#emc | Logs for 2008-10-29

[00:06:10] <jepler> * jepler goes in search of dinner
[00:06:27] <BigJohnT> * BigJohnT is pickin his teeth from dinner
[00:07:18] <dmess> Big J this ones for you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AYG4y5et5g
[00:07:48] <BigJohnT> it will have to wait a bit I'm doing a cvs checkout and I'm on dial up
[00:08:00] <dmess> ok
[00:08:16] <BigJohnT> do you remember dial up :)
[00:08:18] <dmess> what you checking out??
[00:08:29] <BigJohnT> EMC2 to my Hardy computer
[00:08:46] <dmess> wow.. your hard core
[00:09:23] <BigJohnT> not really, but I work on the documents a bit
[00:10:13] <BigJohnT> you get your machine running?
[00:15:13] <dmess> still dont have the parameters set up correctly... i did run a cord to the dryer outlet after all... i found my longer string of wire.. still JUST made it
[00:17:07] <dmess> bought a plug and then wondered if i should light it up.. it turned out uneventfull.. all went well..as i thought i was setting up from the VFD control but still no rotation...
[00:18:51] <dmess> could the FVD be phased incorrectly?? it gets droped to DC on input as best i knok
[00:18:55] <BigJohnT> what kind of drive is it?
[00:19:00] <dmess> A-B
[00:19:14] <dmess> 160s series b
[00:19:53] <BigJohnT> allen bradley?
[00:19:57] <dmess> yes
[00:20:05] <dmess> sorry
[00:20:18] <BigJohnT> np
[00:20:38] <BigJohnT> was it a new drive or used
[00:22:00] <dmess> used with the taste of FREE
[00:22:12] <dmess> but was removed working
[00:22:26] <dmess> by a good friend
[00:22:37] <BigJohnT> then it "should" still work
[00:22:59] <BigJohnT> the display (if it has one) lights up ok?
[00:23:08] <dmess> this is the belief... but i want to control it from itself..
[00:23:28] <dmess> it has a full programming key pad
[00:24:36] <dmess> and yes..lights up.. i can maneuver and alter.. .... but i havent a clue if i have the correct parrameter list...
[00:24:47] <BigJohnT> is there a way to reset everything back to default settings?
[00:26:00] <dmess> yes
[00:26:17] <dmess> would that get me closer to what i want??
[00:26:52] <BigJohnT> you would think that at least it would run at default
[00:27:15] <dmess> i believe i have some param's locke out to me right now... and cant seem to open them up
[00:27:39] <dmess> from the keypad buttons??
[00:28:09] <BigJohnT> prob pass protected to keep people from screwing the drive up
[00:28:21] <BigJohnT> you got the manual
[00:28:29] <BigJohnT> ?
[00:28:45] <dmess> ok the reset it is... will i be able to if there's a p'word on it?
[00:29:11] <dmess> im still not sure its the RIGHT/correct manual
[00:29:52] <BigJohnT> dunno, I wish you could talk to our local AB drive guy he knows them inside and out
[00:30:10] <dmess> i have A manual... looks the same.... smells the same... tastes the same..... same shite.. i HOPE
[00:30:20] <BigJohnT> many times they have options that change things up a lot
[00:30:37] <dmess> you have a # i'll call l/d no sweat
[00:31:05] <BigJohnT> not with me at the moment
[00:31:27] <BigJohnT> I'll look for you when I go to the shop tomorrow
[00:31:36] <dmess> if you locate it.. it'd be sweet
[00:32:12] <dmess> ive had power since sat noonish.. and still no 1st part
[00:32:12] <BigJohnT> np
[00:32:33] <BigJohnT> this is interesting http://www.ab.com/support/abdrives/160/faq.html
[00:32:59] <dmess> i have manual handles to make a part AS soon as the spindle spins
[00:34:31] <BigJohnT> Q? The drive will not start!
[00:34:40] <BigJohnT> A! There are several different things which can cause such a situation. First and foremost, MAKE SURE THERE IS A CLOSED CONNECTION BETWEEN TERMINALS 7 AND 8. Ninety-five percent of the calls to us about the drive not starting is simply this connection. If you have the connection closed, and have NOT changed any parameters out of the box, make a closed connection between terminals 6 and 7....
[00:34:40] <BigJohnT> ...This will start the drive. You will need an external analog signal to terminals 1, 2, or 4. Otherwise, go and change parameter 59 to a "1," then you can use parameter 58 for a speed reference. Out of the box defaults are set for "Three Wire" control. If all else fails, reset defaults to the drive, and try the steps above.
[00:35:07] <dmess> i have NO wiring on the front face... problem #1...
[00:35:49] <BigJohnT> ok, now you have somewhere to start
[00:36:23] <dmess> would i want 59 to 1 and 58 for speed ref??
[00:37:08] <dmess> but still need to hook up 7 & 8 right
[00:37:52] <BigJohnT> looks that way
[00:38:17] <dmess> hmmm shall i go try..??
[00:38:20] <BigJohnT> looks like 7-8 is enable and 6-7 is start or run
[00:38:52] <BigJohnT> if it looks right by your manual...
[00:39:07] <dmess> but the key pad mode should overrun those signals
[00:40:06] <dmess> back in a few
[00:40:18] <BigJohnT> I don't know for sure but most drives need some sort of run contact and usually some sort of enable contact
[00:40:44] <BigJohnT> * BigJohnT heads upstairs to kick back and sip a glass of wine :)
[00:48:45] <BigJohnT> * BigJohnT does not see any mushroom clouds to the north :)
[01:25:17] <skunkworks> jmkasunich: upping gate resistance and adding the diodes seems to have fixed the funny ring also.
[01:25:38] <jmkasunich> slowed things down
[01:25:47] <skunkworks> yes
[01:26:42] <skunkworks> pete had mentioned with is h-bridge - random failures because of the lower mosfets getting turned on by noise without the diodes.
[01:27:11] <skunkworks> shoot through
[01:28:18] <skunkworks> *his
[01:52:03] <KimK_> I've been looking at Mesa's 7i65 8-axis servo card which also has 8 "extra" A/D inputs. Would the EMC2/ini/hal/ladder/whatever system be capable of using 2 as front panel pot inputs in this way: Pot 0 = rapid override (only affects G0's and similar); Pot 1 = feedrate override (affects everything but G0's and similar)?
[01:52:51] <cradek> not currently
[01:53:08] <cradek> (you use an encoder for feed override so you can change FO in more than one place)
[01:53:21] <cradek> there is not currently a separate 'rapid override' in EMC2
[01:59:31] <KimK_> OK. I'm used mostly to Dynapaths and Fanucs. In Dynapaths, operator picks one of two modes, rapid override (one knob affects all moves, good for initial debugging), and feedrate(?) override (doesn't slow down rapids, good for production). In Fanucs, you often have two separate knobs for feedrate and rapid override.
[01:59:38] <KimK_> Any plans to add this?
[02:00:02] <SWPadnos> it's been discussed, but I don't know of any plans for adding it soon
[02:01:50] <cradek> as I've said before, I would prefer the feed override we have now PLUS another thing that's "feed limit" which sets a max for ANY move (except spindle synced moves I guess)
[02:03:26] <KimK_> OK. I'm sure it will come along eventually. I'll look forward to it. cradek, could you explain a little further your advice "(you use an encoder for feed override so you can change FO in more than one place)", for one place, do you mean more than one front panel location? I'm unclear on this.
