispeed is subordinate
[03:24:45] <SWPadnos> skipped (it's just an analog output at this level)
[03:25:06] <SWPadnos> so the gearchanger needs to know the following:
[03:25:20] <SWPadnos> what you said :)
[03:25:28] <SWPadnos> plus a couple of modes, I think
[03:27:03] <SWPadnos> actually - can you read through the conversation from 5/27 (around 16:30 - 18:00 or so)
[03:27:08] <jmkasunich> params: low ratio, high ratio, min and max input speeds, preferred range, and info about it's inputs and outputs
[03:27:19] <SWPadnos> yep
[03:27:44] <weyland> howdy boys
[03:27:49] <SWPadnos> actually - the info about inputs and outputs isn't needed if there's a timer HAL module
[03:27:54] <jmkasunich> IMO, such a controller should be a user space process, with HAL pins to get commands, return status, and access IO
[03:27:55] <SWPadnos> (delay, I should say)
[03:29:01] <jmkasunich> what I meant by info about output and inputs is things like one bit hi/lo vs two outputs, high and low... and sensors to tell you if you are engaged, or just assume that it worked
[03:29:26] <SWPadnos> actually - I was just thinking that some of that could be taken care of by small simple HAL modules
[03:29:51] <jmkasunich> maybe... but you don't want to get carried away with lots of tiny hal modules
[03:29:55] <SWPadnos> there's always an "engaged" input - if you connect it to a physical pin, there you go
[03:30:12] <SWPadnos> if you want to ignore it, connect it to a "true" hal block
[03:30:24] <jmkasunich> but what if there are two sensors, one says engaged hi, the other says engaged lo
[03:30:37] <SWPadnos> if you want to wait 1 second, connect it to a "1-second delay" block
[03:30:46] <SWPadnos> (a delay block with a timeout of 1 second)
[03:31:12] <SWPadnos> well - stuck sensor detection would be a problem in that case :)
[03:31:40] <jmkasunich> this is getting into deep details
[03:32:10] <SWPadnos> that's why I was thinking that a more monolithic approach might be better
[03:32:12] <jmkasunich> I agree some things could be done in hal, others (like 1 vs 2 inputs) would be better done in the module itself so you can make smarter decisions
[03:32:27] <SWPadnos> yes
[03:33:09] <SWPadnos> I think it's better to have a library of slightly larger, but way easier to use, HAL modules, rather than a zillion tiny ones that you have to string together
[03:33:17] <jmkasunich> agreed
[03:33:33] <SWPadnos> and the logic is pretty easy to code, I think
[03:33:53] <SWPadnos> I may take a stab at it tomorrow, if there's nothing on the Honey-Do list
[03:34:05] <jmkasunich> I have a "blocks.c" file with a bunch of tiny simple blocks, but they are more for prototyping or the odd bit of "glue logic", I wouldn't want to do serious work with loads of them
[03:34:36] <jmkasunich> this stab... will it be in C, or ? user space or realtime?
[03:34:44] <SWPadnos> C, RT
[03:35:00] <SWPadnos> I don't think I want to deal with a split approach
[03:35:07] <jmkasunich> split?
[03:35:13] <SWPadnos> split user / RT
[03:35:38] <jmkasunich> remember, the main I/O controller that gets NML and drives the speed command and execute pin is in user space
[03:36:00] <SWPadnos> I don't know - I'll look at it
[03:36:01] <jmkasunich> unless you need hard realtime performance, you can do the gear logic in user space too with no penality
[03:36:26] <SWPadnos> it always seems harder to get multiple modules to work with each other than to get one that just works :)
[03:36:34] <jmkasunich> only need one
[03:36:56] <SWPadnos> true - I guess it doesn't matter where it is
[03:37:10] <SWPadnos> how much more or less complex is it to make an RT task versus user
[03:37:17] <jmkasunich> user is easier
[03:37:31] <SWPadnos> is it pretty close to equal, or is there a big difference?
[03:37:37] <SWPadnos> (in HAL-land)
[03:37:48] <jmkasunich> a realtime task is called periodically, so you must do every little step as a state machine
[03:38:02] <jmkasunich> in user space, if you want to delay a second, just do sleep(1)
[03:38:20] <SWPadnos> that's what I'm used to, with interrupt-driven microcontrollers and all (the periodic state machine)
[03:38:21] <jmkasunich> in realtime, you'd have to load a variable, then decrement it on subsequent calls
[03:39:03] <jmkasunich> I understand, I've done that too... but if the activity you are doing is naturally sequential instead of periodic, sequential code can be simpler
[03:39:11] <SWPadnos> yes it can
[03:39:33] <jmkasunich> somebody like Ray would almost certainly prefer the user space sequential approach
[03:40:00] <SWPadnos> heh - he doesn't do embedded microcontroller stuff much, does he? :)
[03:40:07] <jmkasunich> no, not coding
[03:40:31] <jmkasunich> another advantage of user space... you can printf to your heart's content, and even use a debugger
[03:40:39] <SWPadnos> the main issue Ray had was that of configuration by an integrator / end user
[03:40:45] <SWPadnos> yes - printf is a good thing
[03:40:55] <jmkasunich> you don't have to mess around with the kernel build system (building a kernel module)
[03:41:16] <SWPadnos> that's not a big problem (especially if there are examples)
[03:41:17] <jmkasunich> and you don't have to "addf" your function into a realtime thread... you have your very own process
[03:41:27] <SWPadnos> though the ability to compile separately is nice
[03:42:01] <SWPadnos> OK - I'll look at userland then
[03:42:19] <jmkasunich> just to be contrary
[03:42:22] <jmkasunich> ;-)
[03:42:30] <SWPadnos> heh
[03:42:36] <jmkasunich> you might want to take a look at the source for hal_parport, or hal_skeleton
[03:42:48] <jmkasunich> those two are written to run either userland or RT
[03:43:18] <jmkasunich> of course because they can do both, the code is written in the "periodic style", never blocking, etc
[03:43:41] <SWPadnos> I've looked at those (a month or two ago)
[03:43:53] <SWPadnos> I was looking at doing a USC driver at the time
[03:44:20] <jmkasunich> one thing to keep in mind if using userspace
[03:44:32] <jmkasunich> you must call hal_exit() on exit to close shared memory
[03:44:48] <SWPadnos> OK - so catch signals or die
[03:44:57] <jmkasunich> using an atexit() function or a signal handler or something along those lines
[03:45:07] <SWPadnos> (die meaning death to me, not the process dying)
[03:46:02] <jmkasunich> actually I'm not sure how bad it is... not gonna lock up your box, but you'll have to do "realtime restart", which unloads rtapi and the hal_lib
[03:46:25] <SWPadnos> I'll try to stick with good practice from the beginning, thank you :)
[03:47:17] <jmkasunich> because I'm thinking about I/O written in a scripting language like tcl, or in something like basic or even bash, I'm really interested in doing some stuff in userspace
[03:47:52] <SWPadnos> yeah - a generic pin reader/writer would be a good thing
[03:48:17] <jmkasunich> bin/halcmd show pin | grep <pinname>
[03:48:50] <SWPadnos> how about bin/halcmd set <pinname> <value>
[03:49:15] <jmkasunich> we have setp to set parameters
[03:49:28] <SWPadnos> that's not a pin though, is it?
[03:49:32] <jmkasunich> and sets to set signals (only signals that don't have writers)
[03:49:39] <jmkasunich> nothing to set a pin yet
[03:49:57] <jmkasunich> it would only make sense if the pin wasn't connected to anything
[03:50:02] <SWPadnos> right - the idea is to be able to inject a signal that's already connected to something
[03:50:25] <SWPadnos> I'm trying to remember why
[03:50:50] <jmkasunich> well if a RT module is writing to a pin every ms, any change to it will be over-written pretty quick
[03:51:19] <SWPadnos> sure, but can't a userland signal be connected to a pin as well?
[03:51:25] <jmkasunich> yes
[03:52:09] <jmkasunich> I guess it's a policy/mech thing... there is no real reason why we can't provide the functionality... but folks can get in trouble using it wrong
[03:52:10] <SWPadnos> so the signal won't necessarily be overwritten immediately
[03:52:16] <SWPadnos> yes
[03:52:29] <SWPadnos> I mentioned your idea of the bidir (?), and that seemed OK
[03:52:43] <jmkasunich> bin/halcmd -x (expert mode, allows anything) ;-)
[03:52:49] <jmkasunich> bidir?
[03:53:03] <SWPadnos> (that was a signal that took the last value written from a group of writers, right?)
[03:53:15] <jmkasunich> oh, right
[03:53:33] <jmkasunich> actually, the execute and at-speed signals might be a candidate for that
[03:53:42] <SWPadnos> yep
[03:53:47] <SWPadnos> also toolchange related stuff
[03:53:47] <jmkasunich> one signal, called "busy"
[03:54:04] <jmkasunich> NML message causes I/O module to set new speed, and set busy 1
[03:54:16] <SWPadnos> actually - the whole "user M-code" thing would really benefit from it
[03:54:23] <jmkasunich> spindle controller sees the 1, reads the speed, does it's thing, then clears busy to zero
[03:54:36] <jmkasunich> I/O sees the zero, sends NML saying "speed change done"
[03:55:43] <jmkasunich> damn... almost midnight
[03:55:52] <jmkasunich> this has been a good discussion
[03:55:58] <SWPadnos> I think you wanted it for multi-axis limits or something, right (ie any limit writes to a signal)
[03:56:07] <SWPadnos> yes it has
[03:56:40] <jmkasunich> estop is another one... anybody can set it, everybody reads it
[03:56:51] <SWPadnos> yep
[03:57:37] <SWPadnos> check the log for 5/27 (starting at around 16:05) when you get a chance - you may get some ideas, or need to correct me on some things
[03:57:46] <jmkasunich> I need to make a to-do list
[03:58:00] <SWPadnos> heh - I should do that too (and not just for EMC)
[03:58:03] <jmkasunich> I have some fairly simple changes to stepgen and freqgen that I started tonight...
[03:58:16] <SWPadnos> oops - sorry to keep you ;)
[03:58:37] <jmkasunich> (max_vel and max_accel in terms of position units instead of Hz, so they can use maxvel and maxacc from the ini file)
[03:59:00] <jmkasunich> then gotta get on that tooltable problem... must have tooloffset working soon
[03:59:21] <SWPadnos> yes - those kinds of parameters should be in "human-readable" form, and converted by the module to whatever it needs
[03:59:33] <jmkasunich> well they were human readable before
[03:59:50] <SWPadnos> sort of - what units are they in emc[1]?
[03:59:50] <jmkasunich> step generation module works in frequencies, so they were in Hz
[04:00:00] <jmkasunich> not talking about emc1, that was messy
[04:00:08] <SWPadnos> I know
[04:00:25] <jmkasunich> my emc2 freqgen and stepgen modules used Hz, and Hz/sec, for velocity and accel limits
[04:00:51] <SWPadnos> ah
[04:01:03] <SWPadnos> those should be units/sec and units/sec^2
[04:01:11] <jmkasunich> the input to freqgen is a velocity, in user specified units, and there is a scale param that converts to hz
[04:01:30] <jmkasunich> exactly...
[04:01:44] <SWPadnos> actually, units/min would be better - don't machinists work in (somethings)/minute?
[04:01:58] <jmkasunich> anything/min sucks
[04:02:01] <SWPadnos> RPM, IPM, mm/m, m/m ...
[04:02:31] <jmkasunich> machinists may work that way, but nobody else does... machine integrators will just have to learn to divide by 60 when doing ini file work
[04:02:46] <SWPadnos> and 3600 - don't forget 3600
[04:03:17] <jmkasunich> except for the actual motion controller, most HAL modules are not EMC specific and I want them to stay that way
[04:03:26] <jmkasunich> so time is in seconds...
[04:03:32] <SWPadnos> OK by me
[04:03:55] <SWPadnos> by the way - that was another reason for a modules_install (I think I mentioned that at Fest)
[04:03:57] <jmkasunich> actually, think about inches/minute^2... not a pretty unit
[04:04:04] <SWPadnos> nope
[04:04:20] <SWPadnos> Lyr/hour
[04:04:32] <jmkasunich> furlongs/fortnight
[04:04:55] <SWPadnos> fathoms/eon
[04:05:50] <jmkasunich> joules/newton*week
[04:05:57] <SWPadnos> heh
[04:06:12] <jmkasunich> * jmkasunich is sick
[04:06:12] <SWPadnos> then there's the chain, link, rod, cubit, etc.
[04:06:27] <SWPadnos> and don't get mestarted on pecks and bushels
[04:07:05] <SWPadnos> though most imperial measures are at least powers of two (just not consecutive powers of 2)
[04:07:20] <jmkasunich> don't forget the 12's
[04:07:36] <SWPadnos> thinking of weights/measures, not linear or money :)
[04:07:46] <jmkasunich> ok
[04:08:00] <SWPadnos> whoever thoght of the shilling should be exhumed then shot
[04:08:52] <SWPadnos> I ought to run - I've got to walk 2 rods to get to bed
[04:08:53] <A-L-P-H-A> shilling?
[04:08:55] <A-L-P-H-A> what's a shilling?
[04:09:05] <jmkasunich> a pitcher
[04:09:13] <SWPadnos> I think it was 1/12 of a british pound sterling
[04:09:15] <jmkasunich> for the redsox I think
[04:09:16] <SWPadnos> a singer
[04:09:19] <A-L-P-H-A> is a hedgehod a unit of length or weight or mass?
[04:09:22] <SWPadnos> (Peter)
[04:09:33] <jmkasunich> Kurt
[04:09:44] <SWPadnos> It's a unit of intelligence (inverse intelligence, actually)
[04:09:53] <SWPadnos> and it's Schilling, for Peter
[04:10:16] <jmkasunich> kurt too, now that you mention it
[04:10:39] <jmkasunich> shilling is the unit of currency used by cheating ebay bidders
[04:12:04] <SWPadnos> it's also sticking up for bad products, like publishing glowing reviews of them (like MS)
[04:12:53] <A-L-P-H-A> hahaha... I didn't know this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedgehog_Day
[04:13:41] <weyland> any one know of any low cost/free pocket milling code utilities that can do irregular shapes?
[04:13:44] <SWPadnos> thus leading to Groundhog Day, a nice movie
[04:14:03] <A-L-P-H-A> websys. freemill
[04:14:07] <A-L-P-H-A> ?
[04:14:29] <weyland> freemill only does rectangles and circles
[04:14:44] <SWPadnos> OK - sleep time.
[04:14:45] <weyland> does websys come enabled to do cam?
[04:14:46] <SWPadnos> see ya
[04:14:49] <weyland> nite
[04:15:08] <SWPadnos> SWPadnos is now known as SWP_Away
[04:15:13] <weyland> or code generation?
[04:15:18] <A-L-P-H-A> later swampy
[04:17:00] <weyland> any idea?
[04:18:15] <weyland> tap...tap...tap... this thing on...? testing testing... lol
[04:18:27] <jmkasunich> no idea here
[04:18:34] <weyland> haha
[04:18:58] <weyland> heard crickets raise more noise
[04:19:18] <jmkasunich> all the europeans are sound asleep
[04:19:33] <weyland> damn those european watches~!
[04:19:34] <jmkasunich> and the saner folks on this side of the pond are heading in that direction
[04:19:49] <weyland> you can say that again~! I'll be up for hours
[04:19:50] <weyland> :)
[04:19:59] <A-L-P-H-A> so will Phydbleep.
[04:20:01] <jmkasunich> I'm trying to finish up some code tweaks, should probalby /part and concentrate on what I'm doing
[04:20:41] <weyland> I'm trying to code the inside of the covers since I can't cut the outsides right nhow
[04:21:22] <A-L-P-H-A> I need some machining guru's help.
[04:21:27] <A-L-P-H-A> man.
[04:21:34] <A-L-P-H-A> this sucks lots actually.
[04:21:36] <weyland> no guru, but I'll try
[04:21:51] <A-L-P-H-A> I'm been trying to machine a bored holed (bore it close to size, and then ream).