[02:03:48] <cradek> yes for instance the slider on the gui can also work.
[02:04:06] <cradek> turning the encoder slides the slider on the gui
[02:04:17] <cradek> then, they don't fight
[02:04:31] <cradek> all of emc's gui works this way. you can control things from multiple locations.
[02:05:37] <KimK_> sorry to be dense, but how would that be advantageous (in a CNC front panel situation)?
[02:05:58] <KimK_> that = multiple locations
[02:06:34] <cradek> one on the pendant, one on the panel, one on the gui on-screen - they don't fight.
[02:06:45] <cradek> you can turn any of them up or down and the feedrate changes.
[02:09:56] <SWPadnos> and there's no jummp in the setting if you switch from the front panel to the pendant, for example
[02:11:30] <KimK_> OK, I see. Yes, that does seem like a good idea, thanks. Same would apply to spindle override? Seems like it. And would your "as I've said before..." method be of any discernable difference from a rapid override? Same thing, but implemented more conveniently for the developers? Or would there be a difference?
[02:11:48] <cradek> yes same
[02:11:56] <cradek> err, same for spindle override, I meant
[02:12:15] <cradek> yes my 'feed limit' would be different - it would protect you from an errant G1 F9999 move.
[02:12:47] <cradek> or (like what just bit me yesterday) specifying G1 F20 when I forgot to turn off feed-per-rev mode on the lathe
[02:14:22] <cradek> at 1500 RPM, 20 inches per rev is ... a rapid
[02:14:30] <cradek> but rapid override would not protect me
[02:15:07] <Jymmmm> hey SWPadnos!!!
[02:15:12] <SWPadnos> hi Jymmmm
[02:15:34] <Jymmmm> SWPadnos: Back home I see, where did your travels take ya?
[02:15:42] <SWPadnos> jus tNew York
[02:15:53] <Jymmmm> all biz, or fun too?
[02:15:57] <SWPadnos> both
[02:16:00] <Jymmmm> cool
[02:16:04] <SWPadnos> err, unless the IRS is watching
[02:16:08] <SWPadnos> then it was all business
[02:16:24] <Jymmmm> they weren't untill you said their name
[02:16:31] <SWPadnos> damn
[02:17:15] <cradek> like jog speed, 'feed limit' would not be a percentage, it would be a feed setting
[02:17:35] <KimK_> cradek: OK, I see, that seems like a good idea too. But is there a popup or something when executed? "Hey, I just saved your a**, fix this line in your g-code: [LINE$]" (Well, maybe not exactly like that...)
[02:17:37] <cradek> I think this is superior to 'rapid override %'
[02:18:07] <cradek> KimK_: good question... I might not have noticed that problem.
[02:19:11] <cradek> KimK_: but maybe I'm losing sight of the goal - is it not the case that the point of rapid override (or feed limit) is to make the program slow enough to preview safely?
[02:19:44] <cradek> most often: is this approach going to stop in the right place?
[02:20:49] <cradek> a wrong feed rate will often ruin a part and maybe a tool, but not crash the machine
[02:21:11] <cradek> a wrong offset will crash the machine
[02:21:39] <cradek> hi seb
[02:22:05] <KimK_> Yes, and I was just writing more... the other problem is, is your limit adjustable on the fly, by GUI/panel/pendant? Sometimes there are long traverses (i.e., before/after a tool change where the debugger (foreman?) might want to give it full throttle, just for a moment, until nearing the fixture again.)
[02:22:43] <cradek> thanks for the picture but it is not the answer to the question I have - it shows merges, which I know are handled well. I was asking about work that splits in two directions, one is abandoned or put off to finish later, and I want them both in the central repository
[02:22:59] <cradek> KimK_: sure it would be a slider, another encoder knob, etc
[02:23:17] <KimK_> This is where that front panel (or pendant) knob shines, no having to take eyes away for a GUI
[02:23:28] <cradek> you betcha
[02:23:35] <cradek> jogwheels!!
[02:24:29] <KimK_> Say, now that is an interesting idea... you may have hit on something novel and original there! An EMC2 exclusive?!
[02:24:32] <cradek> I do that sometimes now - just slow it (way) down as it approaches, make sure it stops at the right place
[02:24:38] <cradek> which one?
[02:28:48] <KimK_> Totally new use for a jogwheel/MPG. Not in conventional way at all (where one click = one distance unit), but more as a "scratch player" plays thru a vinyl record. You turn the wheel more or less, faster or slower to move thru the program. I can't quite imagine all the ramifications yet, but that would be really cool. "Let's 'crank back' a little bit and see that fixture approach again..."
[02:29:26] <cradek> there has been talk of that - reversing is very hard
[02:29:54] <KimK_> Yes, I'll bet it is
[02:30:13] <tomp> re: "one on the pendant, one on the panel, one on the gui on-screen".
[02:30:13] <tomp> i just reduced a system to only 1 Fovr, 1 Rovr, 1 Sovr & 1 Estop on the hand pendant.
[02:30:13] <tomp> the hand pendant nests into the operator panel near the lcd.
[02:30:13] <tomp> the functions are always at hand.
[02:30:13] <tomp> the single knobs always agree with any display.
[02:31:25] <KimK_> tomp: I thought Rovr (Rapid Override) was not yet possible?
[02:31:49] <tomp> sorry, done in another control, mentioned becuz i dislike 2 controls on 1 device
[02:32:30] <tomp> 'back seat driver ' ;)
[02:33:01] <KimK_> tomp: no prob, I'm just trying to learn the ropes here
[02:33:03] <SWPadnos> they're sometimes needed, a good example being big-ass lathes with controls by the front and back doors
[02:33:43] <tomp> i just entioned the 'carry it with you' approach
[02:33:48] <tomp> ;)
[02:34:25] <cradek> SWPadnos: I've been meaning to put another estop button on the back of mine - it would take quite some time to run around it and stop it.
[02:34:33] <SWPadnos> heh
[02:34:40] <SWPadnos> especially if it's eating your hand
[02:41:23] <KimK_> cradek: someday I'll have to run over to Lincoln and have lunch with you and jepler
[02:42:28] <cradek> KimK_: did you see my lathe video?
[02:42:34] <cradek> http://timeguy.com
[02:42:57] <cradek> poor camera, but still fun to watch
[02:43:11] <KimK_> I have seen one, I think? I'll take a look...
[02:44:54] <lerman__> lerman__ is now known as lerman
[02:55:01] <KimK_> cradek: No, I had not seen that video, nice. Lots happening in 5 minutes. I lost count of the tool changes, LOL. What, facing (parting tool?), drilling, turning, knurling, parting? Seems like I missed one or two. And what's with the woo-woo-woo on turret rotation, has it always sounded like that? And is that electric or hydraulic?
[02:55:22] <jmkasunich> its air
[02:55:51] <KimK_> Oh, OK, that's unusual. Factory?
[02:55:59] <cradek> yes
[03:00:09] <KimK_> cradek: Congrats on getting a nice lathe going there. And what about the knobs, you mentioned they're for a front panel encoder, did you get these encoders retail? Anything you'd like to recommend to the rest of us?
[03:00:37] <KimK_> And are you going to be selling knobs for them?
[03:03:22] <cradek> KimK_: they're just some little cheap encoders mouser has. they seem nice for the cost (a couple bucks each)
[03:04:14] <cradek> they have a nice solid detent and count reliably. they have a pushbutton action too.
[03:04:18] <jmkasunich> probably mechanical (wipers and printed patterns on an insulating substrate)
[03:04:31] <cradek> yes I'm sure they are mechanical
[03:05:26] <cradek> 690-701-06-24
[03:05:35] <cradek> guess they are almost $4 each
[03:06:35] <KimK_> OK, thanks, I'll look for them. Any cheap optical ones (mechanical detent of course)? I'd imagine a lot of mouse scroll wheel doodads are available. (ooh, $4 each, maybe they are already optical?)
[03:07:44] <KimK_> I guess it depends on how badly they wanted to move them out, LOL
[03:07:55] <spasticteapot> Hello everyone!
[03:07:59] <spasticteapot> I have learned to use a lathe!
[03:08:01] <spasticteapot> Sort of.
[03:08:06] <cradek> I think the optical ones start at a much higher price
[03:08:11] <cradek> spasticteapot: haha
[03:08:13] <SWPadnos> $20-ish
[03:08:18] <spasticteapot> The problem is that the lathe does not work properly, and nobody around here knows where to get a replacement belt.
[03:08:36] <spasticteapot> It's got a 1/2hp motor (which seems a bit small) connected to one of three spindles by a leather camera strap.
[03:08:40] <cradek> what kind of belt?
[03:08:46] <cradek> oh an ollllddddd lathe
[03:08:49] <spasticteapot> Yep.
[03:09:00] <spasticteapot> My grandfather very likely worked on one of these.
[03:09:03] <spasticteapot> On a destroyer.
[03:09:08] <spasticteapot> In World War II.
[03:09:56] <spasticteapot> Rather annoylingly, it would require me to take apart the entire machine to actually put a belt on it - the only easy way is to get a belt that can be opened up and closed.
[03:10:07] <KimK_> spasticteapot: what is the belt cross-section size? is there a length, or is that to be established?
[03:10:16] <spasticteapot> Cutting through some 3/32" copper (possibly thinner) took forty minutes.
[03:10:28] <spasticteapot> KimK_: Belt length is adjustable. Belt width is about an inch.
[03:11:08] <SWPadnos> leather belt and big staples
[03:11:57] <cradek> or shave half of the thickness of both ends, then glue
[03:12:15] <spasticteapot> I was thinking the latter.
[03:12:25] <SWPadnos> it sounds like a South Bend drive
[03:12:27] <cradek> spasticteapot: don't start on copper. get aluminum or brass.
[03:12:40] <cradek> copper is a nightmare to machine
[03:12:43] <spasticteapot> cradek: You can't get copper end-caps from Home Depot.
[03:12:48] <spasticteapot> And it's not THAT bad.
[03:12:55] <spasticteapot> Remember, I have to work unbelievably slowly.
[03:13:14] <cradek> oh I didn't know you were actually making something - I thought you were learning to use a lathe.
[03:13:24] <spasticteapot> cradek: I'm cutting pieces of pipe.
[03:13:26] <spasticteapot> Same difference.
[03:17:18] <cradek> http://www.google.com/search?q=lathe+leather+belt
[03:17:22] <cradek> see first hit
[03:17:30] <cradek> some ideas about getting one
[03:17:51] <cradek> so does it have a belt but it slips?
[03:18:46] <cradek> I remember reading there's ... something you can put on the belt to temporarily fix it
[03:18:58] <cradek> seems like it was peanut butter or some equally ridiculous thing
[03:19:00] <spasticteapot> cradek: No.
[03:19:03] <spasticteapot> It is a camera strap.
[03:19:04] <cradek> that would be oily - surely not peanut butter
[03:19:10] <cradek> oh
[03:19:11] <spasticteapot> Off of an old Pentax.
[03:19:13] <KimK_> spasticteapot: McMaster-Carr catalog page 1020. 1" wide leather belting ready in 4', 5' 6' loops, or loose ends from a roll by the foot. See pages 1034 or 1222 for how to join. Pages 1018 for pulleys.
[03:19:32] <spasticteapot> Hmm.
[03:19:37] <cradek> there you go
[03:19:38] <jmkasunich> McMaster Carr rules ;-)
[03:19:39] <spasticteapot> That looks pretty good, actually.
[03:19:44] <spasticteapot> I though it would be rubber.
[03:19:46] <KimK_> Oops, no, page 1018 for general info on belts and pulleys.
[03:19:47] <spasticteapot> Or fiberglass.
[03:19:49] <spasticteapot> Or something.
[03:20:06] <spasticteapot> OTOH, I'm in Wisconsin. Using pieces of cow is appropriate.
[03:20:25] <cradek> I've gone to the auto parts store and said "I need a serpentine belt about this long"
[03:20:40] <spasticteapot> As long as people are giving me useful information on lathes, is there a guide to what sort of sharp bits I would want?
[03:20:40] <cradek> they say "what car?" and I say "I have no idea"
[03:20:46] <KimK_> http://www.mcmaster.com/
[03:20:51] <spasticteapot> cradek: I was just at AutoZone.
[03:20:57] <cradek> then they give me THE LOOK
[03:20:59] <cradek> haha
[03:21:16] <spasticteapot> All of the belts are of the plastic-and-mesh variety that don't work properly once you've cut them and put them back together.
[03:21:18] <cradek> then we go back and look at the 200 belts hanging from the ceiling and pick one
[03:21:21] <spasticteapot> :)
[03:21:28] <cradek> yeah cutting is a big problem
[03:21:45] <spasticteapot> Also....is 1/2Hp enough?
[03:21:53] <cradek> enough for what?
[03:22:06] <spasticteapot> The metal bit seems to be spinning quite slowly, and without much torque - even when it's not slipping.
[03:22:15] <spasticteapot> cradek: A big old clunker of a lathe.
[03:22:49] <cradek> I meant for what kind of work
[03:22:52] <spasticteapot> I think at least 1/2 of the power is being diverted to a huge mess of cogs and threaded things that I haven't found a use for yet.
[03:23:01] <spasticteapot> cradek: Turning copper on a lathe. :)
[03:23:02] <cradek> those are for threading/feeding
[03:23:07] <spasticteapot> cradek: I know that.
[03:23:32] <spasticteapot> However, I have no desire to thread anything, and since it only feeds at one speed, I stall the motor if I'm using anything other than a 1/16" drillbit.
[03:23:32] <jmkasunich> spasticteapot: I suggest that you start by learning a bit about the lathe
[03:23:37] <jmkasunich> start with make and model
[03:23:42] <spasticteapot> jmkasunich: I couldn't find one.
[03:23:51] <jmkasunich> no nameplates of any kind anywhere?
[03:23:51] <spasticteapot> I did figure out how all the cogs work and what the levers did.
[03:23:58] <spasticteapot> jmkasunich: I'll look again.
[03:24:13] <spasticteapot> It's sort of wedged into the back of a room full of spare things.