[04:22:06] <A-L-P-H-A> but my reamed final part is ovesized by like 0.0005 to 0.001".
[04:22:19] <A-L-P-H-A> so my bearings aren't in there perfectly.
[04:22:25] <weyland> what's the material?
[04:22:31] <A-L-P-H-A> alu 6061-t6
[04:22:33] <A-L-P-H-A> is that my issue?
[04:22:35] <jmkasunich> how are you holding the reamer? tailstock?
[04:22:38] <A-L-P-H-A> I have cold rolled steal.
[04:22:43] <weyland> what size are you boring to?
[04:22:43] <A-L-P-H-A> reamer + tailstock.
[04:22:47] <A-L-P-H-A> 1.125"
[04:23:05] <weyland> First check your tailstock
[04:23:08] <A-L-P-H-A> 1-1/8" for 1/2" ID bearings.
[04:23:17] <jmkasunich> any misaligment in the tailstock will make it ream oversize
[04:23:27] <A-L-P-H-A> weyland? how can I check it?
[04:23:34] <weyland> what size are you underboring?
[04:23:48] <A-L-P-H-A> umm... sec. let me remember.
[04:23:59] <weyland> easiest way for you is to take a long cut while using a live center
[04:24:05] <weyland> measure each end
[04:24:38] <jmkasunich> how deep is the hole?
[04:24:41] <A-L-P-H-A> well, in mm, it's was bored to 28.25mm. (1.125" = 25.575mm).
[04:24:53] <A-L-P-H-A> hole = 3-5/8"
[04:25:01] <jmkasunich> oh...
[04:25:01] <A-L-P-H-A> well, in mm, it's was bored to 28.25mm. (1.125" = 28.575mm).
[04:25:22] <jmkasunich> * jmkasunich was thinking about just boring to final size... but that deep would be tough
[04:25:53] <weyland> HAhahaha
[04:26:12] <A-L-P-H-A> I did this... I drilled it all the way through with an 8mm drill bit. Then went 1/2" -> +1/8" -> 1". Bored to 28.25mm dia, and reamed.
[04:26:14] <jmkasunich> * jmkasunich has bored bearing seats
[04:26:21] <weyland> yeah, boring it to size *would* be best... but the problem isn't that right now...
[04:26:58] <weyland> The problem is that he's probably not giving the reamer enough bite if it's not the tailstock
[04:27:15] <A-L-P-H-A> 'enough' bite?
[04:27:15] <jmkasunich> enough stock to remove?
[04:27:32] <weyland> typically, you wanna be about .015 - .020 under when reaming
[04:27:43] <A-L-P-H-A> that much for this size?
[04:27:48] <weyland> sure
[04:28:05] <weyland> Just got sone doing some AL 31mm reams
[04:28:07] <A-L-P-H-A> I gave it 0.010" already
[04:28:30] <jmkasunich> 28.575-28.25 = 0.325mm = 0.012
[04:28:35] <weyland> in other words, bore to 1.105 and then ream
[04:29:07] <A-L-P-H-A> that 0.003" will make this huge a diff?
[04:29:28] <jmkasunich> I'm still inclined to suspect the tailstock
[04:29:35] <jmkasunich> what kind of lathe?
[04:29:39] <weyland> well, you said it's only off by .0005 - .001
[04:29:49] <A-L-P-H-A> schuablin 102 swiss made jewellers precision lathe.
[04:29:49] <weyland> but John's right, it's probably the tailstcok
[04:30:10] <weyland> pic?
[04:30:16] <A-L-P-H-A> www.lloydleung.com/gallery
[04:30:24] <jmkasunich> wow... 1-1/8 reamer in a jewelers lathe... ;-)
[04:30:29] <A-L-P-H-A> true.
[04:30:39] <A-L-P-H-A> i'm using a 3/4" collet to hold the ream.
[04:30:42] <A-L-P-H-A> the ream's pretty long.
[04:30:56] <A-L-P-H-A> maybe I'll cut the shell reams shank by like 3".
[04:31:23] <weyland> HAhahahahahaha
[04:31:27] <A-L-P-H-A> i'd take more pictures if I had my cam...
[04:31:28] <weyland> holy shit man
[04:31:32] <jmkasunich> actually (strangely enough) a long and flexible shank for the reamer is a good thing
[04:31:42] <jmkasunich> floating reamer holder would be even better
[04:31:48] <weyland> talk about overkill
[04:32:06] <jmkasunich> you want the reamer to find it's own path
[04:32:19] <weyland> definitely check yer tailstock
[04:32:20] <A-L-P-H-A> jmkasunich, true
[04:32:43] <weyland> now, having gone through that, why *aren't* you just boring it?
[04:32:44] <A-L-P-H-A> worse comes to worse, I get the local wire edm shop to do it for me.
[04:33:19] <A-L-P-H-A> weyland, I listened to the people here, and they said I couldn't get aligned bearings if I did it that way.
[04:33:34] <jmkasunich> huh?
[04:33:37] <weyland> Huh?
[04:33:38] <A-L-P-H-A> <shrug>
[04:33:40] <A-L-P-H-A> I dunno!!!
[04:33:44] <A-L-P-H-A> I'm a lemming.
[04:33:47] <jmkasunich> if you bore both seats from the same end, you should be fine
[04:34:00] <A-L-P-H-A> huh? how do I bore both seats?
[04:34:00] <jmkasunich> if you bore one end, then turn the part around to bore the other end, then no,
[04:34:01] <weyland> You're MUCH better off boring it
[04:34:16] <A-L-P-H-A> jmkasunich, another issue.
[04:34:18] <weyland> just takes some set up time
[04:34:21] <A-L-P-H-A> I'm limited to 93mm of travel.
[04:34:39] <jmkasunich> are you reaming all the way thru, or from both ends?
[04:34:51] <A-L-P-H-A> I'm reaming all the way thru
[04:34:55] <weyland> ohhhhhh
[04:35:17] <A-L-P-H-A> hmm... I'm starting to not so mind that idea.
[04:35:18] <weyland> I see now...
[04:35:29] <A-L-P-H-A> of just bore big hole say 1".
[04:36:00] <A-L-P-H-A> and just have it bore both bearings seats from one end.
[04:36:09] <A-L-P-H-A> that's gonna be really trickey though.
[04:36:28] <A-L-P-H-A> like I won't be able to measure the far end.
[04:36:44] <jmkasunich> yeah... hard to measure the one that is deep down the hole, and unless your lathe is set up perfect, they won't both be the same size
[04:36:58] <A-L-P-H-A> my lathe isn't setupd perfectly. :(
[04:37:10] <jmkasunich> neither is mine
[04:37:10] <A-L-P-H-A> there's a slight tap to the cuts I make.
[04:37:31] <weyland> well, that could be an issue, too
[04:37:31] <A-L-P-H-A> this is why I'm reaming, and then making grooves for retaining rings
[04:37:39] <jmkasunich> one other possibility (kind of a hack...)
[04:37:54] <jmkasunich> bore just a couple thou undersize
[04:38:15] <A-L-P-H-A> heat and press fit?
[04:38:16] <jmkasunich> bore a relief between the two seats, a few thou oversize, so the reamer won't cut there at all
[04:38:36] <jmkasunich> make the part about an inch longer than final length
[04:38:58] <jmkasunich> bore the first inch to final size or half a thou over
[04:39:18] <jmkasunich> then run the reamer in by hand from that end (using the final size section to guide it)
[04:39:36] <jmkasunich> since you do it by and, the tailstock won't throw it off to one side and make it cut oversize
[04:39:43] <A-L-P-H-A> hmm.
[04:39:56] <jmkasunich> since there is very little material to remove, it hopefully won't be too hard to do
[04:39:57] <A-L-P-H-A> that's doable. i think.
[04:39:59] <weyland> yeah, that would work *normally*, but if he's got enough error/misalignment to cause a taper in the headstock, its possibly pusshing the reamer over to one side by the time it gets down there, causing the over bore
[04:40:03] <jmkasunich> and of course, it might fail miserably
[04:40:22] <jmkasunich> that's why I'm thinking hand ream
[04:40:32] <A-L-P-H-A> I'm thinking of just buying a prentice drill for like 1-1/16" or 1-3/32" and just drill it out, and then ream from that size.
[04:40:37] <jmkasunich> the part doesn't even have to be in the lathe
[04:40:58] <jmkasunich> drill and ream will not be better than bore and ream
[04:41:37] <weyland> for something that's gonna be that critically aligned, he'd be better off either using precision setups, or boring undersize and honing to size all the way thru
[04:42:05] <A-L-P-H-A> I'm kinda limited by time.
[04:42:54] <weyland> personally, I'd use a four jaw and indicate the bore in both for center, and for taper. Use shims in the jaws when necessary.
[04:43:03] <A-L-P-H-A> huh... would it be so bad... if I just put it in an abour, and 'tweaked' the housing a little?
[04:43:18] <jmkasunich> make it oval you mean?
[04:43:22] <weyland> no
[04:43:32] <weyland> sorry. me?
[04:43:36] <A-L-P-H-A> oval.
[04:43:55] <jmkasunich> I wouldn't do that...
[04:44:15] <A-L-P-H-A> man. this sucks. alot.
[04:44:21] <A-L-P-H-A> oh!
[04:44:28] <jmkasunich> what are you aiming for anyway.. you want the bearings to be a press fit, or what?
[04:44:36] <A-L-P-H-A> before I ream... should I allow the part to completely cool before reaming it?
[04:44:44] <A-L-P-H-A> or ream it while it's still warm/hot from the boring?
[04:44:45] <jmkasunich> oval will be a press fit alright, but not very accurate
[04:45:11] <A-L-P-H-A> objective, make a highspeed spindle housing.
[04:45:13] <weyland> depends.
[04:45:17] <jmkasunich> reaming hot will gibe you a slightly smaller hole once it cools down
[04:45:24] <weyland> is the part going to be hot during operation?
[04:45:32] <weyland> exactly
[04:45:35] <A-L-P-H-A> probably not. it's just gonna be spining
[04:45:39] <jmkasunich> hopefully not
[04:46:13] <jmkasunich> how many parts have you made so far?
[04:46:24] <A-L-P-H-A> hmm... I put a slit into the side of the housing, and used a clamp to force it closed?
[04:46:38] <A-L-P-H-A> this is my second attempt at making this spindle housing.
[04:46:53] <weyland> how deep is the part?
[04:47:02] <jmkasunich> bout 3-1/2"
[04:47:07] <A-L-P-H-A> yup
[04:47:16] <jmkasunich> one bearing at each end
[04:47:24] <weyland> and you're limited by your lathe's travel?
[04:47:27] <jmkasunich> how loose are the bearings in the ones you've already made?
[04:47:29] <A-L-P-H-A> no, two and one bearings (three in total)
[04:47:51] <A-L-P-H-A> let me measure again. gravity won't allow them out.
[04:48:08] <A-L-P-H-A> but if i'm spinning them, I can spin the whole bearing... not just the ID. the od moves slightly.
[04:48:20] <jmkasunich> so a snug slip fit, but you want a press fit?
[04:48:44] <jmkasunich> locktite bearing retaining compound might be your friend here
[04:48:44] <weyland> is the bearing actually 1.125?
[04:49:20] <A-L-P-H-A> yeah, they're NSK bearings. (good quality bearings)
[04:49:32] <jmkasunich> how thick is the wall?
[04:49:39] <weyland> and you're using a 1.125 reamer?
[04:49:41] <A-L-P-H-A> I suck. I've misplaced my part... brb.
[04:50:00] <A-L-P-H-A> that's what I bought. says it on the box. and the engrabing on the shell reamer.
[04:50:09] <weyland> uh-huh...
[04:50:14] <jmkasunich> bearings are probably a couple tenths under, right weyland?
[04:50:17] <weyland> I think I'm seeing the problem
[04:50:25] <weyland> what kind of ream is it?
[04:50:37] <jmkasunich> shell reamer
[04:50:38] <weyland> jmkasunich: depends really
[04:50:47] <weyland> no, no... what brand/quality
[04:51:28] <jmkasunich> hmmm... shell reamer.. that means the cutting edges are short, nowhere near long enough to be in both bearing areas at once
[04:51:40] <A-L-P-H-A> uh. breank is... some polish thing...
[04:51:43] <weyland> I'm betting he's got bearings that are .0001 - .0002 under, and a cheap ream that is possibly .0001-.0005 over
[04:51:44] <A-L-P-H-A> bison?
[04:52:04] <weyland> how much money was it?
[04:52:28] <weyland> have you actually MEASURED the ream, ACCURATELY?
[04:53:32] <A-L-P-H-A> :(
[04:53:36] <weyland> lol
[04:53:51] <A-L-P-H-A> reamed hole: 1.126". Bearing od: 1.1245
[04:53:54] <weyland> welcome to the Toolroom...
[04:53:57] <jmkasunich> aplha: when you bore, are you doing it all from one end, or are you flipping the part (you said something about limited travel)
[04:54:13] <weyland> Now -
[04:54:15] <A-L-P-H-A> boring all the way without touching the part in the chuck.
[04:54:20] <A-L-P-H-A> no flipping.
[04:54:23] <A-L-P-H-A> part stays still.
[04:54:32] <weyland> having learned that, you can fix future pieces
[04:54:35] <jmkasunich> ok
[04:54:49] <A-L-P-H-A> all tools are used from the tailstock, where I dn't have an issue with travel.
[04:54:56] <weyland> do you have a surface grinder?
[04:54:59] <A-L-P-H-A> just the boring I do... the grantry is 93mm.
[04:55:07] <A-L-P-H-A> I do, but nothing that will go that deep
[04:55:09] <jmkasunich> you are boring from the tailstock?
[04:55:13] <A-L-P-H-A> no.
[04:55:21] <A-L-P-H-A> tail stock to drill to 1".
[04:55:27] <A-L-P-H-A> bored to 28.25mm.
[04:55:30] <A-L-P-H-A> reamed from tailstock.
[04:55:31] <weyland> jmkasunich: no he's reaming from the tail
[04:55:44] <A-L-P-H-A> boring is done on the gantry
[04:55:44] <jmkasunich> he said all tools, just making sure
[04:55:56] <weyland> did you say you had a surface grinder?
[04:55:58] <A-L-P-H-A> boring is not from the tailstock stock (to clearify)
[04:56:17] <weyland> if so, regrind the ream
[04:56:31] <A-L-P-H-A> I have a grinder attachment for my lathe.
[04:56:39] <A-L-P-H-A> I think I could pay someone to do it for me like $25.
[04:56:47] <weyland> that would be my recommendation
[04:57:07] <jmkasunich> did you remove the original manual carriage from the lathe, or didn't it have one?
[04:57:38] <A-L-P-H-A> the carriage is meant for small work only... I'm making it work on stuff bigger than it should.
[04:57:52] <A-L-P-H-A> it's a watch makers/jewellers lathe.
[04:57:57] <A-L-P-H-A> light work.
[04:58:01] <jmkasunich> ok, got it
[04:58:38] <weyland> A-L
[04:58:43] <jmkasunich> so how do you do the bore with your limited depth?
[04:58:58] <A-L-P-H-A> jmkasunich, cause 3-5/8" is about 92mm.
[04:59:02] <A-L-P-H-A> I have 93mm of travel.
[04:59:03] <A-L-P-H-A> :D
[04:59:08] <jmkasunich> ok
[04:59:23] <jmkasunich> * jmkasunich isn't metric
[04:59:24] <A-L-P-H-A> 92.075mm = 3-5/8"
[04:59:28] <weyland> A-L-P-H-A: just so you know - it's common practice to bore .001" per inch of diameter UNDERsize for press fitting bearings
[04:59:47] <jmkasunich> just bore it to size
[04:59:56] <A-L-P-H-A> :(
[04:59:57] <jmkasunich> (undersize that is)
[05:00:03] <A-L-P-H-A> what a waste of a hundred bucks.
[05:00:10] <weyland> not really
[05:00:10] <jmkasunich> that's what the reamer cost?