[03:24:16] <cradek> it should have a lever that unhooks all the gears from the spindle
[03:24:31] <cradek> it may also reverse them
[03:24:40] <spasticteapot> Yep - it's got one of those, right next to the little bar in front of the drive spindles.
[03:24:44] <jmkasunich> spasticteapot: does it look like this: http://hometown.aol.com/sbca96/images/avantibrakeproject/SouthBendLathe_001a.jpg
[03:24:48] <spasticteapot> It hasn't got a reverse, though, which I find incredibly annoying.
[03:25:30] <jmkasunich> or like this: http://hometown.aol.com/sbca96/images/avantibrakeproject/SouthBendLathe_001a.jpg
[03:25:32] <spasticteapot> jmkasunich: Very similar, but the proportions are all wrong and it's basically bolted to the top of an old desk.
[03:25:42] <jmkasunich> motor behind or under?
[03:25:45] <spasticteapot> The motor is an old Sears special held on with plywood and hardware bits.
[03:25:52] <spasticteapot> jmkasunich: Sort of off to the side at a funny angle.
[03:25:54] <cradek> jmkasunich: you pasted the same link twice
[03:25:58] <spasticteapot> I need to get a picture.
[03:25:58] <jmkasunich> oops
[03:26:10] <jmkasunich> http://hometown.aol.com/sbca96/images/avantibrakeproject/SouthBendLathe_001a.jpg
[03:26:19] <jmkasunich> fsck
[03:26:42] <spasticteapot> :P
[03:26:45] <jmkasunich> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/haplesspeanut/Show_Us/LATHE.jpg
[03:26:48] <jmkasunich> finally
[03:26:58] <cradek> pretty
[03:27:05] <jmkasunich> that one has visible belts and pulleys, rear motor
[03:27:19] <spasticteapot> It looks like the guy who used to run the shop (who, unlike the current substitute teacher they hired until they can find a new one, was competent) found this by the side of the road and got to work with a screwdriver.
[03:27:32] <spasticteapot> That's it!
[03:27:38] <cradek> woo
[03:27:39] <spasticteapot> Except it hasn't got those two levers on the right.
[03:27:43] <spasticteapot> Or the nameplate.
[03:27:46] <cradek> yes 1/2 hp is enough
[03:27:58] <jmkasunich> two levers on the right?
[03:28:00] <cradek> which 2 levers?
[03:28:02] <spasticteapot> And it's not quite as....smooth.
[03:28:13] <jmkasunich> that one is in exceptionally good shape
[03:28:17] <spasticteapot> The ones under the little faceplate on the lower left.
[03:28:26] <cradek> that's a neat little benchtop lathe
[03:28:27] <spasticteapot> jmkasunich: I mean that it looks like a much more crude lathe.
[03:28:28] <jmkasunich> oh, those are the quick-change gearbox levers
[03:28:34] <spasticteapot> Possibly a knockoff.
[03:28:39] <jmkasunich> I bet you have a model A, no qc gearbox
[03:28:41] <spasticteapot> I'm guessing it's just much older.
[03:28:50] <spasticteapot> Could be.
[03:28:51] <cradek> oh yours has change gears - sorry :-)
[03:29:09] <jmkasunich> http://inlinethumb52.webshots.com/40243/2380655570101798400S500x500Q85.jpg
[03:29:11] <cradek> now I understand that by "on the right" you meant left :-)
[03:29:33] <spasticteapot> jmkasunich: Now THAT'S familiar.
[03:29:39] <jmkasunich> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/haplesspeanut/Show_Us/NORSKSEA.jpg
[03:29:41] <spasticteapot> cradek: Sorry.
[03:29:50] <cradek> np
[03:30:30] <spasticteapot> I still don't think it has the lever on the lower left, though.
[03:30:52] <spasticteapot> And I don't think you want to see the motor setup.
[03:31:07] <spasticteapot> It's scary.
[03:31:13] <jmkasunich> spasticteapot: the lever or levers on the lower left are for the quick change gearbox
[03:31:19] <jmkasunich> yours probably doesn't have one
[03:31:23] <spasticteapot> Ah.
[03:31:27] <jmkasunich> like the last link I posted
[03:31:41] <jmkasunich> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/haplesspeanut/Show_Us/BENT2.jpg
[03:31:47] <jmkasunich> or this one ^^^
[03:31:57] <jmkasunich> it has the power switch in that spot
[03:32:18] <spasticteapot> Gotcha.
[03:32:38] <spasticteapot> Ours is powered by a motor attached to the desk the lathe is mounted on with hinges and plywood.
[03:32:43] <spasticteapot> Elegant, it's not.
[03:32:49] <spasticteapot> It also won't reverse.
[03:33:05] <cradek> the spindle won't, or the feed won't?
[03:35:14] <spasticteapot> The feed reverses; the spindle does not.
[03:35:20] <KimK_> a 1/2 HP motor might not be three phase, is it an old washing machine motor or similar? maybe it's single phase, reversing can sometimes be tricky.
[03:35:24] <cradek> spasticteapot: that's normal
[03:35:32] <spasticteapot> KimK_: It says "Craftsman" on it.
[03:35:38] <spasticteapot> It has a reset button.
[03:35:41] <cradek> ah craftsman/atlas
[03:36:11] <cradek> hm, thought they had V belts though
[03:36:14] <KimK_> well, single phase, at least you won't have ant trouble running it at home
[03:36:20] <KimK_> ant = any
[03:36:31] <spasticteapot> This one wasn't built for the mill.
[03:36:36] <spasticteapot> I think it was originally a bench polisher.
[03:36:45] <spasticteapot> And it's not at my home, it's at my high school.
[03:36:58] <spasticteapot> Of course, they have proper mills, but they won't let me touch them. Nor do they have classes.
[03:37:11] <spasticteapot> Apparently, you can only learn how to operate a Bridgeport after a few years of Solidworks.
[03:37:57] <spasticteapot> Things must have been very difficult when a Bridgeport was high-tech and a "computer" meant a man with cheap glasses and a pocket protector.
[03:38:01] <spasticteapot> :)
[03:38:39] <cradek> spasticteapot: but how often did a whole room full of computers suddenly die if there's a thunderstorm?
[03:39:29] <cradek> also consider trying to machine precise stuff with your only measuring tool being a micrometer
[03:40:20] <cradek> first, make some buttons, then get your scale out...
[03:42:04] <spasticteapot> cradek: I would point out that all of the rather impressive muscle car engines of the 60s were designed and machined without computers.
[03:42:18] <spasticteapot> (The rest of the cars were rubbish, but that's just because American automakers were lazy.)
[03:42:44] <spasticteapot> You don't need Autocad to make a !@#$ doorknob.
[03:42:57] <cradek> I don't know the history of machining much - they may have had decent measuring tools by the 60s
[03:43:11] <spasticteapot> ?
[03:43:13] <jmkasunich> they had decent measuring tools in the 20s
[03:43:29] <spasticteapot> A "Computer" was a man in the 50s.
[03:43:51] <spasticteapot> The point is that I shouldn't have to learn CAD if I want to make things on a mill.
[03:43:55] <cradek> spasticteapot: yeah I got that - hence my lightning joke
[03:43:58] <spasticteapot> Oh.
[03:44:00] <spasticteapot> :)
[03:44:01] <cradek> who said you did??