[05:00:17] <weyland> you learned a valuable lesson
[05:00:41] <A-L-P-H-A> shell reamer = $60CDN. reamer shaft = $40CDN. after taxes.
[05:01:01] <weyland> and for another $25 you can have it reground
[05:01:06] <jmkasunich> right
[05:01:36] <weyland> so, you learned something today
[05:01:55] <weyland> and you won't soon forget it
[05:02:02] <jmkasunich> actually because I'm a fscking tightwad and don't know anybody who could do the regrind, I'd be tempted to stone it smaller
[05:02:20] <jmkasunich> (probably screw it up too ;-)
[05:02:41] <A-L-P-H-A> all the money I've spent on trying to make this fuck'n spindle, I could have bought one and half now. hahaha
[05:02:41] <weyland> The toolmaker in me cringes, but the home shop guy admits that for his stuff, it would probably work... (:>)
[05:02:41] <A-L-P-H-A> :(
[05:03:05] <A-L-P-H-A> weyland? pardon?
[05:03:14] <weyland> you're pardoned
[05:03:17] <weyland> :)
[05:03:26] <weyland> what part didn't you understand?
[05:03:30] <jmkasunich> what worries me about the shell reamer is that the cutting length is shorter than the part... so there is really nothing to guarantee the two seats are aligned
[05:03:34] <A-L-P-H-A> I'll try the locktight bearing compound.
[05:03:43] <weyland> agreed
[05:04:03] <A-L-P-H-A> hmm...
[05:04:13] <weyland> A-L-P-H-A: if the alignment is critical, that still won't garauntee it
[05:04:22] <jmkasunich> alpha... if the shaft fits and the bearings are well aligned just a littel loose, the coupound might be just the ting
[05:05:24] <weyland> A-L-P-H-A: what part wasn't clear?
[05:05:57] <A-L-P-H-A> Just the runout / wobble should be minimized.
[05:06:07] <A-L-P-H-A> I'm tyring to make it work with a 1/32" endmill.
[05:06:30] <jmkasunich> if you want to make one more attempt, first figure out how much taper you have when boring
[05:06:40] <jmkasunich> then bore to 1.124
[05:07:06] <weyland> no, I was referring to being able to stone the ream down to be useable for you
[05:07:19] <weyland> I agree with John about boring it
[05:07:29] <jmkasunich> stoning is not pretty
[05:07:45] <weyland> no, its not, but in a jam, it CAN work
[05:07:54] <A-L-P-H-A> weyland, I was confused about the toolmaker in you, and homeshop guy comment. I read it like 3 times, and on the last I finally understood it.
[05:07:58] <jmkasunich> probably as likely to cut bigger than smaller unless you maintain all the angles
[05:08:08] <weyland> Hell, I've taken a piece of paper and stuck it on one side of a shank to make something bore oversize
[05:08:46] <jmkasunich> reamers are a little bit of black magic anyway... final size depends on speed, lube, amount to be removed, feed, etc, etc
[05:08:48] <weyland> A-L-P-H-A: okay
[05:08:59] <A-L-P-H-A> I was using lots of cutting oil.
[05:09:05] <A-L-P-H-A> it was dripping off of the reamer already
[05:09:25] <weyland> is the ream loading up with the chips?
[05:09:26] <jmkasunich> alpha - what do you have to measure the ID? telescoping gage, inside mic, calipers?
[05:09:32] <weyland> or is it evacuating them?
[05:09:50] <A-L-P-H-A> <-- bad.
[05:09:52] <A-L-P-H-A> calipers.
[05:10:08] <jmkasunich> oh... so precision boring would be tough
[05:10:16] <A-L-P-H-A> from multiple angels of the hole... so I got it to be reading 1.1245" consistantly.
[05:10:21] <A-L-P-H-A> yup.
[05:10:25] <A-L-P-H-A> I don't have inside mics. :(
[05:10:28] <A-L-P-H-A> damn it!
[05:10:42] <weyland> just have the ream reground and be done with it
[05:10:43] <jmkasunich> me neither... but I have telescoping gages
[05:11:41] <weyland> im fading fast, guys. that g41/42 bug wore my @ss out today
[05:11:50] <weyland> too much thinking
[05:11:55] <jmkasunich> sorry bout that
[05:12:10] <jmkasunich> didn't know that tool offsets involved the I/O controller
[05:12:11] <weyland> was it your fault?
[05:12:16] <jmkasunich> IMO they shouldn't
[05:12:30] <jmkasunich> not really, but the I/O controller in emc2 isn't done yet
[05:12:41] <jmkasunich> (remember I asked you about limits, spindle control, etc?)
[05:12:51] <weyland> well then, I nominate you to fix it right NOW~! (:>)
[05:12:56] <weyland> yep
[05:13:11] <jmkasunich> that's because with no I/O controller, that stuff doesn't work
[05:13:11] <weyland> does it look like it will be hard to fix?
[05:13:23] <jmkasunich> I had no idea that the tool tables went thru there
[05:13:25] <jmkasunich> dunno
[05:13:32] <jmkasunich> that's not part of the code that I've worked on
[05:13:34] <A-L-P-H-A> I'm gonna try the bearing locktight compound first.
[05:13:45] <weyland> THAT's not what I wanted to hear... ;)
[05:13:49] <weyland> lol
[05:13:58] <jmkasunich> IOW, I didn't break it, I simply didn't copy over the code from emc1 that does that part
[05:14:12] <weyland> Oh~!
[05:14:35] <weyland> somehow that doesn't make me feel better... LOL
[05:15:40] <weyland> I'm feeling like ALPHA right now... I can make the part poorly in EMC1, or not make it in EMC2. lol
[05:16:07] <jmkasunich> sorry... emc2 is still under construction
[05:16:17] <weyland> I know, I'm just playin'.
[05:16:19] <weyland> :)
[05:16:33] <weyland> don't take me TOO seriously
[05:16:35] <weyland> I don'
[05:16:38] <weyland> don't
[05:16:56] <jmkasunich> crap... you guys went and done it again... after 1am now
[05:17:04] <weyland> 116AM
[05:17:07] <weyland> ding
[05:17:11] <weyland> you're a pumpkin
[05:17:26] <jmkasunich> I need less distractions
[05:17:32] <jmkasunich> night all! ;-)
[05:17:37] <weyland> me too, nite
[05:19:47] <A-L-P-H-A> wow.
[05:19:50] <A-L-P-H-A> alone again
[06:31:31] <Phydbleep> Wow.. All the collets are cleaned up and ready to use... Hehehe.. 1/3 hp motot made that cleaner scream..
[06:52:52] <CIA-8> 03jmkasunich * 10emc2/src/hal/components/stepgen.c: Modified stepgen HAL component to accept velocity and accel limits in machine units instead of steps. This will allow those parameters to be set using ini file values.
[07:23:22] <CIA-8> 03jmkasunich * 10emc2/configs/ (core_stepper.hal emc.ini): modified core_stepper.hal so that the stepgen module gets all of its parameters from the ini file
[08:26:25] <asdfqwega> Hm...One thing I'd love to have in EMC2 is a PWM output
[08:26:38] <asdfqwega> 5KHz, 1 to 95% duty cycle
[08:28:27] <asdfqwega> but how feasible is that? It doesn't need any heavy computation, just a small module with a period of 0.000002
[08:30:05] <asdfqwega> Have it motion sync'd - but in continuous path, not exact stop
[08:32:09] <asdfqwega> [thinks hard]
[08:32:26] <asdfqwega> <burning scalp smell>
[08:33:11] <asdfqwega> I'd have to make a hal module for the PWM...
[08:34:07] <asdfqwega> Add a m-code...say, M66 (motion sync'd PWM)
[08:34:29] <asdfqwega> Unless I could make a M10x that'd do it?
[08:34:53] <asdfqwega> NML messages...
[08:36:29] <asdfqwega> And I'm going to have to set up a local CVS for myself
[08:38:03] <asdfqwega> ...so I don't mung my work when I checkout the latest from SF
[08:38:40] <asdfqwega> This is doable - just not easy.
[09:03:26] <asdfqwega> cool...cvs is easier than I thought
[09:04:11] <asdfqwega> Of course, everything is easier when it's 'open-book' :P
[09:46:00] <A-L-P-H-A> asdfqwega, emc2 -> pic/atmel -> pwm 0 to 100% duty cycle.
[10:05:09] <asdfqwega> A-L-P-H-A: I don't have any currently reliable way to make boards myself, and I can't justify the cost of prototyping right now, and I would STILL have to add to EMC2 some way of interfacing the dang thing, and I would also need at least another PCI parport card for the I/O - which adds up to having another cable and connector on my contol box
[10:05:50] <asdfqwega> Whereas if I can have EMC2 generate the PWM, I could have it all happily on a single parport
[10:06:47] <asdfqwega> But, yes, I have already considered a PIC for external PWM
[10:08:49] <asdfqwega> In some ways, I would really rather emc2 do the job - the PWM would be to control a laser's power level...
[10:09:36] <asdfqwega> ...and if I have an outboard PWM, there comes the possibility of a glitch/crash/hang leaving the laser power ON
[10:10:43] <asdfqwega> If it's generated inside of emc2, then the signal would disappear along with emc2
[10:37:24] <Phydbleep> asdfqwega: Only if the pwm loop crashes as well.. Ever seen a soundblaster lock on 1 note?
[10:38:07] <jacky^> morning
[10:38:16] <Phydbleep> jacky^: Morning. :)
[10:38:30] <jacky^> hi Phydbleep :P
[10:39:03] <Phydbleep> Hehehe.. My parts are clean now.. The 1/3hp motor made that thing scream. :)
[10:39:24] <jacky^> hehe ;)
[10:39:50] <jacky^> good work
[10:40:33] <Phydbleep> BTW.. The piece of wire from the bucket to the motor is not structural, It's for noise controll.. Keeps the buckets from resonating against each other.
[10:44:01] <Phydbleep> Is "AT-3" a type of collet, or a style of collet or a manufacturer of collets?
[10:44:45] <Phydbleep> NM... AT-3 is the accuracy. :\
[10:55:16] <jacky^> * jacky^ is going to nstall BDI 4.20
[10:57:25] <asdfqwega> Phybleep: a soundblaster is bit different - it has a hardware memory buffer that it loops through. when the system can't update that buffer, the it just keeps looping through it
[11:00:51] <asdfqwega> It's been a long time since I've had a system hang up with the sound card blaring
[11:07:35] <jacky^> can the IO_show tcl tool run from outside of emc ? i tried tcsh IO_show but won't run
[11:07:52] <jacky^> ops tclsh
[11:13:58] <anonimasu> morning people
[11:14:40] <jacky^> anonimasu: morning
[11:14:49] <anonimasu> asdfqwega: just build a reset cuircuit, that waits for a "OK" pulse from emc
[11:14:58] <anonimasu> err watchdog..
[11:15:19] <anonimasu> .)
[11:15:27] <anonimasu> I need to work, machine going out tomorrow
[11:46:12] <jacky^^> hi
[11:46:37] <jacky^^> anyone kill jacky^ please :\
[11:47:01] <jacky^^> bad wheater
[11:47:20] <anonimasu> you will have to use nickserv if you want to kill it
[11:47:59] <jacky^^> ah, ok, if is the only way..
[11:50:01] <jacky^> ok :)
[12:00:23] <jacky^> is it possibile to use an opto encoder to check the step on stepper motor, so i the the motor lost a step software can know ?
[12:01:41] <jacky^> or stepper can't lost astep ?
[12:51:35] <alex_joni_away> greetings
[12:52:16] <les> good morning (afternoon)
[12:52:25] <alex_joni_away> hey les
[12:52:29] <alex_joni_away> alex_joni_away is now known as alex_joni
[12:52:40] <alex_joni> alex_joni is now known as alex_joni_
[12:52:45] <les> back from the mountains eh
[12:52:51] <alex_joni_> yeah..
[12:52:55] <alex_joni_> was last night online
[12:53:00] <les> I'm always in the mountains
[12:53:54] <les> We are predicted to have rain that may lest everal days or even a week
[12:54:01] <les> several
[12:54:19] <les> so little or no outside activities
[12:54:38] <les> Even though today is a national holiday
[12:56:37] <jacky^> hi, is there any file to test emc making a simple draw with a pencil like tool ?
[12:57:23] <les> We have our infamous spiral test but it is a helix
[12:57:40] <les> there are a number of files on SF I think
[12:57:50] <jacky^> SF ?
[12:57:57] <les> sourceforge
[12:58:00] <jacky^> sorry..
[12:58:17] <jacky^> ah.. ok
[12:58:25] <alex_joni_> * alex_joni_ is right back
[12:59:43] <les> I am just catching up on emails
[13:00:53] <les> With all the rain I had better fire up the dehumudifiers in the shop too
[13:01:09] <les> That's good because I use the condensate....
[13:01:20] <les> it's distilled water so...
[13:01:42] <les> A rinse with it after a car wash and no drying and no spots
[13:02:39] <les> bbiaw
[13:06:46] <alex_joni_> nice
[13:06:50] <alex_joni_> * alex_joni_ is back
[13:06:54] <alex_joni_> alex_joni_ is now known as alex_joni
[13:18:39] <alex_joni> yo rayh
[13:21:19] <rayh> Hi Alex. How are you doing?
[13:21:50] <alex_joni> working on the tool stuff on emc2
[13:22:17] <rayh> Great. I can't figure out what went wrong.
[13:22:32] <alex_joni> it's pretty easy ;)
[13:22:35] <alex_joni> it got left out
[13:22:38] <alex_joni> and I can see why
[13:22:56] <rayh> Okay. I'll take your word for the easy part.
[13:23:23] <rayh> Was it caused by the breakup of the interp or the task.
[13:23:35] <alex_joni> neither
[13:23:43] <alex_joni> it's because iocontroller is not fully done
[13:23:44] <rayh> what then?
[13:23:55] <alex_joni> and because some issues need to be addressed before coded properly
[13:23:59] <alex_joni> like toolchanging
[13:24:07] <rayh> Tool length goes through the iocontroller.
[13:24:07] <alex_joni> this is done by the IOController
[13:24:09] <alex_joni> but how?
[13:24:14] <alex_joni> rayh: yes
[13:24:30] <alex_joni> not so much the length compensation, but the tool selection
[13:25:00] <rayh> Selection I can see but that should be irrelevant to the length and diamerter offsets.
[13:25:15] <alex_joni> well. the iocontroller is responsible for loading the tool
[13:25:27] <alex_joni> and s the authoritative entity that says what tool got loaded
[13:25:33] <alex_joni> with it's length and diameter
[13:25:44] <rayh> Yes but the tool does not need to be loaded in order to command a g41,2,3
[13:25:46] <alex_joni> it's pretty ok that there's only one entity in charge for that
[13:26:03] <alex_joni> rayh: you need to load a tool in order to use diameter compensation
[13:26:07] <alex_joni> that's what weyland wanted
[13:26:12] <rayh> No. Not at all in emc
[13:26:30] <alex_joni> at least you need to specify the code that you have a tool
[13:26:36] <alex_joni> as in tool!=0
[13:26:41] <rayh> Tool zero can be in the spindle and still use g41 h1
[13:26:50] <alex_joni> not so sure
[13:27:07] <alex_joni> anyways.. the diameter code runs through iocontroller
[13:27:12] <rayh> That was done so that more than one offset can be applied to the same tool.
[13:27:21] <alex_joni> so if you specify 0.5 mm in tkemc dia comp.
[13:27:26] <alex_joni> that gets sent to task
[13:27:32] <alex_joni> then task sends it to iocontroller
[13:27:47] <alex_joni> and there it "should" get copied to the current tooltable
[13:27:57] <alex_joni> which can / or cannot host a loaded tool file
[13:28:02] <rayh> But the compensation for diameter has to be done in the interp rather than task or IO.
[13:28:09] <alex_joni> I agree
[13:28:15] <alex_joni> but iocontroller needs to know about it
[13:28:16] <rayh> No this is all backwards.
[13:28:41] <alex_joni> this is user specified diameter comp., not one read from the g-code
[13:28:45] <rayh> For example. I have a 1 inch long end mill in tool 1
[13:29:06] <rayh> I may physically load that as 6 T1
[13:29:11] <rayh> m6
[13:29:42] <rayh> But then I can apply any tool length I choose to that tool when i issue g41
[13:29:48] <alex_joni> right
[13:29:55] <alex_joni> but if you cannot issue M6 T1
[13:30:05] <alex_joni> then you cannot apply any tool length compensation
[13:30:09] <rayh> Okay. So long as that is possible with both length and diameter.
[13:30:12] <alex_joni> and M6 T1 does not work right now
[13:30:19] <alex_joni> will work in a bit
[13:30:27] <alex_joni> when I finish coding ;)
[13:30:36] <alex_joni> or better said hacking
[13:30:40] <rayh> But diameter comp was what weyland didn't see on his plot.
[13:30:49] <alex_joni> right
[13:31:01] <alex_joni> because he couldn't specify the diameter comp without having tool 1
[13:31:02] <rayh> Let me try the diameter comp here.
[13:31:13] <alex_joni> and he couldn't load tool1 without the TOOL_INIT stuff
[13:35:40] <rayh> Okay what I was seeing as the first problem, no tool table.
[13:35:55] <rayh> Is a tkemc problem. It does not know to look in configs.
[13:47:51] <rayh> Fixed configs/emc.ini to handle the problem with location.
[14:03:13] <alex_joni> * alex_joni is on the phone
[14:07:05] <alex_joni> hey matt
[14:07:25] <mshaver> hey alex! got a ? for you...
[14:07:32] <alex_joni> shoot
[14:07:54] <mshaver> hal_stg.c - did you ever test it on an actual card?
[14:08:05] <alex_joni> nope, bc I don't have one
[14:08:16] <alex_joni> that's one of the reasons it's VERY far from beeing done
[14:08:50] <mshaver> ok, I do and I'll get it hooked up
[14:09:07] <alex_joni> let me know if I can do anything on it
[14:10:18] <rayh> HI Matt.
[14:10:49] <alex_joni> mshaver: if I remember corectly I did only some encoder feedback stuff
[14:11:09] <alex_joni> but probably it won't work as I didn't touch general init registers of the STG
[14:11:30] <mshaver> I added hal_stg to the drivers/Makefile & it built ok; I'll first see if the encoders work; then maybe I/we can try to add the dacs; I have several cards + a machine that uses the stg card which is already up & running on bdi 2.20b
[14:11:45] <alex_joni> nice
[14:12:20] <mshaver> rayh: hi yourself!
[14:13:04] <alex_joni> because I got HI, because I got HI...
[14:13:22] <mshaver> ray has seen this machine when he visited earlier this month; in fact he helped out troubleshooting the power supply & now the machine runs fine!
[14:13:34] <rayh> Okay. I can say for certain that tool diameter comp in emc2 is hosed.
[14:14:29] <mshaver> alex_joni: please let me apologize for the leakage of US pop culture into your otherwise unspoiled country ;)
[14:15:30] <alex_joni> not that unspoiled ;)
[14:16:06] <rayh> I always liked that about the mickey mouse song.
[14:16:20] <rayh> HI..HI..HIGH.
[14:17:18] <rayh> alex_joni: Even if you get tool change in the IO working properly, tool diameter offsets will not work.
[14:17:44] <alex_joni> why not?
[14:18:51] <rayh> Cause it doesn't offset the tool from the interpreter.
[14:21:00] <steve_stallings> Matt, Ray, ... can we talk about trip to CNC workshop?
[14:21:22] <mshaver> sure!
[14:21:43] <mshaver> rayh: when are you getting there?
[14:21:44] <rayh> Okay.
[14:21:56] <rayh> Probably friday night.
[14:22:00] <steve_stallings> Well I am wanting to make it but its a hard trip and the 3 week window for discount air is closing soon.
[14:22:18] <rayh> Dave will also get in late friday night or early sat.
[14:22:45] <mshaver> the friday before, or the friday of...
[14:22:47] <rayh> Ah. It is crunch time.
[14:22:51] <steve_stallings> Friday the 17th?
[14:23:05] <rayh> 17
[14:23:18] <mshaver> w...o...w......
[14:23:27] <fenn_afk> fenn_afk is now known as fenn
[14:23:41] <fenn> why so early?
[14:23:47] <rayh> show is 20 to 26 right?
[14:23:52] <mshaver> good ?!
[14:24:04] <rayh> think time
[14:24:24] <mshaver> ahh.....
[14:26:02] <rayh> We are located in http://www.cnc-workshop.com/facilities.htm #13
[14:26:08] <mshaver> steve_stallings: what do you want to do?
[14:26:23] <rayh> and will have about 24 feet of tables and a wireless.
[14:26:46] <rayh> I've got to make up a wireless to wired router.
[14:27:00] <fenn> i set up a wiki for people to hash this out but roland hasn't replied to my email
[14:27:23] <steve_stallings> Time is my killer. I would really prefer to arrive Friday 24 and just exhibit Sat/Sun. Willing to come a bit earlier, but the full week hurts because I have a business to run.
[14:27:23] <rayh> Good. I've got images of the machine coming from roland
[14:27:36] <rayh> will get them organized a bit and put them there.
[14:28:15] <fenn> http://www1.atwiki.com/cnc-workshop/ but there's nothing there yet really
[14:28:19] <rayh> And Matt wants to be there for the full week -- don't you matt!
[14:28:21] <fenn> and nobody knows about it
[14:28:55] <rayh> Put a link to it on the knowledgebase page
[14:29:13] <rayh> even if it's empty it will help direct folk to the site.
[14:30:00] <mshaver> actually, I would prefer a semi-automated tele-presense, but we're not quite there yet...
[14:30:31] <steve_stallings> Thought that was what you did at Code Fest...8-(
[14:30:35] <rayh> I understand the US gov was sponsoring teleportation experiments.
[14:30:49] <rayh> You should have seen the first victim -- after.
[14:30:59] <mshaver> steve_stallings: ha ha
[14:31:07] <fenn> steve, wanna link to the cnc-workshop wiki from http://linuxcnc.org/EMC_news_history/index.html ?
[14:33:27] <mshaver> steve_stallings: I suppose I'm driving myself... you gonna fly?
[14:33:53] <SWP_Away> SWP_Away is now known as SWPadnos
[14:36:59] <CIA-8> 03alex_joni * 10emc2/src/emc/iotask/ioControl.cc: some pre-hack to make tool tables, compensation work in emc2, there was some stuff missing, more can still be missing
[14:37:21] <robin_sz> meep?
[14:37:31] <alex_joni> indeed
[14:37:44] <robin_sz> * robin_sz relaxes
[14:37:48] <rayh> The current interpreter in emc2 DOES NOT use tool diameter offset values.
[14:38:05] <rayh> Thanks for those fixes, Alex.
[14:38:05] <robin_sz> ahh. that would explain things :)
[14:38:20] <steve_stallings> fenn - LinuxCNC front page banner added, link on news page
[14:38:52] <SWPadnos> how recent a version of emc2?
[14:39:16] <alex_joni> rayh: can you try what I just commited?
[14:39:23] <alex_joni> you need to change simio with io in emc.ini
[14:39:32] <alex_joni> I didn't commit that yet
[14:39:58] <steve_stallings> Matt - earliest I am comfortable leaving is Monday evening
[14:40:05] <rayh> EMC_TRAJ_LINEAR_MOVE shows the offset in 4.20's emc but not in EMC2's.
[14:40:17] <fenn> thanks, steve
[14:40:24] <alex_joni> rayh: just humor me, please ;)
[14:40:34] <SWPadnos> strange, since Paul just joined the two branches ...
[14:40:46] <rayh> Alex, add configs/emc.tbl when you do the ini update as well.
[14:40:48] <alex_joni> SWP: what did he join?
[14:40:56] <alex_joni> rayh: think paul did that last night?
[14:41:01] <SWPadnos> BDI4 and emc2 HEAD
[14:41:20] <SWPadnos> he might have missed something
[14:41:29] <SWPadnos> (but the interpreter is a pretty big thing to miss)
[14:41:42] <rayh> Okay. I'll shut up until I've compiled the latest emc2 head.
[14:42:11] <SWPadnos> heh - not that it will work, but you know ... :)
[14:42:28] <mshaver> rayh: so, if steve & I leave monday eve - we'd get there 16 hours later - or so - how's that?
[14:47:41] <rayh> Well some of your time, matt is a lot better than none.
[14:48:23] <rayh> You'll have to get your penguin pass from Guido's sister at the door to area 13 or Guido isn't going to let you in.
[14:48:28] <jacky^> sorry for the stupid question... in emc - should move the tool near the motor H at the center ad + away from motor ? is this sequence right ?
[14:48:43] <jacky^> :\
[14:49:36] <mshaver> alex_joni: send me your postal address (mshaver AT erols.com)
[14:49:44] <rayh> * rayh is compiling sf
[14:49:44] <steve_stallings> Ray - where are most folks planning to stay?
[14:49:59] <fenn> i'm thinking about camping by that lake north of galesburg
[14:50:08] <rayh> Don't know. I stayed at the econo and I thing John has a room there.
[14:50:20] <rayh> I'm camping right on the school grounds.
[14:50:25] <fenn> heheh
[14:50:30] <rayh> Plenty of space.
[14:50:42] <mshaver> school got a shower?
[14:50:48] <steve_stallings> facilities? shower?
[14:50:56] <rayh> No. That is the one thing missing.
[14:51:00] <fenn> why's it referred to as a school btw? i thought it was a machine shop
[14:51:04] <rayh> I'm thinkin a portable.
[14:51:19] <rayh> Oh it used to be a country school
[14:51:23] <steve_stallings> Roland bought an old school
[14:51:25] <mshaver> old school building - now roland's place
[14:51:44] <rayh> Cardinal engineering.
[14:51:54] <SWPadnos> jacky^: if the motors move in the wrong direction, change the sign of OUTPUT_SCALE and INPUT_SCALE in emc.ini
[14:52:01] <mshaver> i guess it was an elemetary school (no showers for gym)
[14:52:09] <SWPadnos> or the axis that's moving in the wrong direction
[14:52:13] <SWPadnos> for
[14:52:56] <jacky^> ok, thanks
[14:53:15] <SWPadnos> you're welcome
[14:54:38] <alex_joni> rayh: seems somthing about tools starts to work
[14:55:02] <mshaver> alex_joni: send me your postal address (mshaver AT erols.com)
[14:55:12] <alex_joni> email?
[14:55:20] <alex_joni> alex DOT joni AT robcon DOT ro
[14:55:55] <alex_joni> or you mean postal address?
[14:56:06] <rayh> tkemc still shows tool 0 after m6t1
[14:56:12] <mshaver> no the address where you live: Alex Joni, 123 Main Street, Happytown, Romania, 12345
[14:56:22] <alex_joni> rayh: go to View->tools
[14:56:26] <alex_joni> then load tool table
[14:56:34] <mshaver> I'll send you an stg board
[14:56:36] <rayh> I see tool prep getting 1 but not tool load
[14:56:37] <alex_joni> I might have to add that by default somewhere
[14:57:04] <rayh> same
[14:57:21] <alex_joni> mshaver: huh, that's a nice thing to do ;)
[14:57:37] <alex_joni> mshaver: let me ask a friend of mine (he's coming from the states to .ro)
[14:57:39] <rayh> tool prepare is working. Tool load does not.
[14:57:42] <alex_joni> might be easier to send
[14:57:52] <alex_joni> M6 T1 worked here
[14:57:57] <alex_joni> only after the tool Load
[14:58:06] <fenn> "strap the stg board to the mule named sue, she knows the way"
[14:58:07] <alex_joni> View->tools->Load Tool File
[14:58:22] <mshaver> i've got several & having a good driver would be a good thing
[14:58:40] <alex_joni> I agree *g*
[14:58:58] <rayh> NOPE -- Tool diameter offset does NOT work in the EMC2 HEAD.
[14:58:59] <SWPadnos> I agree too ;)
[14:59:14] <steve_stallings> no, Sue is still busy getting a PMDX-122 to some place in Croatia
[14:59:18] <alex_joni> rayh: I'll look it over some more tonight
[14:59:26] <alex_joni> steve: lol
[15:00:07] <rayh> k
[15:00:33] <alex_joni> mshaver: will drop you an email as soon as I know what's best for delivery
[15:01:13] <mshaver> alex_joni: OK!
[15:02:08] <rayh> I'll dump the interpreter output here in a few minutes.
[15:02:17] <mshaver> I need to go do some stuff - back later - you all feel free to keep talking... ;)
[15:02:18] <alex_joni> * alex_joni needs to go home
[15:02:30] <alex_joni> rayh: I'll look at the logs later if you dump it here
[15:02:30] <mshaver> * mshaver is away: mshaver
[15:02:33] <alex_joni> bye guys
[15:02:54] <fenn> fenn is now known as fenn_afk
[15:04:35] <SWPadnos> rayh: jmk and I were discussing the tooltable stuff and the gearchanger last night
[15:04:52] <rayh> What did you come up with?
[15:05:05] <SWPadnos> a good thing I think:
[15:05:22] <SWPadnos> we sort of split the speed changing up into smaller parts
[15:06:15] <SWPadnos> the interpreter (or whatever at the task level) outputs a speed, and an execute flag (and gets back an "at speed" and error indication)
[15:06:41] <SWPadnos> there are separate gearchanger, varispeed, and VFD HAL modules
[15:06:42] <rayh> Okay. That takes care of the pause problem.
[15:07:38] <SWPadnos> if you have a two-speed gearbox, then you connect the interpreter speed output to the gearchanger speed input, and the gearchanger then outputs to the VFD / varispeed (/pwm...) spindle output
[15:07:50] <SWPadnos> so it's just another level in a hierarchy
[15:08:24] <SWPadnos> there is still only one controller for the spindle (getting around the multiple points of control problem) - it's the gearchanger
[15:08:44] <rayh> and interp knows nothing about the gears.
[15:08:45] <SWPadnos> in effect, the gearchanger becomes the spindle module, as far as the task controller sees
[15:08:49] <SWPadnos> yep
[15:08:53] <rayh> Nor does task.
[15:09:13] <SWPadnos> nope - it outputs a number, and where you connect it in HAL determines what happens with the machine
[15:09:31] <rayh> and both are passing the locus of control down to the HAL.
[15:10:07] <rayh> Intellectually I find that to violate everything that Fred said at devFest.
[15:10:12] <SWPadnos> yes - I'm going to try to throw together a gearchanget HAL module today (depending on the length of my honey-do list)
[15:10:32] <rayh> But from a "let's get it done" pov it works well.
[15:10:36] <SWPadnos> in what way?
[15:10:50] <rayh> Task does not have control.
[15:11:25] <SWPadnos> sure it does - it asks for spindle speed 3000, and that happens in the HAL, and it gets a "ready" signal
[15:11:41] <rayh> during the time between the issuing of the s command.and the return of the okay.
[15:11:58] <steve_stallings> same is true if speed is done with a PLC
[15:12:01] <rayh> Next we'll be dooing the same thing for an axis move
[15:12:03] <SWPadnos> it wouldn't have that control with a PLC either, so I'm not sure where the issue is
[15:12:44] <rayh> For tool changing. Now we have two ways to initiate motion.
[15:13:00] <SWPadnos> no - there's only one way
[15:13:30] <rayh> Don't get me wrong. Your solution is a good one at thelevel it works.
[15:13:31] <steve_stallings> for tool change, motion is an issue, I was just talking about speed setting
[15:13:36] <SWPadnos> (toolchanging:) a motion command is sent by the task controller, and the toolchanger passes it straight throgh to the axis controller
[15:13:59] <SWPadnos> unless a toolchange is in progress, in which case it does other stuff
[15:14:13] <rayh> YEP.
[15:14:28] <rayh> It's the "other stuff" that is the issue.