[03:44:06] <spasticteapot> My high school.
[03:44:13] <cradek> oh
[03:44:23] <cradek> it's their mill? :-)
[03:44:46] <jmkasunich> http://www.shef.ac.uk/hawley/project/research/micrometers/micrometer3.html
[03:44:49] <spasticteapot> Yep.
[03:44:54] <jmkasunich> recognizable micrometer, 1878
[03:45:08] <cradek> digital!!
[03:45:18] <spasticteapot> Sweet.
[03:45:26] <jmkasunich> that one is 1893
[03:45:44] <cradek> I have a book from this era
[03:45:48] <cradek> that's the one measuring tool they had
[03:46:25] <cradek> precise work was done with buttons on a lathe faceplate
[03:46:50] <jmkasunich> wikipedia says they had sliding calipers in greece in 6th century BC
[03:46:52] <cradek> well they had scales/dividers/calipers of course - for the initial layout
[03:47:59] <jmkasunich> http://www.josephmarc.com/files/65301.jpg
[03:48:02] <cradek> the last chapter in this book talks about the newly available invention - the gage block
[03:48:04] <jmkasunich> test indicator, 1906
[03:48:33] <cradek> yep they show centering the button on the faceplate using that
[03:49:13] <cradek> (well they show a more basic version you were supposed to make)
[03:49:46] <jmkasunich> Moore jig borers were developed in the 1930's
[03:49:48] <cradek> so amazing that we can tell the machine to move .001 and it does
[03:49:56] <cradek> today I mean
[03:50:17] <jmkasunich> its not that amazing, its just a screw
[03:50:41] <spasticteapot> Hmm.
[03:50:44] <cradek> the cnc part...
[03:51:00] <spasticteapot> McMaster Carr sells rubber belt quite cheaply, but you need a $450 machine to weld the ends together.
[03:51:07] <spasticteapot> Leather it is, then.
[03:51:09] <cradek> ouch
[03:52:09] <spasticteapot> Yah.
[03:52:32] <spasticteapot> Favorite label of the day: "Can be installed with hammer."
[03:54:05] <KimK_> get a leather belt, and then mount the drive motor on the ceiling, in honor of the old days (ceiling drive shaft driving many machines). OK, maybe OSHA wouldn't like that...
[03:56:01] <spasticteapot> :)
[03:56:05] <spasticteapot> Osha, schmosha.
[03:56:14] <spasticteapot> We have people using acetylene torches without goggles.
[03:56:19] <spasticteapot> I think they're all idiots.
[04:17:05] <lerman___> lerman___ is now known as lerman
[04:22:38] <Fisia> good day
[04:24:33] <Fisia> im using different PC, end up with LOW VGA resolution ... on winXP, i use vga driver or set the display property
[04:24:54] <Fisia> how can i fix the problem in ubuntu
[04:26:18] <Fisia> ... i go surf
[04:28:40] <rootard> Fishia: that's a better question for #ubuntu
[04:34:13] <Fisia> ok
[04:40:41] <Fisia> thanks
[05:02:32] <Fisia> i got :https://help.ubuntu.com/community/i915Driver
[05:02:41] <Fisia> :)
[05:03:07] <Fisia> ... it alive .....
[05:44:55] <lerman___> lerman___ is now known as lerman
[11:30:33] <lerman_____> lerman_____ is now known as lerman
[11:45:29] <cradek_> cradek_ is now known as cradek
[12:23:41] <Paragon> Hello All, Would this para pci card work ok with EMC2? http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/High-IEEE-1284-Parallel-Port-PCI-Printer-I-O-Card-UK_W0QQitemZ250316154104QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item250316154104&_trkparms=72%3A1301|39%3A1|66%3A2|65%3A12|240%3A1318&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14
[12:29:20] <rayh> Looks like it should work, Paragon
[12:29:45] <alex_joni> hi rayh
[12:30:01] <rayh> Hi Alex.
[12:34:24] <alex_joni> how goes it?
[12:34:51] <rayh> Trying to get ready for winter. First snow here.
[12:34:55] <rayh> You?
[12:49:49] <alex_joni> pretty good
[12:56:16] <Paragon> rayh: Thanks for the reply :-)
[12:57:18] <rayh> When you get it, you may have a bit of a trick figuring out what addy to use for it but it should show up.
[12:57:30] <rayh> I haven't found one of these that didn't.
[12:57:34] <archivist> Paragon, just compared the layout to one I have here, looks about 80% -90% the same
[12:58:29] <archivist> basicly same empty space as well
[12:58:35] <archivist> spaces
[13:00:46] <rayh> Where in WI, Guest942?
[13:01:06] <SWPadnos> really close to Skunkworks, I'm betting ;)
[13:02:17] <archivist> he should fix his client so he doesnt need to change nick
[13:02:28] <rayh> oh that.
[13:02:30] <SWPadnos> he's using the web client from linuxcnc
[13:07:03] <rayh> Gotta run. Have a great day.
[13:07:09] <SWPadnos> see you later
[13:08:23] <archivist> dinner time! and my bearings have come....trunnion making can continue
[13:17:43] <fenn> bit early for dinner, even in england
[13:18:01] <archivist> 20 past one!
[13:18:25] <fenn> hey today is hermit day
[13:20:06] <Guest942> Guest942 is now known as skunkworks_
[13:20:07] <skunkworks_> eheh
[13:20:09] <skunkworks_> heh
[13:29:28] <micges> is there hal component to convert float to bit ?
[13:30:10] <micges> or u32 to bit ?
[13:30:38] <alex_joni> yes
[13:30:44] <alex_joni> I think..
[13:31:27] <Paragon> Just been looking at the pluto-servo .comp file what do the .SS in the """ comment section signify?
[13:31:39] <alex_joni> it should get generated from conv.comp.in
[13:32:22] <Paragon> conv.comp.in ? Is that a comment parser of some kind?
[13:33:17] <SWPadnos> I think those are subsection tags when the manpage gets generated
[13:33:31] <SWPadnos> yep
[13:33:46] <alex_joni> Paragon: the conv.comp.in was for micges
[13:34:00] <alex_joni> basicly the build systems generates a bunch of conv.comp's
[13:34:16] <Paragon> Right...
[13:34:31] <alex_joni> CONVERTERS := \
[13:34:31] <alex_joni> conv_float_s32.comp conv_float_u32.comp \
[13:34:31] <alex_joni> conv_bit_s32.comp conv_bit_u32.comp \
[13:34:31] <alex_joni> conv_s32_float.comp conv_s32_bit.comp conv_s32_u32.comp \
[13:34:32] <alex_joni> conv_u32_float.comp conv_u32_bit.comp conv_u32_s32.comp
[13:35:01] <micges> ok but in the code there is no conversion, only range checking
[13:35:20] <SWPadnos> a=b does the conversion implicitly when a and b are of different types
[13:35:46] <micges> I want 255=>11111111
[13:36:10] <Paragon> Conversion of different data types unsigned > signed etc
[13:36:11] <SWPadnos> ok, you want an integer -> array of bits, that's different :)
[13:36:12] <micges> I'm looking for hour and there isn't such of
[13:36:50] <alex_joni> well.. you could write a .comp in 5 minutes, 20 minutes for bugfixes and testing
[13:36:59] <alex_joni> still beats 1h of looking
[13:37:37] <micges> in mean time I've writed it
[13:37:41] <SWPadnos> heh
[13:39:52] <micges> where can I send it ?
[13:40:12] <alex_joni> mailing list?
[13:45:46] <Paragon> SWPadnos: Thanks re .SS sub section tags
[13:45:59] <SWPadnos> sure
[13:58:09] <fenn> conv_u08_bit.comp?
[14:13:13] <pjmcabbb> pjmcabbb is now known as pjm_
[14:13:56] <jepler> Paragon: the manpage 'groff_man' explains a lot of the markup used in comp documentation strings. the only other gotcha is that one level of \ is taken away by comp, so to make text appear in bold you have to write \\fB, not \fB (but it's \fB that you'll read in documentation about writing manpages)
[14:15:59] <jepler> extracting multiple bits from an integer is not the purpose of the "conv" family of components. if you wrote a component to do it, it would be a great addition to the Contributed Components page on our wiki, http://wiki.linuxcnc.org/cgi-bin/emcinfo.pl?ContributedComponents
[14:16:37] <SWPadnos> heck, I'd just add it to CVS
[14:16:45] <cradek> fwiw, the s32 expressions in classicladder have some bitwise operations
[14:24:04] <Paragon> jepler: Thanks for the explanation. I think I am actually starting to get it .... lol
[14:31:20] <Paragon> The more I look into EMC2 the more I see comparisons with Verilog. This may be an exageration but the underlying abstraction apears similiar to me. Note that I am a novice in both of these technolgies. Just an observation is all.
[14:32:28] <rootard> that's good news for me then, verilog was just anoth language to pickup. I guess emc2 will be the same way :)
[14:33:37] <Paragon> :-) It just seems kind of similiar the way one wires components to gether to get to the required outcome.
[14:36:30] <alex_joni> Paragon: you're talking about HAL not all of emc2
[14:37:20] <Paragon> Is there a kind of schematic designer already developed with in Emc? The reason I ask is that one could create .hal and posibly .comp's by picking black boxes that are already available from drop down menus and then wiring them together to get to the required system.
[14:37:29] <Paragon> Yep... HAL
[14:37:31] <Paragon> Sorry
[14:37:37] <alex_joni> not yet..
[14:38:22] <Paragon> Would be a powerfull addition do you think alex_joni ?
[14:39:16] <alex_joni> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1020128&group_id=6744&atid=356744
[14:39:22] <Paragon> Or at least a nice addition.
[14:39:28] <alex_joni> Date Submitted:
[14:39:28] <Paragon> looking now ...
[14:39:29] <alex_joni> 2004-09-01 02:35
[14:39:34] <archivist> or a stepconf style connection editor?
[14:41:46] <Paragon> Thanks :-)
[14:47:19] <Fisia> :)
[14:47:20] <Fisia> whats time is it
[14:47:22] <Fisia> ?
[14:47:38] <alex_joni> it's time to rule the world
[14:48:22] <Fisia> :))
[15:17:00] <jepler> Paragon: this might be of interest to you (I haven't used it): http://wiki.linuxcnc.org/cgi-bin/emcinfo.pl?Eagle2HAL
[15:37:47] <Paragon> Thank jepler ...
[15:39:08] <cradek> Does free shipping still apply on "truck" shipping, like a 110lb vise? ... It did on my 12 x 18 surface plate and it was about 75lbs and cost only $25.00 ! I was considering using them for pavers in front of my shop door.
[15:39:46] <skunkworks_> I think not
[15:39:52] <Paragon> Oh Eagle ... Great product I've used it in the past with the gcode script to generate routes and then cut with EMC on my mill.
[15:40:08] <cradek> skunkworks_: they shipped mine for free too (quite a while ago)
[15:40:35] <skunkworks_> 75lbs is still ups territory
[15:40:38] <skunkworks_> isn't it?
[15:43:16] <skunkworks_> you could weld them togather and make one big table..
[15:43:21] <skunkworks_> :)
[15:44:06] <cradek> yes I think it came ups
[15:44:56] <jepler> cradek: the note on the use-enco.com front page says "free *UPS* shipping on all orders over $99", so I'm assuming that doesn't include truck shipping.
[15:45:11] <skunkworks_> which ever company (enco harbor frieght..) had free shipping a while back and I was thinking of a mini mill. I think they just gave a little discount for 'freight'
[15:45:54] <jepler> cradek: are you happy with that oil you're using for coolant in the lathe?
[15:46:26] <cradek> yes it's nice stuff
[15:46:46] <cradek> it has a tiny bit of smell but I doubt anything has less
[15:47:00] <cradek> the smell is not unpleasant
[15:47:19] <cradek> it is thick enough to not get slung around much
[15:47:29] <cradek> it gives a nice surface finish
[16:00:22] <fenn> cradek: one strategy for knurling full depth on the first rev is to cut a chamfer and then feed along Z at knurling depth (so the corner of the knurl wheel touches the chamfer first)
[16:11:59] <pjm_> afternoon folks
[16:15:54] <cradek> fenn: good idea
[16:16:21] <cradek> fenn: I still think you'd have to be pretty agressive about feeding into it though
[16:16:38] <archivist> or mill the knurl
[16:16:48] <jepler> cradek: do you use FPR or CSS for knurling?
[16:16:48] <cradek> fenn: I might try that if I want to do harder stuff
[16:17:10] <jepler> re, I mean to ask FPR or spindle-synch
[16:17:16] <cradek> jepler: neither one would make any difference really
[16:17:39] <cradek> I think I programmed the rightward feed as 2ipm
[16:17:42] <jepler> I guess the wheels of the knurling tool turn at whatever the necessary rate is
[16:17:49] <cradek> yeah
[16:18:04] <alex_joni> lol @ http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html
[16:19:54] <Paragon> What does NML stand for Chaps?
[16:20:10] <jepler> neutral messaging language, or something like that
[16:20:24] <jepler> it means "the rpc layer in emc that none of the developers care to deeply understand"
[16:20:53] <Paragon> rpc layer Remote Procedure Call ?
[16:21:28] <jepler> yes. for instance, when the GUI wants to "cycle start", it sends an NML message to make it hap pen
[16:21:28] <alex_joni> Paragon: indeed
[16:21:55] <alex_joni> NML is part of RCSLIB (real time control system library or soemthing like that)
[16:22:15] <jepler> (never mind that none of that code actually executes in a real-time context...)
[16:22:38] <alex_joni> Paragon: if you want to read about NML check out http://www.isd.mel.nist.gov/projects/rcslib/NMLcpp.html
[16:23:42] <Paragon> Right... Thanks for that. I just saw it mentioned in the HAL manual and was wondering what part it play.