[15:14:40] <SWPadnos> task will never have control of the machine during a toolchange - it doesn't matter if it's done in HAL, classicladder, or an external PLC
[15:14:46] <rayh> When Fred added a tool change position
[15:15:02] <rayh> He added it at the canon level.
[15:15:09] <SWPadnos> unles syou build the toolchanger into task, which means integrators need to learn C
[15:15:15] <rayh> So the interp adds the motion to the motion cue.
[15:15:23] <rayh> rather than passing that off to the IO.
[15:15:44] <SWPadnos> sure - move to position, then output a bit to a PLC to change tools
[15:16:03] <SWPadnos> but the PLC may still need control over at least Z
[15:16:09] <steve_stallings> the fundamental concept of waiting for a "complete" signal is that TASK has passed control to something else
[15:16:10] <robin_sz> and if the PLC need to move an axis?
[15:16:21] <rayh> tool change says okay and task says move to tool clear position
[15:17:05] <rayh> if it exists
[15:17:07] <SWPadnos> steve got it right - when task asks for something to happen and waits for it to complete, it has fundamentally given up control
[15:17:27] <rayh> then after the tool clear motion is complete.
[15:17:36] <rayh> it says go to the io again
[15:17:47] <SWPadnos> there just needs to be a well-defined contract between task and the external module that defines what state the machine will be in before and after the external module runs
[15:18:00] <robin_sz> you probably need task to put the machine to a safe toolchange position, the PLC then does stuff to change the tool and puts the axis back where it was, in order to pass control back to task, it has to call a "cleanup" routine to put hte machine back to the poitn it was when task handed off control ???
[15:18:20] <rayh> * rayh has real reservations about all of this.
[15:18:34] <rayh> he needs to write a position paper.
[15:18:43] <steve_stallings> and when control is passed, the the new process in control assumes all the responsibility for maintaining machine state and enforcing safety
[15:19:43] <robin_sz> or ... there is some mecanism for ensuring the PLC cannot move the oxis out of a safety zone ... during toolchange it hands off conmtrol, but only within limits?
[15:19:45] <rayh> That is a possibly defensible ground but still motion control is not in charge of motion during the io
[15:20:11] <rayh> And the thinking at NIST was that motion control was never handed off.
[15:20:45] <SWPadnos> unless the control model is changed to allow circular control paths, I don't believe things can work as you describe
[15:21:19] <rayh> I may not be describing how it works now correctly.
[15:21:19] <SWPadnos> the toolchanger is a subordinate of task, but it needs to command task to get things done, it is therefore a superior to task
[15:21:35] <rayh> Um nope.
[15:21:39] <SWPadnos> I understand what you're talking about - I remember Fred at Fest :)
[15:21:52] <rayh> Okay.
[15:22:19] <SWPadnos> how would it work with a physical PLC doing toolchanges?
[15:23:12] <rayh> The plc would have to ask for motion at various places during the tool change routine.
[15:23:29] <SWPadnos> a hardware PLC would ask task to perform motion?
[15:23:52] <rayh> That is the way a PLC would have to be connected into the current system.
[15:24:21] <rayh> a pin would trigger an nml command to task
[15:25:08] <steve_stallings> so task has to understand the motions needed, and thus the implementation of the toolchanger, back to hard coded I/O 8-(
[15:25:20] <SWPadnos> wow - and you'd need a separate pin for each needed move, plus sensors on the PLC or outputs to it so it can know when the move is done
[15:25:40] <rayh> As it is now, the hard coding of tool change position is done in the ini file.
[15:25:50] <SWPadnos> that sounds like a terrible hack to comply with a software design, not a software design that's made to perform the task at hand
[15:26:25] <rayh> If a tool change position exists in the ini file, task will command the machine to that location when a tool change command is encountered.
[15:26:33] <steve_stallings> could we dodge some issues by enhancing macro capabilities?
[15:26:40] <SWPadnos> sorry - not that, the handshaking with a hardware PLC
[15:26:41] <rayh> Then it sends a command to IO to go.
[15:27:09] <rayh> When IO is done, it returns and task reads the next to-do in the stack
[15:27:25] <steve_stallings> Fred's current solution does not work for the "rack" type tool changers where table motion selects the tool
[15:27:29] <robin_sz> steve_stallings: thats the way Mach2 solved it
[15:27:32] <rayh> If task sees a tool clear position in the ini it moves the machine to that location
[15:27:34] <SWPadnos> but if IO needs motion then the whole thing falls apart
[15:28:18] <SWPadnos> because it's implicit in the design that IO is subordinate to motion, not a peer
[15:28:21] <rayh> When the machine is in tool clear location it says to IO go again.
[15:28:39] <rayh> and io does it's thing and returns an okay
[15:29:13] <rayh> And the task pulls the next item from its to do list and moves back to tool change position
[15:29:18] <rayh> and tells io to go again.
[15:29:42] <rayh> When IO returns an okay then the machine is clear to move.
[15:29:53] <rayh> Yes it is hard coded into canon.
[15:30:06] <rayh> and I don't like that a bit.
[15:30:20] <SWPadnos> then why argue to keep it that way? :)
[15:30:22] <rayh> yes it does not accomodate a pick-and-place kind of tool changer
[15:30:45] <rayh> I am arguing that motion should not be commanded from IO.
[15:31:04] <steve_stallings> so, what is wrong with coding tool change into macros?
[15:31:13] <robin_sz> nothing.
[15:31:29] <SWPadnos> is that because you're trying to fit with Fred's reservations about multiple sources of control?
[15:31:38] <rayh> That was a pretty quick nothing.
[15:32:07] <robin_sz> macros are the obvious answer, sitting between the interp and the rest of the machine, with control over motion and io ...
[15:32:38] <rayh> What we have here is several possible ways to handle the expansion of emc into the brave new world.
[15:32:48] <SWPadnos> yeah - a macro is almost a PLC that gets run by task
[15:32:57] <SWPadnos> (very limited though)
[15:33:00] <robin_sz> well, I like the macro approach
[15:33:06] <robin_sz> becaus e...
[15:33:12] <rayh> We have the EU kind of thing with the interp handling this stuff through macros
[15:33:25] <robin_sz> it means more stuff is in pluggable macros and not coded into the core
[15:33:25] <steve_stallings> EU ?
[15:33:37] <rayh> We have the CL way of handling it through ladder
[15:33:37] <SWPadnos> Star Wars Extended Universe?
[15:34:06] <robin_sz> I must confess I never really understood the CL thing at all
[15:34:56] <rayh> European controls have tended to move all of this into macro language rather than ladder.
[15:35:03] <robin_sz> right
[15:35:08] <steve_stallings> Fanuc is EU ?
[15:35:09] <SWPadnos> consider this: the more functionality you require to be in the same place, the less flexible, or the more complex that thing gets
[15:35:14] <robin_sz> I see this in my Bosch control
[15:35:21] <rayh> Fanuc and the asian systems tend to do the other.
[15:35:53] <SWPadnos> so if task has to know about every kind of toolchanger, and every kind of spindle speed control, and every kind of (language, kinematics, etc), then you have a thousand variations
[15:36:08] <steve_stallings> nothing wrong with ladder, it just does not solve the fundamental problem with conflicting requirements in EMC control flow
[15:36:27] <SWPadnos> if you split it into smaller pieces, then it's the interconnection of the pieces that define the specific machine, and there's a lot more flexibility
[15:36:32] <rayh> Right there steve_stallings
[15:36:32] <robin_sz> well, we discussed macros often enough too
[15:36:55] <robin_sz> remember all the Lua discussions?
[15:37:40] <rayh> We either expand interp to handle IO, expand IO to handle motion, or expand task to handle complex interrelationships between motion and io.
[15:38:01] <SWPadnos> if you consider that the machine may need to be controlled in different ways for different tasks (a toolchanger may need spindle control as well), then having a set of peer controllers that each perform a certain function, and having a well-defined *single* one in control at any given time, probably makes sense
[15:38:22] <rayh> brb
[15:38:48] <SWPadnos> on a simple machine, there's only one peer - the motion controller (there aren't spindle speed controls and toolchangers and the like)
[15:39:12] <robin_sz> on my Bosch, every task be it lube cycle or just checking the doors are shut has a macro
[15:40:00] <steve_stallings> I would vote for expand the intrep to handle I/O and whatever else arises via macros
[15:40:17] <robin_sz> * robin_sz nods
[15:40:56] <robin_sz> so M3 would call the startSpindle macro (assuming we have a spindle) that somehow asks IO to do the right hting
[15:41:08] <rayh> I thought we almost voted not to do that at devFest.
[15:41:21] <robin_sz> thus, machines without a spindle have absolutle NO references to spindle anywahere in them
[15:41:33] <steve_stallings> well I would generalize even further, the macro should be call M3
[15:41:52] <robin_sz> makes sense
[15:42:03] <robin_sz> infact .. thats pretty much what Mach2 does ;)
[15:42:03] <rayh> That would do away with the interpreter entirely.
[15:42:14] <robin_sz> rayh: no it wouldnt
[15:42:20] <robin_sz> it just moves it around
[15:42:21] <rayh> Good then we don't have to talk about mach2 any more
[15:42:22] <steve_stallings> true, at the code fest the subject was mentioned but discussion got diverted
[15:42:59] <robin_sz> rayh: any particular reason to not mention mach2?
[15:42:59] <rayh> Okay gusy we need to move this discussion away from IRC and to the developer list as SF.
[15:43:25] <rayh> That way we can get systematic discussion and perhaps some forward progress.
[15:43:47] <rayh> And leave out comparisons to other systems that might have used our stuff in the past.
[15:43:53] <robin_sz> why?
[15:44:15] <robin_sz> I fail to understand why looking at how others have solved the problem is such a bad thing
[15:45:00] <SWPadnos_> SWPadnos_ is now known as SWPadnos
[15:47:15] <robin_sz> well, fucked if I understand this group anymore ...
[15:47:29] <robin_sz> cya guys .. nice knowing you all.
[15:47:48] <steve_stallings> MACH2 is an extremely sore subject for some old time EMC folks
[15:47:52] <SWPadnos> ah well - it was going ok for a while
[15:49:34] <SWPadnos> it really doesn't motivate people to work though - it's pretty sad
[15:50:23] <cradek> I don't understand. If emc was public domain, why did it make people sore when someone used parts of it?
[15:50:50] <SWPadnos> I think there's more to it than that, but I'm not old-timer enough to know the details
[15:51:08] <cradek> maybe I should continue not knowing.
[15:51:19] <SWPadnos> might be better off :)
[15:52:20] <SWPadnos> the problem now is that things like this are a real demotivator to getting people involved
[15:52:35] <steve_stallings> essentially MACH2's developer has not offered to contribute back to the project in the spirit of open source
[15:52:44] <dan_falck> lurking mode off...
[15:53:08] <dan_falck> I think a lot of it is due to use of EMC code and then a lot of Mach2 users berating EMC
[15:53:42] <cradek> well, it's good that new development is GPL then. My understanding is that the old license was public domain, which required no tit-for-tat of anyone.
[15:54:12] <SWPadnos> require, expect, hope for - it all depends on how you see it
[15:54:23] <dan_falck> a bit of a religious war too...
[15:54:27] <cradek> sure, I understand
[15:54:37] <SWPadnos> but taking something and then bashing it doesn't make a lot of friends
[15:54:58] <cradek> sounds like the taker and bashers were different folks.
[15:55:04] <dan_falck> yea
[15:55:11] <steve_stallings> to be fair, most of the bashing comes from the users not the developer
[15:55:46] <cradek> maybe I just have thick skin...
[15:56:08] <dan_falck> a lot of them tried EMC and got burned, because they had a problem, couldn't figure something out
[15:56:20] <steve_stallings> even a thick skin wears thin when you have to deal with it day in and day out
[15:56:25] <dan_falck> then went on to give it hell
[15:56:56] <dan_falck> Ray and Paul have to deal with it all the time
[15:56:57] <cradek> well when I had problems getting started with emc, I figured it out, then became a developer and fixed bugs and stuff.
[15:57:19] <cradek> I guess I don't care if people decide not to use it and buy a commercial system instead.
[15:57:36] <cradek> I think it's their loss, but I understand they have different goals (and funds) than me
[15:58:32] <cradek> I guess it does rub me wrong when some newbie posts to the list about how things are a little unpolished and it took him a WHOLE DAY to install "emc" (meaning BDI)
[15:58:46] <cradek> and THEN he had to EDIT A FILE to get it to work
[15:58:58] <dan_falck> oh my God!
[15:59:23] <dan_falck> I worked with a guy a month ago, trying to help him get set up
[15:59:41] <dan_falck> he would bring his computer over and I installed BDI
[16:00:02] <dan_falck> the next week he would call and had munged stuff up big time
[16:00:06] <cradek> I felt bad for the guy yesterday who doesn't have any fully working system to use. emc1 doesn't build on his bdi, emc2-bdi4 has a bug with backlash, emc2-head has a bug with tool offsets, he's just screwed
[16:00:20] <SWPadnos> weyland
[16:00:48] <cradek> in that case, I think we (?) screwed up.
[16:00:53] <dan_falck> things are pretty wild right now EMC1, EMC2
[16:01:35] <cradek> I think the recommended OS install (bdi-4) not being able to run the stable version of emc is bad, bad, bad.
[16:03:21] <SWPadnos> BDI4 is distributed with Sherline CNCs - it really isn't meant for amything else
[16:03:33] <SWPadnos> though it does work in lots of other places
[16:04:09] <cradek> SWPadnos: I don't agree. When a new user comes in the channel and asks how to run emc, what does everyone say?
[16:04:43] <SWPadnos> oh - I know that's the easiest way to a new install, but the incentive to make the BDI is Sherline, and that's Paul's custoner
[16:05:08] <SWPadnos> the fact that he does things to make it work in other places is a testament to his own generally good attitude
[16:05:18] <cradek> oh I agree with that
[16:05:29] <cradek> he helps lots of people use it.
[16:05:33] <SWPadnos> yep
[16:05:47] <SWPadnos> there are bugs in Mach2, emc, deskcnc, etc.
[16:05:52] <cradek> I guess unless I'm willing to make a distribution the way I think it should be done, I shouldn't complain about BDI too much.
[16:05:53] <SWPadnos> it all falls on how they get fixed
[16:05:57] <dan_falck> the BDI is awesome
[16:06:33] <dan_falck> it's a great intro to Debian/Linux too
[16:06:34] <SWPadnos> me either - I have had problems, but since I haven't been able to spend the time to fix them, I also won't bother others about them
[16:07:12] <SWPadnos> once I start contributing more, I may ask for stuff - but that's just my way of doing things
[16:09:31] <steve_stallings> As suggested by Ray, I have started a discussion on the developer's list.
[16:19:03] <steve_stallings> and apparently killed the one here 8-)
[16:20:40] <SWPadnos> it's all your fault :)
[16:25:03] <steve_stallings> OK, I'll go play outside now like a good boy....
[16:25:11] <steve_stallings> steve_stallings is now known as steves_logging
[16:29:23] <Jymmm> dan_falck : how does one muck up linux in a week? running root?
[16:32:21] <dan_falck> he actually didn't mess it up too bad, just rearranged some stuff and couldn't find it later
[16:32:38] <dan_falck> moved the ini onto the desktop for easy editing
[16:32:51] <dan_falck> then the app couldn't find the ini...
[16:34:33] <dan_falck> I was chuckling under my breath as I discovered this.
[16:35:06] <dan_falck> gotta go, the sun's out for a minute or two :)
[16:36:11] <anonimasu> :)
[16:36:41] <Jymmm> dan_falck Linux in a nut shell $9.95 USD =)
[16:36:59] <Jymmm> 1st cmd to learn... ln -s
[16:37:23] <Jymmm> Hmmm http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=57122&item=7518762500&rd=1
[16:37:28] <anonimasu> heh, wouldnt ls be a better command to learn?
[16:37:55] <Jymmm> anonimasu Well if he's MOVING the ini for easy editing, just symlink it.