[18:32:23] <archivist> cnc circa 1960 http://www.archivist.info/collection/showresult.php?srcdata=title&srcprog=searchv10.php&searchv4page=1&errlev=0&searchstr=BK410&srcdata=subj&Type=BK&Accn_no=410&srcprog=searchv10.php&dir=&file=plate28s.jpg&subject=2844
[18:34:26] <skunkworks_> core memory
[18:34:27] <skunkworks_> cool
[18:34:34] <skunkworks_> none of the pictures are showing up'
[18:34:44] <skunkworks_> Warning: stat(): Stat failed for /hd1/websites/portacabin/collection/archive/Mal/BK/SF068/ (errno=2 - No such file or directory) in /hd1/websites/portacabin/collection/showresult.php on line 212
[18:35:10] <archivist> just the top pic
[18:35:19] <archivist> must fix the rest
[18:35:41] <alex_joni> sounds unmounted
[18:35:58] <archivist> work from http://www.archivist.info/collection/searchv10.php?srcdata=title&srcprog=searchv10.php&searchv4page=1&errlev=0&searchstr=BK410
[18:36:05] <archivist> to see rest
[18:36:50] <archivist> the prog is buggy due to data structure change
[18:37:49] <fragalot> oh damnit
[18:37:59] <fragalot> I made an awesome vid of the 8axis cnc lathe at work today
[18:38:03] <fragalot> but it's all blurry :(
[18:38:47] <archivist> 8! /me add 9 to the mill must not be beaten
[18:40:28] <archivist> the item on that mill is microwave rat race
[18:46:57] <anonimasu> fragalot: :(
[18:47:21] <anonimasu> fragalot: gor pictures?
[18:47:42] <anonimasu> got
[18:47:42] <fragalot> no
[18:47:43] <fragalot> :/
[18:48:35] <anonimasu> ok
[18:57:48] <jepler> archivist: suddenly the nick "archivist" seems very apt -- cool stuff on your website there
[18:58:41] <archivist> jepler, you just worked it out :)
[18:59:01] <archivist> I was hearing a lot of disk activity
[19:00:08] <archivist> jepler, I also volunteer at a local archive
[19:00:34] <fenn> what's an archive?
[19:02:06] <archivist> where books and papers are stored and made available to the public
[19:02:56] <archivist> http://www.magicattic.org.uk/
[19:03:45] <fenn> "Archival records are normally unpublished and almost always unique, unlike books or magazines, in which many identical copies exist." like that?
[19:04:02] <archivist> yes
[19:05:33] <fragalot> ofcourse, google is busy digitalizing 'm all
[19:05:56] <fenn> if only it were true
[19:06:20] <fragalot> well, google is busy preserving lots of books,.. :/
[19:06:44] <archivist> we have a 100 years of newspapers, is a tough job
[19:07:01] <fragalot> nobody claimed it was easy
[19:07:08] <archivist> we are doing all our pics first
[19:07:35] <fenn> how do you scan a newspaper?
[19:07:36] <alex_joni> fading the fastest?
[19:07:44] <alex_joni> fenn: digital camera I presume
[19:07:45] <fragalot> fenn: same way you scan a book?
[19:08:27] <anonimasu> scanner I guess
[19:09:14] <archivist> fenn there are top scanners, but we cant afford one yet
[19:09:33] <fragalot> digital camera could work
[19:09:40] <archivist> not as good
[19:09:53] <alex_joni> I saw a system once for digitizing books
[19:09:56] <fragalot> could be good enough
[19:09:59] <fragalot> depending on the camera
[19:10:02] <archivist> I do sections with a cam for speed
[19:10:09] <alex_joni> it used a digital camera, and some actuators for turning the pages
[19:10:19] <fragalot> alex_joni: haha, lazy
[19:10:29] <fragalot> I don't see you doing that with an antique book tho
[19:10:48] <archivist> our papers could not be done automatically
[19:11:04] <archivist> they are falling apart
[19:11:13] <fragalot> ^ exactly
[19:11:50] <alex_joni> SULAIR.. I remembered
[19:12:07] <anonimasu> http://www.atiz.com/
[19:12:18] <alex_joni> http://www.4digitalbooks.com/def_4db.htm
[19:12:26] <alex_joni> archivist: you could build one with emc2
[19:12:37] <alex_joni> we sure would offer support :P
[19:12:53] <fenn> i've been wanting one of those
[19:13:08] <fenn> i'd scan every book i own :)
[19:13:18] <anonimasu> yep, and then make a nice bonfite.
[19:13:19] <archivist> alex_joni, 90% of ours is too delicate for automation
[19:13:20] <anonimasu> bire..
[19:13:22] <anonimasu> err fire..
[19:13:29] <fragalot> genius page turn system :p
[19:14:48] <archivist> hmm thats easy to copy its just a vacuum pickup
[19:15:09] <archivist> * archivist has 3k books to scan
[19:16:18] <fragalot> archivist: how do you make sure that it is only one page tho
[19:16:39] <archivist> there is a slight rotate as you lift
[19:16:43] <fenn> fragalot: vacuum sucker on one side of the page, blow compressed air at the other
[19:17:03] <archivist> pro printing machines do it like that
[19:17:11] <fragalot> i see
[19:17:32] <fenn> looks pretty simple to make
[19:17:50] <fenn> its the OCR that's the hard part i think
[19:18:12] <alex_joni> fenn: the physical part is one of the hurdles
[19:18:13] <archivist> yes good ocr is an art form
[19:18:24] <alex_joni> the OCR you can do no matter of the picture taking.. even later
[19:18:54] <fragalot> yep
[19:19:01] <archivist> some of the web captchas are ocr work for humans
[19:19:05] <alex_joni> sometimes I think it's sane to do it again after 2-3 years, once the algorithms are perfected
[19:19:11] <fragalot> sf.net might have a ew nice ocr apps
[19:20:46] <fenn> hehe slave clickworkers
[19:21:13] <alex_joni> archivist: maybe http://books.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html is still worth an email
[19:21:19] <maddash> jepler: how do you convert a PDM signal into an analog output?
[19:21:24] <alex_joni> they might do the OCR if you supply the pictures..
[19:21:47] <fragalot> maddash: dont you mean pwm?
[19:22:10] <maddash> fragalot: pulse density modulation
[19:22:20] <fragalot> ah
[19:22:26] <archivist> same way as PWM
[19:22:28] <fragalot> capacitor? :p
[19:23:00] <alex_joni> RC filter
[19:23:00] <archivist> filte would be a better term
[19:26:46] <skunkworks_> * skunkworks_ is running a servo +/-60 rotations at 1800 rpm
[19:27:06] <skunkworks_> all day
[19:27:32] <archivist> proper testing :)
[19:27:37] <alex_joni> skunkworks_: whee :)
[19:27:44] <archivist> with a load?
[19:27:48] <alex_joni> cheers to petew
[19:28:17] <skunkworks_> no real load yet - smallish servo.
[19:28:40] <skunkworks_> alex_joni: I emailed him with a thank you. He is very nice.
[19:30:07] <skunkworks_> * skunkworks_ needs heatsinks mounted first
[19:31:24] <archivist> heh dont let the smoke out
[19:31:35] <fragalot> yeah, seal it with tape
[19:32:29] <archivist> reminds me of my bearing parcel today, taped up to hell
[19:34:13] <fenn> skunkworks_: is that the big servo?
[19:35:36] <skunkworks_> no - next week for that.
[19:36:34] <archivist> I presume this is for the beast mill?
[19:36:56] <skunkworks_> yes
[19:37:10] <jepler> maddash: yes, rc filter maybe followed by op-amp in buffer configuration
[19:37:14] <skunkworks_> and the puma - but that is not a priority
[19:40:44] <tomp3> Paragon: re: Eagle2Hal , I never wrote an interpreter or hooked eagle to Hal. it was an idea to use graphical netlists to replace .hal files.