[16:38:02] <anonimasu> Jymmm: I dont quite get what a total newbie are going to do with symlinks, if he cant see the files he's symlinking to ;)
[16:38:18] <anonimasu> Jymmm: just being a ass that's all.. I get your point
[16:38:46] <Jymmm> anonimasu Tis ok =) I figure that with M$ "shortcuts" he might be used to it
[16:39:31] <anonimasu> * anonimasu longs until next week..
[16:39:38] <anonimasu> then I'll stop having 18 hour workdays
[16:39:58] <Jymmm> In M$, shorcuts are a POS, but I have found that if you create a zip/rar file then place a shortcut on the desktop, you can "drag and drop" a file on to the shortcut and it'll add it to the zip/rar file.
[16:40:15] <anonimasu> that's a cool feature
[16:40:47] <Jymmm> and there IS a way to crate a shortcut via the cmdline for the diehards like me.
[16:41:24] <anonimasu> hm, I was looking at onecnc xr earlier..
[16:41:28] <anonimasu> seems like the pricetag is 1500$
[16:41:32] <anonimasu> for the minimum version
[16:41:34] <Jymmm> url?
[16:41:57] <Jymmm> I already have brand new 269inoz steppers and a xyl??? driver
[16:42:05] <anonimasu> http://www.onecnc.net/videos/video_index.htm
[16:43:06] <Jymmm> anonimasu is this just SW ?
[16:43:24] <anonimasu> just a cam program
[16:43:46] <Jymmm> pure cam or cad/cam ?
[16:43:48] <anonimasu> I think I am going to mail them and ask for a description of the featureset in the 1500$ version
[16:43:51] <anonimasu> cam
[16:44:17] <Jymmm> you know, the one thing I haven't seen yet is drilling and tapping.
[16:44:32] <anonimasu> in what?
[16:44:46] <Jymmm> gantry router
[16:45:01] <Jymmm> specifically the tapping
[16:45:18] <anonimasu> hm, tapping head or servo spindle..
[16:45:26] <anonimasu> so you can do rigid tapping..
[16:45:36] <anonimasu> or you can mill your taps..
[16:45:40] <anonimasu> err
[16:45:42] <anonimasu> mill your threads
[16:45:44] <Jymmm> is that that half cutter looking thing?
[16:45:48] <anonimasu> but the endmills are expensive..
[16:45:53] <anonimasu> err threadmills..
[16:46:09] <anonimasu> the advantage version seems niec
[16:46:18] <anonimasu> http://www.onecnc.net/quicktour/quicktour_last.htm
[16:46:58] <Jymmm> yoew $75 for 4-40, $84 for 1/2-20
[16:47:06] <Jymmm> http://www.threadmillsusa.com/UN.htm
[16:47:24] <anonimasu> heh, that's pretty cheap
[16:47:30] <anonimasu> it's 450 sek..
[16:47:46] <anonimasu> the dormer endmills I have are about 350 each..
[16:48:23] <Jymmm> so threadmills actually have a smaller diameter than a regular tap, and sorta "ride" up to the material to remove it?
[16:48:58] <anonimasu> hm..
[16:49:05] <anonimasu> you mill the threads with helical interpolation
[16:49:17] <anonimasu> yeah
[16:49:59] <Jymmm> what I don't get is how does it account for the pitch of the thread?
[16:51:29] <anonimasu> http://www.stellram.com/Milling/threadmilling.htm
[16:52:24] <anonimasu> http://www.sct-usa.com/millhelp.asp
[16:52:30] <anonimasu> that's a good explanation
[16:52:31] <Jymmm> * Jymmm watches the video
[16:52:38] <Jymmm> http://www.stellram.com/Company/Library/Videos/Indexable%20threadmilling.mov
[16:53:16] <anonimasu> yep
[16:53:26] <anonimasu> the other page explaing more about it..
[16:53:42] <anonimasu> you can mill any size of thread with the same pitch with a threadmill..
[16:54:51] <anonimasu> the thing in the catalog is just the minimum dia you can mill with the cutter
[16:54:54] <anonimasu> very cool
[16:55:01] <Jymmm> ok so the threadmill lowers to the desired depth and stays constant at that point. Then the XY travels around the inner radius till the desired diameter of thread has been cut. did I get that right?
[16:55:49] <anonimasu> no
[16:55:58] <anonimasu> it interpolates x,y and z
[16:56:19] <Jymmm> ok, so Z moves up/down is respect to the pitch?
[16:56:23] <anonimasu> yeah
[16:56:30] <anonimasu> err not the pitch
[16:56:32] <Jymmm> can EMC do that?
[16:56:33] <anonimasu> that is cutter dependant..
[16:56:46] <anonimasu> yes
[16:57:06] <anonimasu> you can do threadmilling on any mill that supports helical interpolation
[16:57:13] <anonimasu> I havent tried threadmilling though
[16:57:20] <anonimasu> but I've done circular pockets..
[16:57:20] <anonimasu> ;)
[16:57:21] <Jymmm> in that video, it doesn't look like Z is moving
[16:57:35] <anonimasu> and spiraled entries,
[16:57:45] <SWPadnos> Z moves up (or down) at one "pitch" per circuit around the hole
[16:57:53] <anonimasu> yep
[16:57:59] <anonimasu> Jymmm: it's just for showing their cutter..
[16:58:24] <Jymmm> ok, so I was right when I said Z moves in respect to the pitch.
[16:58:28] <SWPadnos> yes
[16:58:41] <Jymmm> anonimasu you just trying to confuse me, huh?! =)
[16:58:45] <Jymmm> SWPadnos ty
[16:58:50] <SWPadnos> np
[16:59:41] <anonimasu> 04:42 < Jymmm> ok so the threadmill lowers to the desired depth and stays constant at that point. Then the XY travels around
[16:59:45] <Jymmm> Darn, I can't do it. I was planning on using a 2hp router motor, but it only goes down to 8000RPM
[16:59:56] <anonimasu> why not?
[17:00:23] <Jymmm> anonimasu they are recommending 800-1400
[17:00:36] <Jymmm> maybe I'm reading this wrong --> http://www.threadmillsusa.com/Feeds_speeds.htm
[17:01:22] <anonimasu> yeah
[17:01:24] <anonimasu> it's SFM
[17:01:27] <anonimasu> surface feet per minute
[17:01:47] <Jymmm> How do you calculate RPM's? 4343rpm
[17:01:54] <Jymmm> read further down.
[17:03:00] <anonimasu> yeah
[17:03:18] <Jymmm> This may sound silly, but there are basically two thing I want to do.... cut slots, and drill/tap holes.
[17:03:41] <Jymmm> And I've wanted to do those for years.
[17:03:43] <anonimasu> :)
[17:04:28] <anonimasu> I am going to try threadmilling as soon as I get more time on my hands..
[17:04:37] <anonimasu> I guess you could make a single point threading insert..
[17:04:40] <Jymmm> I mean think about it a sec.... to drill/tap a 24" x 26" grid in 1" inc it would take forever by hand.
[17:04:50] <Jymmm> s/25/36/
[17:05:04] <Jymmm> bah s/26/36/
[17:05:11] <anonimasu> and use lathe inserts for the actual threading..
[17:05:19] <anonimasu> err or..
[17:05:26] <SWPadnos> it would take forever with threadmilling as well
[17:05:29] <anonimasu> yeah
[17:05:38] <anonimasu> unless your router can do very fast speeds..
[17:05:40] <Jymmm> SWPadnos compared to doing it by hand.
[17:05:49] <SWPadnos> you would want a tapping head
[17:06:07] <SWPadnos> look at the movies on http://www.tapmatic.com - that's what you want for large arrays
[17:06:15] <anonimasu> SWPadnos: If you have a fast machine, threadmilling is fast.. or if you want oddball sized holes..
[17:06:21] <Jymmm> I was considering the HF tapping head $99 USD, but no idea on the motor to use.
[17:06:31] <SWPadnos> the smaller ones (30X, 30TC/DC) are around $100 on ebay these days
[17:06:44] <anonimasu> I'd rather have a toolchanger and a threadmill..
[17:07:01] <anonimasu> but thoose tapmatics look nice
[17:07:01] <Jymmm> SWPadnos they are used. I bought one a year ago and it didn't even engage. so I returned it.
[17:07:16] <anonimasu> I guess they have their uses also..
[17:07:27] <Jymmm> anonimasu someoen told me the tapmatics are not he best endurance wise.
[17:07:27] <anonimasu> threadmilling gives you better threads also..
[17:07:46] <anonimasu> but I guess it's machine dependant
[17:07:46] <SWPadnos> a threadmill is great, but you have to mill the entire depth of the hole (depending on the number of teeth on the threadmill)
[17:08:08] <anonimasu> yeah
[17:08:11] <Jymmm> SWPadnos say that again please?
[17:08:12] <anonimasu> I guess both have uses..
[17:08:22] <Jymmm> oh the pitch travel thing
[17:08:45] <SWPadnos> some threadmills have more than a single tooth, so you start at the bottom of the hole, and a single circuit gives tyou several threads
[17:09:00] <SWPadnos> so you don't have a full 1 inch of Z for a 1 inch tapped hole
[17:09:09] <SWPadnos> it's more lile 7/8 or so
[17:09:27] <SWPadnos> but you still have to circle around several times to get the depth
[17:09:39] <SWPadnos> the tappers just go zing zing, and they're done
[17:10:18] <Jymmm> Ok, so to tap a 1/4-20 holes 1" deep, at the slowest possible speed (worse case senario), how long would it take to do one hole?
[17:10:29] <anonimasu> the better mchines do rigid tapping..
[17:10:37] <anonimasu> and I guess that's optimal..
[17:10:40] <SWPadnos> 1/4-20 is a bit small for threadmilling, I think
[17:10:54] <Jymmm> SWPadnos they have 4-40
[17:10:54] <anonimasu> but the spindles are way out of my reach and yours I think :)
[17:11:48] <Jymmm> The threads I need are 4-40, 10-32, and 1/4-20
[17:12:24] <SWPadnos> hmm - I've seen discussions about threadmilling, and they usually say that it's good for around 1/2" and up - smaller only in special circumstances
[17:12:33] <anonimasu> yep
[17:12:38] <Jymmm> SWPadnos ok, good to know.
[17:12:41] <SWPadnos> maybe a bit smaller, but 4-40 - that's almost microscopic in this context
[17:12:54] <Jymmm> so a tappign head instead?
[17:12:57] <anonimasu> bbl, work more
[17:12:58] <anonimasu> yeah
[17:13:02] <Jymmm> anonimasu k
[17:13:03] <SWPadnos> remember - the teeth are still on a horzontal plane
[17:13:30] <SWPadnos> you end up with much "looser" threads the smaller the hole is (relative to the cutter diameter)
[17:13:47] <Jymmm> SWPadnos what do you think this is worth? http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=57122&item=7518762500&rd=1
[17:13:57] <Jymmm> SWPadnos with a threadingmill you mean?
[17:14:03] <Jymmm> -ing
[17:14:12] <SWPadnos> yes
[17:14:39] <SWPadnos> I don't know about the value - it has no motors, but the build quality looks good
[17:15:03] <SWPadnos> also has no router
[17:15:07] <Jymmm> SWPadnos That makes sense, not threadmill was suggested by anonimasu is why were were looking at that idea.
[17:15:43] <SWPadnos> it's hard to see how you can get good threads unless the hole is >> the cutter
[17:15:49] <SWPadnos> (much greater than)
[17:16:15] <SWPadnos> that router also has no table - it's just a frame
[17:16:25] <Jymmm> SWPadnos I want to attach a tapping head to something like that router I just showed you.
[17:16:47] <SWPadnos> yes - that's a problem - you need a lot more vvertical spacing
[17:16:51] <SWPadnos> v-
[17:16:53] <SWPadnos> -v
[17:16:54] <SWPadnos> -v-
[17:17:21] <SWPadnos> that is actually a pretty nice looking machine
[17:17:58] <SWPadnos> hmmm - on that one, it looks like you can move the router mount higher - there are 3 extra sets of holes showing
[17:18:03] <Jymmm> wider Y travel would be nice, but I don't think I could build one for $1000
[17:19:21] <SWPadnos> yep - the mount is repositionable, so you could put it higher if you want to tap (with a tapping head)
[17:19:21] <Jymmm> SWPadnos here's the table you can add http://www.k2cnc.com/ebay/cnc/cnc2525d.jpg
[17:19:46] <Jymmm> a la local hardware store
[17:20:24] <SWPadnos> the trouble with a router and tapping is that routers rarely have accurate spindle speed control
[17:20:30] <SWPadnos> they just go as fast as they can
[17:20:47] <Jymmm> SWPadnos : I have a 8K to 25K rpm router
[17:21:25] <Jymmm> SWPadnos but I was thinking of finding a variable corded drill and remove the casing and mount that
[17:21:56] <Jymmm> then find some way to remount the trigger elsewhere for speed control
[17:22:23] <Jymmm> les you old dawg you!
[17:22:28] <les> cough
[17:22:30] <Jymmm> how the hell are ya!
[17:22:52] <les> bored. rainy weather and I had planned some outside stuff.
[17:23:25] <Jymmm> les come one down, nice and sunny, we'll fire up the bbq !
[17:23:33] <les> he yeah
[17:25:45] <Jymmm> les : I'm thinking about getting one of these --> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=57122&item=7518762500&rd=1
[17:27:33] <les> hmm looking
[17:31:23] <les> ok but a little pricey for no motors and drives
[17:31:44] <Jymmm> I suspect the price will go up as well.
[17:32:00] <Jymmm> I dont' think I could build one for that
[17:32:07] <Jymmm> if you include labor
[17:32:21] <les> right
[17:32:22] <Jymmm> Well, I could but might take me a month
[17:32:35] <Jymmm> as I have no mill or lathe
[17:32:42] <A-L-P-H-A> hmm... I was talking to a tool regrinder / millwright guy. he was saying that reamer designed for 1.125" getting 1.126" reamed hole is actualy pretty good. Now I just need loctite, and some dimples.
[17:32:57] <A-L-P-H-A> FINALLY! something cheaper in Canada, than in the states. 609 loctite.
[17:34:46] <alex_joni> greetings all
[17:34:47] <Jymmm> howdy alex_joni
[17:34:55] <alex_joni> yo Jymmm
[17:35:32] <SWPadnos> sorry - was afk - Jymmm your router, how is the speed set?
[17:35:45] <Jymmm> SWPadnos knob
[17:35:46] <SWPadnos> hi Alex
[17:36:04] <SWPadnos> knob and speed readout, or just "twist until it sounds right"?
[17:36:06] <Jymmm> SWPadnos turn the knob to adj the speed
[17:36:17] <Jymmm> SWPadnos 1-9
[17:36:25] <alex_joni> hey Stephen
[17:36:34] <SWPadnos> ah - separate settings
[17:36:37] <A-L-P-H-A> yellow
[17:36:47] <SWPadnos> ok - you can't use a tapper then
[17:36:57] <SWPadnos> threadmill maybe, tapper probably not
[17:37:20] <Jymmm> SWPadnos tapping head + variable corded drill motor?
[17:37:35] <SWPadnos> variable != accurately controllable
[17:38:25] <SWPadnos> the tapping heads can float some, so the tap gets pulled into the hole (and the Z feed doesn't have to perfectly match the thread pitch * RPM
[17:38:38] <SWPadnos> but it does need to be *close*
[17:39:12] <Jymmm> ideas/suggestions?
[17:39:24] <SWPadnos> get a real milling machine :)
[17:40:09] <Jymmm> ok, hold on a sec... If tapping heads are meant to go on drill presses, why do I need to be THAT close ?
[17:40:26] <SWPadnos> the Tapmatic manual shows the absolute fastest spindle speed at 2000 RPM, and the slowest at 75 RPM
[17:40:55] <Jymmm> ok, so I'll need around 1100 RPM (aluminum/plastic)
[17:41:06] <SWPadnos> for the 4-40?
[17:41:13] <Jymmm> 1/4-20
[17:41:23] <Jymmm> no?
[17:41:39] <Jymmm> I dont want to melt the plastic beign too slow
[17:42:46] <SWPadnos> tapmatic lists 1200 RPM as the maximum, assuming a through hole or sufficient chip clearance, depth 1x the diameter or less, 60% thread, a good tap, and using tapping fluid,
[17:42:57] <SWPadnos> derate for anything that's non-optimal
[17:43:54] <Jymmm> ok, fair enough. any way to toss on a manual tach to a corder drill?
[17:44:00] <Jymmm> corded
[17:44:23] <SWPadnos> make a hall sensor mount and ask A-L-P-H-A to finish his tachometer project :)
[17:44:40] <A-L-P-H-A> buahahhaa
[17:44:46] <Jymmm> A-L-P-H-A finish your tachometer project!
[17:44:48] <A-L-P-H-A> I REALLLY freak'n do need to finish it.
[17:45:36] <Jymmm> SWPadnos you dont think a hall sensor woud get fubared around all that ferious metal down the road?
[17:46:06] <SWPadnos> actually any metal could be a problem, so I'm not sure.
[17:46:17] <SWPadnos> you could also mount a wheel and use an optical interrupter
[17:49:27] <Jymmm> I think I have one from the copy machine I ripped apater
[17:49:36] <Jymmm> a part
[17:50:28] <SWPadnos> it'll be variable speed anyway - single phase motors on drills aren't synchronous
[17:50:50] <SWPadnos> nor on routers
[17:51:19] <Jymmm> Wel, were are just trying to get close, not absolute, right?
[17:51:49] <SWPadnos> the only suggestion I haev is to try it and see. I'm not experienced enough with machining to be able to tell you one way or the other
[17:52:04] <SWPadnos> (my engineering mind just finds all the problems at first)
[17:52:24] <Jymmm> that's fine, murphy is hard at work =)
[17:52:36] <SWPadnos> the bastard works overtime
[17:52:48] <Jymmm> he's a dead man when I catch him!
[17:53:01] <SWPadnos> but he's the law
[17:53:08] <SWPadnos> "I shot the sherriff..."
[17:53:12] <Jymmm> laws are meant to be broken
[17:53:28] <Jymmm> but i didn't shoot the deputy
[18:01:21] <SWPadnos> well - gotta do some chores and stuff - see you around
[18:01:30] <SWPadnos> SWPadnos is now known as SWP_Away
[18:06:40] <Jymmm> I dun know, might bid up to $1400 on it *shrug*
[18:12:12] <A-L-P-H-A> chemicals are your friends.
[18:13:22] <Jymmm> A-L-P-H-A http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7518762500
[18:23:53] <fenn_afk> Jymmm, why dont you just buy a mill with that kind of money
[18:37:00] <Jymmm> fenn_afk like a HF/grizzly one?
[18:37:08] <Jymmm> mini drill/mill
[18:38:12] <Jymmm> fenn_afk : or like this --> http://www.xylotex.com/SherlineCNCKit.htm
[18:41:11] <fenn_afk> Jymmm, get a big, old, used mill for $750 at an auction
[18:41:28] <fenn_afk> HF mills are crap
[18:41:32] <Jymmm> fenn_afk one word.... A P A R T M E N T =)
[18:42:12] <Jymmm> fenn_afk 2nd word... 2nf floor =)
[18:42:19] <Jymmm> s/nf/nd/
[18:42:35] <Jymmm> fenn_afk 3rd word... Hernia
[18:43:09] <fenn_afk> hmmm okay, but good luck
[18:44:12] <Jymmm> fenn_afk : Thanks. Really I do understand it all. And yes, I would love to have a REAL mill and even a lathe. But I have to start somewhere. Only really have woodworkign tools; drill press, table saw.
[18:45:05] <fenn_afk> I would look into the homier mill/drill... esp since it's only like $200
[18:45:31] <Jymmm> homier, HF, grizzly are allt eh same Seig
[18:46:08] <fenn_afk> well, HF doesn't sell the one i'm thinking of
[18:47:10] <fenn_afk> http://www.homier.com/detail.asp?dpt=&cat=&sku=03989
[18:47:46] <fenn_afk> but, i'm a cheapass
[18:48:42] <Jymmm> fenn_afk : That looks like a drill press with a crossslide table. How would you CNC the Z axis?
[18:49:22] <fenn_afk> hrm good point
[18:49:50] <Jymmm> I'm not saying it can't be done, just dont see how atm.
[18:50:10] <fenn_afk> the column on the HF micro drill just looks really flimsy
[18:50:32] <fenn_afk> i wish they made a mini Van Norman clone
[18:50:46] <fenn_afk> knee mill w/ ram
[18:50:59] <fenn_afk> and swiveling spindle
[18:51:14] <Jymmm> not for $200 I dont think
[18:51:19] <Jymmm> or even $400
[18:51:27] <fenn_afk> no, but they dont make anything even close to it
[18:52:12] <Jymmm> The sherlines for what they are are nice, but when you want something a tad bigger like the HF sized ones, they dont exist.
[18:52:45] <fenn_afk> i will have to make a mini VN for myself
[18:53:03] <Jymmm> fenn_afk for me too, for $200 USD =)
[18:53:10] <fenn_afk> heh yeah right
[18:53:37] <Jymmm> fenn_afk you're the one that said you're a cheap bastard. You think you're the only one out there in the world?!
[18:54:29] <Jymmm> Hmmm, this is cheaper than HF http://www.homier.com/detail.asp?dpt=1&cat=11&sku=03018
[18:54:37] <fenn_afk> i'll make one, see how much time it takes, base price on that
[18:54:57] <fenn_afk> crapsky! $99 bandsaw?
[18:55:01] <Jymmm> at a rate of $0.01 USD per imperial pound
[18:55:24] <fenn_afk> how much do you think shipping costs?
[18:55:39] <Jymmm> a few ppl have that bandsaw, for what it is it isn't bad they saw, just use good blades on it.
[18:55:47] <Jymmm> FREE S&H
[18:57:15] <Jymmm> but when you have no bandsaw at all, this one is pretty good. and has a 9.5" table (vert cutting)
[18:57:26] <Jymmm> the HF is tiny iirc
[18:57:32] <Jymmm> the table that is.
[18:57:58] <Jymmm> Ah, this one doesn't have cast wheels, the HF one does.
[18:58:26] <Jymmm> http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=37151
[19:01:28] <fenn_afk> heh an extra $70 for wheels?
[19:02:06] <Jymmm> Maybe it's missing from the pic, but the HF has a hand wheel on the end, the homier one doesn't
[19:02:15] <Jymmm> can't see the manual fo rthe homier one.
[19:02:28] <fenn_afk> still
[19:02:48] <fenn_afk> as long as it works, who cares
[19:03:06] <Jymmm> homier is OOS till August
[19:03:45] <Jymmm> must be a S L o o o o w boat
[19:04:06] <fenn_afk> i'll probably have built a bandsaw from scratch by then
[19:04:28] <fenn_afk> if i can keep from spending all my time on irc :)
[19:05:32] <Jymmm> I've been building a gantry router for about two weeks. since I was designing on the fly, there was something I overlooked, so I can either fix it, or buy that one on ebay for $1000
[19:05:43] <Jymmm> and mine was being mad3e out of MDF, so....
[19:05:59] <fenn_afk> how much is your time worth, seriously?
[19:06:11] <Jymmm> exactly, thats why I said the ebay one.
[19:06:26] <fenn_afk> usually it turns out better for me to just make whatever i need
[19:06:47] <fenn_afk> rather than waste my life away in some hell hole slaving under someone i hate
[19:07:24] <fenn_afk> would rather spend my time doing what i enjoy doing
[19:07:26] <Jymmm> If I had metal cuttign tools and even a shop, sure. but it takes me 20 minutes to setup each time, then another 20 minutes to cleanup, and that's even if I want to cut a board in half.
[19:08:18] <Jymmm> just to take a break to eat, I have to half clean up so someone doesn't rip off or kill themselves on something.
[19:08:32] <fenn_afk> ah you work outside?
[19:08:39] <Jymmm> no choice.
[19:09:05] <Jymmm> at least with the gantry router, I can make an enclosure and use it indoors.
[19:09:39] <Jymmm> you just can't do that with a table saw =)
[19:09:42] <fenn_afk> okay, i understand why you want the router now
[19:09:57] <Jymmm> Yeah =)
[19:10:22] <fenn_afk> i can't understand why people want to live in the city
[19:10:35] <alex_joni> jmk?
[19:10:37] <Jymmm> who said I WANT to =)
[19:10:38] <jmk_away> hi
[19:10:46] <alex_joni> hello jmk_away
[19:10:51] <alex_joni> :)
[19:11:20] <jmk_away> I suppose I might as well admit I'm here
[19:11:24] <jmk_away> jmk_away is now known as jmkasunich
[19:11:25] <fenn_afk> never!
[19:11:28] <Jymmm> fenn_afk gimme 4 acres of rollings hills and a lil stream running thru it and I'll be in heaven
[19:11:40] <jacky^> hi
[19:11:41] <fenn_afk> heh come camp in my backyard
[19:11:56] <Jymmm> fenn_afk got trees?
[19:12:01] <alex_joni> seems the tool stuff wasn't that bad
[19:12:11] <jmkasunich> you fixed it?
[19:12:34] <fenn_afk> rolling hills, 12 acre field, woods, never met the landlord
[19:12:54] <Jymmm> fenn_afk got a stream and woodlan creatures?
[19:13:14] <fenn_afk> we've got a bog, a coyote and deer
[19:13:28] <Jymmm> bog?
[19:13:35] <Jymmm> man made pond?
[19:13:49] <jacky^> Wow my cnc have made the first little penguin (3d_chips.ngc) :D
[19:13:50] <fenn_afk> the water kinda collects in one place, not man made
[19:14:00] <fenn_afk> congrats jacky^
[19:14:10] <jacky^> :D thanx
[19:14:30] <Jymmm> fenn_afk : Ah, ok. Yeah, I just like the sound of running water is all. plus not to shabby for a swimming hole on hot days.
[19:14:38] <Jymmm> cool beans jacky^!
[19:14:46] <jacky^> :-)))
[19:15:44] <Jymmm> jacky^ : Now impress me, have it make a turkey sandwich! =)
[19:15:51] <Jymmm> hold the mayo
[19:15:57] <jacky^> hehe
[19:16:08] <fenn_afk> heh i've got schematics for an automatic cooking machine
[19:16:26] <Jymmm> fenn_afk pics?
[19:16:33] <Jymmm> illustrations?
[19:16:38] <fenn_afk> it's more in the idea stage at this point
[19:16:49] <Jymmm> fenn_afk oh, something you came up with?
[19:17:21] <fenn_afk> yeah
[19:17:35] <Jymmm> fenn_afk But how does it climb upthe side of the hill ?
[19:17:48] <fenn_afk> based on 80-20 linear rail.. looks like a refrigerator
[19:17:52] <Jymmm> to cut down the tree for firewood
[19:17:56] <fenn_afk> hehehe
[19:18:36] <Jymmm> come one now.... tailgate camping automatic hunter/fishing cooker
[19:18:53] <fenn_afk> heh the "multiwench"
[19:18:56] <Jymmm> gawd help ya if you screw up the code for the automatical rifle attachemnt
[19:19:16] <Jymmm> 30-30
[19:20:18] <Jymmm> now if you can only get it to brew beer...
[19:26:55] <alex_joni> alex_joni is now known as alex_joni_away
[19:33:26] <alex_joni_away> alex_joni_away is now known as alex_joni
[20:08:29] <CIA-8> 03alex_joni * 10emc2/src/emc/iotask/ioControl.cc: cleaned up the hacks for tool compensation in ioControl.cc, should work now
[20:19:36] <jdholbrook33> Hello
[20:21:12] <alex_joni> hello
[20:21:32] <ValarQ> hello
[20:22:10] <jdholbrook33> Is this where I ask questions about EMC and Debian install?
[20:22:27] <alex_joni> sure.. ask away
[20:22:44] <CIA-8> 03alex_joni * 10emc2/configs/emc.ini: changed default for IO, fixed a comment to direct readers to the proper place of emcglb.h
[20:22:44] <ValarQ> oh, so this was the place then
[20:23:07] <jdholbrook33> Great!
[20:23:40] <alex_joni> ask away
[20:24:28] <jdholbrook33> My main question is .. can the kernal be changed to the SMP kernel?
[20:24:49] <alex_joni> jdholbrook33: what SMP kernel?
[20:24:55] <alex_joni> a RTAI patched one?
[20:26:21] <alex_joni> or a standard one?
[20:26:23] <jdholbrook33> Ok you've already lost me. I just did the brain dead install and was wondering if I could turn on SMP as I'm using a dual proc
[20:26:46] <alex_joni> jdholbrook33: if you want emc to run.. leave the kernel that is
[20:26:47] <jmkasunich> the BDI kernel isn't compiled for SMP
[20:27:03] <jdholbrook33> Ok that answered that
[20:27:18] <ValarQ> is it possible to try emc out without patching the kernel?
[20:27:22] <jdholbrook33> I previously had RH9 with SMP and it worked great
[20:27:33] <alex_joni> jdholbrook33: thing is:
[20:27:33] <jmkasunich> the BDI kernel is prepatched for emc
[20:27:48] <alex_joni> emc runs only on a kernel with realtime extensions
[20:27:55] <jmkasunich> so yes, it's possible to try emc without "you" patching the kernel
[20:27:57] <cradek> alex_joni: that's not true
[20:28:05] <jmkasunich> but it is impossible to run emc on an unpatched kernel
[20:28:05] <ValarQ> alex_joni: ok
[20:28:12] <alex_joni> cradek: I mean run emc
[20:28:13] <cradek> ValarQ: you can try emc1, but not run a machine, without patches
[20:28:14] <jdholbrook33> EMC is working on the machine but only using one proc
[20:28:14] <alex_joni> not sim ;)
[20:28:24] <ValarQ> cradek: ok, thanks
[20:28:37] <alex_joni> jdholbrook33: what do you want to do with the machine?
[20:28:39] <jdholbrook33> so I should not patch or upgrade ?
[20:28:40] <cradek> ValarQ: in other words, you can see the gui, simulate running gcode, etc.
[20:28:49] <ValarQ> i have made my own I/O card, what is the simplest way to implement my own drivers?
[20:28:54] <alex_joni> only test emc? or actually do some cutting?
[20:28:58] <jdholbrook33> I've got a Taig mill with a Xylotex card
[20:29:02] <alex_joni> ValarQ: start reading about hal and emc2
[20:29:04] <ValarQ> cradek: ok, i'll patch my kernel then
[20:29:13] <ValarQ> alex_joni: is that recommended?
[20:29:21] <alex_joni> ValarQ: for emc2 you NEED a patched kernel
[20:29:31] <jmkasunich> recommended is to get a BDI disk or download and burn one
[20:29:32] <alex_joni> if doesn't work without anymore
[20:29:36] <jdholbrook33> I couldn't get EMC2 to compile
[20:29:52] <alex_joni> ValarQ: depends on what you want...
[20:29:56] <ValarQ> alex_joni: is emc2 stable enough to use?
[20:30:08] <jmkasunich> getting there
[20:30:11] <alex_joni> ValarQ: not production stable, but pretty much ;)
[20:30:13] <jmkasunich> think beta
[20:30:28] <alex_joni> jdholbrook33: care to tell us what you tried?
[20:30:28] <ValarQ> alex_joni: i have here my little homemade milling machine and ownmade I/O card
[20:30:42] <ValarQ> alex_joni: i just don't want to implement all the software myself
[20:30:43] <alex_joni> ValarQ: my advice
[20:30:50] <alex_joni> get the BDI4
[20:30:54] <jdholbrook33> I used CVS to get source. changed to the dir and did ./configure
[20:30:58] <jdholbrook33> then make clean
[20:31:01] <jdholbrook33> then make
[20:31:05] <alex_joni> on what distro?
[20:31:20] <jdholbrook33> Got an error that it couldn't find some file
[20:31:28] <alex_joni> ValarQ: start reading wiki.linuxcnc.org
[20:31:35] <alex_joni> ValarQ: get emc2 from CVS
[20:31:41] <ValarQ> alex_joni: i'm on it allready :)
[20:31:44] <alex_joni> ValarQ: read about HAL
[20:31:58] <ValarQ> alex_joni: ok
[20:32:01] <CIA-8> 03jmkasunich * 10emc2/configs/standard_pinout.hal: modified 'standard_pinout.hal' to provide a spindle on command on pin 10 of the parport
[20:32:03] <alex_joni> ValarQ: look at emc2/src/hal/drivers/ (hal_skel)
[20:32:16] <jdholbrook33> I just loaded from the BDI disk so not sure what disto it is. uname gives
[20:32:18] <ValarQ> alex_joni: does axis and such tools work with emc2?
[20:32:25] <jmkasunich> jdhol: you have bdi-4.20? or some other bdi?
[20:32:26] <jdholbrook33> 2.6.10 adeos
[20:32:28] <alex_joni> ValarQ: yes
[20:32:36] <alex_joni> jd: that's bdi4-20 then
[20:32:40] <ValarQ> alex_joni: ok, thanks
[20:33:00] <alex_joni> ValarQ: you need to do some manual thingie to make it work ;)
[20:33:17] <jdholbrook33> lol
[20:33:36] <ValarQ> "manual thingie"?
[20:33:44] <alex_joni> ValarQ: some very advanced bash scripting: 'ln -s /usr/local/emc/plat/nonrealtime/bin/axis emc2/bin/axis'
[20:33:55] <ValarQ> alex_joni: no problem :)
[20:34:21] <ValarQ> do i have to install axis?
[20:34:25] <alex_joni> actually ~emc2/bin/axis (given that you checked out into ~emc2)
[20:34:39] <alex_joni> it's already included on the bdi4.20
[20:34:52] <alex_joni> not the latest version though :(
[20:34:56] <jmkasunich> jdholbrook33: before you can compile on bdi4, you need to do some things, see http://wiki.linuxcnc.org/cgi-bin/emcinfo.pl?BDI-4_Install
[20:35:14] <alex_joni> but seems that it's not that easy to compile it on the BDI emc :(
[20:35:19] <ValarQ> * ValarQ does a cvs checkout on emc2
[20:35:37] <alex_joni> yo paul_c
[20:35:52] <alex_joni> paul_c: moved to australia ? (would explain the timezone)
[20:35:59] <paul_c> sodit... been noticed.
[20:36:02] <ValarQ> i just love that qute little fella with the really big hammer :)
[20:36:16] <alex_joni> that's Chips ;)
[20:36:35] <jdholbrook33> JM: got the link and reading now
[20:36:37] <ValarQ> i like the selection of tools :)
[20:36:53] <alex_joni> ValarQ: what selection of tools?
[20:37:31] <ValarQ> alex_joni: the ones he is holding
[20:37:49] <ValarQ> * ValarQ doesn't know the correct english words
[20:38:12] <paul_c> "Big hammer"
[20:38:23] <ValarQ> and?
[20:38:25] <alex_joni> oh.. and the micrometer?
[20:38:33] <paul_c> or "attitude correction tool"
[20:38:35] <ValarQ> yeah :)
[20:38:43] <alex_joni> ValarQ: where from?
[20:38:46] <ValarQ> paul_c: or LART ;)
[20:39:00] <ValarQ> alex_joni: i'm from sweden
[20:39:11] <paul_c> ValarQ is well versed in Unix terminology.
[20:39:22] <alex_joni> we do have a regular fellow from sweden around :)
[20:39:28] <ValarQ> paul_c: thanks :)
[20:39:41] <ValarQ> alex_joni: nah, don't call me regular
[20:39:51] <alex_joni> paul_c: jdholbrook33 was asking about SMP for emc
[20:40:03] <alex_joni> ValarQ: meant anonimasu
[20:40:10] <jacky^> do you think is it possible tu use an ULN2023 to protect parallal port instead of connect directly the controllers driver ?
[20:40:36] <ValarQ> alex_joni: "anonimasu"?
[20:40:38] <alex_joni> jacky^: you can use almost anything to protect the parport ;)
[20:40:42] <alex_joni> check the user list
[20:41:21] <jacky^> i've for the and thi uln2003..
[20:41:51] <jacky^> i know, different optoisolator maybe are better
[20:42:02] <jacky^> just for testing now
[20:42:47] <ValarQ> * ValarQ plays around with the emc2 sources
[20:43:06] <alex_joni> paul_c: care to do me a favour?
[20:43:35] <paul_c> now wot ?
[20:43:54] <alex_joni> it involves running emc2 ;)
[20:44:06] <alex_joni> and checking if cutter compensation runs as it should
[20:45:01] <paul_c> Not on this box - wrong RT running.
[20:45:24] <alex_joni> humm.. what's that? wrong RT?
[20:45:24] <jmkasunich> alex: I've got to go, back in a few hours
[20:45:28] <alex_joni> fusion?
[20:45:39] <alex_joni> jmk: won't stay that long today.. :)
[20:45:46] <alex_joni> last night it got pretty late
[20:45:49] <jmkasunich> weyland might come on later tonight, he's the one who spotted the problem
[20:45:50] <ValarQ> * ValarQ is of to bed
[20:45:57] <jmkasunich> if I see him I'll tell him to try it
[20:46:00] <alex_joni> and today I was almost sleeping in class
[20:46:04] <alex_joni> jmk: nice
[20:46:12] <alex_joni> ValarQ: gnight
[20:47:19] <jdholbrook33> Is it OK to do apt-get upgrade ?
[20:47:50] <alex_joni> jdholbrook33: should be
[20:48:02] <SWP_Away> takes a while though :)
[20:53:13] <jmkasunich> gonna be away for a few hours
[20:53:18] <jmkasunich> jmkasunich is now known as jmk_away
[20:54:06] <jdholbrook33> Is SMP a complete kernel or just some extensions?
[20:54:21] <jdholbrook33> Could I recompile the RT kernel with the SMP
[20:54:48] <paul_c> yes.
[20:56:31] <alex_joni> jdholbrook33: you need a standard kernel, patched with RT, andwith SMP enabled
[20:57:06] <paul_c> unpack the 2.6.10-adeos kernel sources from the CD
[20:57:18] <paul_c> rebuild with SMP enabled.
[20:57:32] <paul_c> download latest RTAI src.
[20:58:01] <paul_c> The patch is pretty much unchanged.
[20:58:12] <alex_joni> paul_c: you make it sound so easy ;)
[20:58:52] <paul_c> Use the config-2.6.10-adeos in /boot as a template for your new .config
[20:59:34] <jdholbrook33> Yes he does
[21:01:37] <alex_joni> jdholbrook33: it's actually not that hard
[21:01:51] <alex_joni> and if you got such great directions.. it's a child's play :)
[21:02:03] <jdholbrook33> I see kernel-source ****.deb
[21:02:23] <alex_joni> jdholbrook33: and remember that even if it's not working the first time, after a few tries you get it right :)
[21:05:45] <alex_joni> paul_c: how's weather over there?
[21:07:12] <alex_joni> it was kind unbearable today... 35 C
[21:07:20] <alex_joni> :(
[21:07:20] <alex_joni> and it's gettign warmer
[21:14:30] <les> only 10-15c here today
[21:14:32] <les> cold
[21:14:52] <alex_joni> hey les
[21:15:00] <les> hi alex
[21:15:10] <les> just taking a break from mowing
[21:15:26] <alex_joni> nice
[21:15:34] <alex_joni> I'm about to head to bed
[21:15:53] <les> had a dry few hours so it's the only chance to mow for a few days
[21:16:03] <les> yes a bit late over there
[21:16:31] <les> talk to you tommorow
[21:22:32] <anonimasu> iab
[21:22:34] <anonimasu> aib
[21:22:54] <alex_joni> bai
[21:23:01] <alex_joni> bia
[21:23:05] <alex_joni> iba
[21:23:09] <alex_joni> abi
[21:23:21] <paul_c> abba ?
[21:24:22] <anonimasu> hello
[21:24:23] <alex_joni> you ruined it :(
[21:24:35] <anonimasu> hello
[21:24:38] <anonimasu> damn lag
[21:24:43] <alex_joni> hello
[21:24:46] <alex_joni> hello
[21:24:51] <alex_joni> lol
[21:26:34] <anonimasu_> ValarQ: I am Swedish also..
[21:26:46] <anonimasu_> alex_joni: what's up?
[21:27:13] <jdholbrook33> Maching questions allowed?
[21:27:23] <alex_joni> not much
[21:27:36] <alex_joni> jdholbrook33: it's an open irc channel
[21:27:42] <jdholbrook33> Cool
[21:27:52] <alex_joni> mostly anything goes ;) (sometimes you might get kicked though :)
[21:28:21] <anonimasu_> :)
[21:28:52] <jdholbrook33> I'm wanting to cut some small holes in thin (0.75mm) mild steel. I'm using a 3mm 2 flute end mill. How fast should I turn the mill. how fast should I feed?
[21:33:49] <anonimasu_> hm, the main limit when milling steel, is how much torque your spindle will provide
[21:34:29] <jdholbrook33> It's a Taig mini mill with 1/4HP motor so not much power there
[21:34:37] <anonimasu_> oh, you should take it slow, very slow
[21:34:38] <anonimasu_> :)
[21:35:05] <anonimasu_> I would take a test cut to see where it sounds nice..
[21:38:45] <anonimasu_> sorry, cant find any cutting data on google :/
[21:39:48] <jdholbrook33> I've tried it in aluminum at 30mm/ min and it seems real slow. It's my only small mill and I don't want to break it before I finish this job
[21:41:08] <anonimasu_> hm, yeah, that's slow :)
[21:41:29] <anonimasu_> * anonimasu_ is scared of aluminium
[21:42:29] <anonimasu_> if you have material over, make a series of test cuts..
[21:42:45] <anonimasu_> set your feedrate pretty high and the feed override very low..
[21:42:57] <anonimasu_> then start your cut, and increase the feed override until it sounds good
[21:43:35] <anonimasu_> :)
[21:45:28] <jdholbrook33> That sounds good
[21:45:57] <alex_joni> night guys
[21:46:07] <anonimasu_> night alex
[21:46:11] <alex_joni> an0n: I put some stuff into emc2
[21:46:19] <alex_joni> might want to try cutter comp.
[21:46:23] <anonimasu_> alex_joni: what stuff?
[21:46:24] <anonimasu_> ;)
[21:46:37] <anonimasu_> alex_joni: will do, as soon as I get time over
[21:46:38] <anonimasu_> :)
[21:46:49] <alex_joni> tool table load stuff ;)
[21:47:10] <anonimasu_> damn you, you made me curious ;)
[21:47:16] <anonimasu_> *grabs a fresh cvs*
[21:47:42] <alex_joni> no interesting stuff
[21:47:45] <alex_joni> ;)
[21:47:58] <anonimasu_> ah, I'll wait until I get enough time then :)
[21:48:00] <alex_joni> just some stuff that was missing from emc2
[21:48:06] <anonimasu_> * anonimasu_ nods
[21:48:17] <anonimasu_> I wonder if anyone have been looking at the bug I submitted
[21:48:30] <alex_joni> heh.. I looked at it once (on SF)
[21:49:02] <anonimasu_> :D
[21:49:04] <jdholbrook33> My first day with EMC. Is there a utility to convert DXF to G-code with the BDI ?
[21:51:41] <alex_joni> an0n: you might want to add some more info for that MANUAL/AUTO switching
[21:51:53] <jacky^> can't understand the difference between linear and angular axes :\
[21:51:58] <alex_joni> it does work for me, perhaps you did somthing strange
[21:52:11] <alex_joni> jacky^: ever seen a robot?
[21:52:20] <alex_joni> a robot usually has angular axes
[21:52:21] <jacky^> alex_joni: sure
[21:52:31] <anonimasu_> alex_joni: oh, there's nothing more to add..
[21:52:33] <alex_joni> a cutting table has linear ones
[21:52:39] <anonimasu_> alex_joni: nothing show's up in the debug..
[21:52:58] <alex_joni> * alex_joni goes to bed
[21:53:02] <alex_joni> night guys
[21:53:07] <jacky^> night alex_joni
[21:53:13] <alex_joni> an0n: we'll cover it some other time ;)
[21:53:15] <alex_joni> bye
[21:53:15] <anonimasu_> yeah
[21:53:24] <jdholbrook33> Nite alex and thanks fr your help
[21:53:46] <alex_joni> jdholbrook33: what did I do?
[21:53:51] <alex_joni> kidding :)
[21:54:02] <alex_joni> no problem, that's why we are here
[21:55:10] <anonimasu_> hm, the discussion on the list is leading somwhere :)
[21:57:06] <Phydbleep> anonimasu: Insanity?
[21:57:13] <Phydbleep> Hehehe.. :)
[21:57:23] <anonimasu_> yeah
[22:26:44] <jacky^> i'm thinking that maybe optointerrupter for home position will not work well
[22:27:30] <jacky^> because it can't have accurate position when detect an object
[22:27:46] <jacky^> anyone here know ?
[22:31:01] <anonimasu_> you usually have a switch/optoswitch or somthing
[22:31:13] <anonimasu_> then you move to the "HOME" position of a encoder
[22:31:24] <anonimasu_> err until you get a index signal..
[22:31:41] <jacky^> yes, but
[22:32:03] <anonimasu_> but?
[22:32:40] <jacky^> if it comes from direction - it will not stop at the same position when comes from + direction
[22:32:43] <jacky^> ?
[22:32:57] <anonimasu_> you always move in the same direction after you've hit the switch
[22:33:22] <anonimasu_> until you encounter a index..
[22:33:32] <jacky^> uhmm.. something like a calibration of printer i suppose
[22:33:46] <anonimasu_> I dont know how that's done..
[22:34:16] <jacky^> well, ill try
[22:34:51] <jacky^> otherwise will not use home switch
[22:35:16] <anonimasu_> hm, well, that's how the real machines do it..
[22:35:29] <jacky^> ufff warmm
[22:35:44] <jacky^> we have 30 �
[22:35:46] <jacky^> :\
[22:36:36] <anonimasu_> I think you could move over the switch first, then move over it and back up unil the signal falls..
[22:37:14] <anonimasu_> as long as you go move to the same position before you actually set your home, you will be accurate
[22:37:14] <jacky^> i also think so, but maybe it's hard to tell this to software emc
[22:37:30] <anonimasu_> do you have servos or steppers?
[22:37:38] <jacky^> steppers
[22:38:03] <anonimasu_> ok, there might already be some routines written for homing with steppers..
[22:38:23] <jacky^> O_O
[22:38:26] <jacky^> :-)
[22:38:49] <jacky^> if there is ill try ! sure..
[22:39:03] <anonimasu_> I think you can use another optointerrupter as index..
[22:39:16] <jacky^> reflective ?
[22:39:19] <anonimasu_> |(2) |(1)
[22:39:40] <anonimasu_> and when you encounter 1(the homing switch) you back up until you get the index signal..
[22:40:06] <jacky^> i build 3 small pcb for axes
[22:40:41] <anonimasu_> I dont know how it's done in practice but it should work the same as when homing with servos and index signal..
[22:40:52] <anonimasu_> :)
[22:41:07] <jacky^> tnx, yours it's agood idea
[22:41:39] <anonimasu_> I need to try out homing myself in a bit
[22:41:54] <jacky^> :)
[22:42:09] <anonimasu_> but well, time is keeping me busy
[22:42:19] <jacky^> hehe
[22:42:39] <jacky^> time.. it's an hard life :\
[22:43:02] <anonimasu_> hehe yeah
[22:43:18] <anonimasu_> I need to go, going back to work in 5 hours
[22:43:23] <anonimasu_> good luck!
[22:43:26] <jacky^> tnx
[22:43:28] <jacky^> :-)
[23:37:08] <jacky^> night