[19:42:21] <tomp3> maddash: havent done it, but sounds like PDM to analog is just integration (cap and OP ?)
[19:47:22] <tomp3> re: puma as mill, look at the Da Vinci system ( medical robot 6+dof and great 'joysticks' ) http://www.davincisurgery.com/surgery/system/index.aspx
[19:47:31] <tomp3> it drills bone :)
[19:48:58] <tomp3> the vid shows it sewing ( passing a needle from end effector to end effector )
[19:50:55] <fragalot> * fragalot shivers
[21:08:05] <skunkworks_> I doubt if that servo was ever ment to go 3600 rpm
[21:08:09] <skunkworks_> meant
[21:38:22] <toastatwork> i can't find anything on le man's protoype aerodynamics
[21:38:47] <anonimasu> ^_^
[21:39:01] <anonimasu> toastatwork: why are ou looking at that?
[21:41:16] <toastatwork> because i like race cars and I don't know anything about enclosed wheel aerodynamics
[21:41:42] <anonimasu> toastatwork: I'm interested in lmp too
[21:41:48] <anonimasu> well, racecar stuff ;)
[21:42:17] <toastatwork> haha
[21:42:47] <anonimasu> well, lmp specially
[21:43:00] <anonimasu> lhttp://billmaisey.com/2006%20Stohr%20DSR%201.jpg
[21:43:02] <anonimasu> <3
[21:43:20] <toastatwork> lol
[21:44:43] <toastatwork> part of the thing that confuses me is that I don't see many downforce-generating elements
[21:44:47] <toastatwork> but a lot of streamlining
[21:45:05] <anonimasu> venturi tunnel provide alot of downforce
[21:45:17] <toastatwork> are those legal in lmp?
[21:45:29] <toastatwork> i saw a lot of references to flat bottom cars
[21:45:37] <anonimasu> check the rear end of them ;)
[21:45:42] <anonimasu> they all go /
[21:45:43] <toastatwork> i saw venturis
[21:45:44] <toastatwork> er
[21:45:45] <toastatwork> diffusers
[21:45:47] <toastatwork> not venturis
[21:45:57] <toastatwork> i don't see venturi inlets at the front of the car, either
[21:46:10] <anonimasu> well, diffusers sorr
[21:46:43] <toastatwork> i guess they're just not quite as interested in downforce?
[21:47:17] <anonimasu> hm they surely are
[21:47:37] <anonimasu> but as the cars are really light it's not as much of a issue
[21:47:51] <toastatwork> that doesn't make sense
[21:48:01] <toastatwork> but eh
[21:48:24] <anonimasu> oh, aerodynamics to help with cornering is more important when you have a really heavy car to keep stuck to the ground
[21:49:15] <anonimasu> err more is a bad choice of words.
[21:49:22] <anonimasu> sorry
[21:49:26] <toastatwork> ?
[21:49:28] <toastatwork> that still doesn't make sense
[21:49:49] <toastatwork> if you have a 2000 lb car, and can develop 1000 lbs of downforce
[21:50:01] <toastatwork> versus a 1000 lb car developing 1000 lbs of downforce...
[21:50:13] <anonimasu> yeah, but downforce equals drag..
[21:50:37] <toastatwork> but that doesn't have anything to do with the weight of the car.
[21:50:39] <archivist> HP trumps drag
[21:50:53] <toastatwork> that still doesn't make sense
[21:51:42] <anonimasu> lighter cars need less downforce to keep them situated into the ground
[21:51:51] <anonimasu> (disagree with that)
[21:52:08] <toastatwork> cars need no downforce to keep them situated into the ground
[21:52:15] <anonimasu> cornering
[21:52:16] <anonimasu> :)
[21:52:16] <toastatwork> gravity does that
[21:52:23] <toastatwork> right, gravity does that too
[21:52:48] <anonimasu> there's a major difference between 1000kg of moving car and 500kg in a corner
[21:53:00] <toastatwork> right, and that's regardless of aerodynamics
[21:53:03] <anonimasu> and how much downforce you need to keep the tires from slipping
[21:53:07] <toastatwork> it's like saying apples rot, therefore the sky is blue
[21:53:52] <dmess> down force is about max traction and drivability
[21:54:18] <dmess> too much is BAD... too little can be dangerous
[21:54:47] <anonimasu> toastatwork: downforce is a aid to keep the tires from slipping when cornering..
[21:54:58] <toastatwork> i'm not arguing that it isn't
[21:55:07] <toastatwork> what i'm saying is that downforce and weight have nothing to do with one another
[21:55:23] <toastatwork> if you want to go around a corner as fast as possible, you want the most downforce no matter how much you weigh
[21:55:49] <anonimasu> yeah, you are right
[21:55:52] <toastatwork> which brings me back to the original question - why the relative lack of aero elements on lmp cars?
[21:56:04] <toastatwork> my suspicion is that there are elements i'm just not familiar with
[21:56:15] <toastatwork> or they're blended into the body and are not immediately obvious, like barge boards are on f1
[21:56:16] <dmess> well the down force does add up as extra vehichle mass when setting up the struts so there i DISAGREE with you
[21:56:18] <anonimasu> streamlining work slike that too..
[21:56:30] <toastatwork> dmess: disagree with f1 all you want, i guess
[21:56:55] <toastatwork> anonimasu: yeah, it does add some
[21:57:10] <anonimasu> toastatwork: not just some quite alot :)
[21:57:11] <toastatwork> is that enough? are the advantages of closing the wheel wells that large?
[21:57:21] <toastatwork> i can't find any concrete answers on that
[21:57:30] <anonimasu> it's to reduce drag
[21:57:40] <toastatwork> sigh
[21:57:41] <anonimasu> if you have a smooth side..
[21:57:45] <anonimasu> then a [ hole..
[21:57:49] <anonimasu> that'll cause turbulence
[21:58:10] <toastatwork> reducing drag and increasing downforce are opposites
[21:58:10] <dmess> with a spinning disk in the hole blowing out hot air
[21:58:30] <toastatwork> you can do both, to an extend - my concern is solely the downforce, i know that any given racecar shoots for minimum drag
[21:58:31] <anonimasu> toastatwork: not really
[21:58:45] <anonimasu> both is the issue :)
[21:58:56] <dmess> there are a few forms of drag... d/force you want.. slip drg you try to get to 0
[21:59:06] <toastatwork> anonimasu: yes, really - anytime you increase downforce, you increase the aerodynamic drag. You can decrease parasitic drag without affecting downforce, and all cars shoot for you
[21:59:07] <anonimasu> good point
[21:59:13] <anonimasu> yep
[21:59:14] <toastatwork> *that
[21:59:22] <toastatwork> again, i am looking purely at downforce
[21:59:27] <toastatwork> only at downforce - i am stressing this
[21:59:34] <anonimasu> look at the lmp bodies..
[21:59:48] <anonimasu> from the side..
[21:59:54] <toastatwork> what does the side have to do with generating downforce?
[22:00:05] <anonimasu> O O
[22:00:07] <anonimasu> like that
[22:00:09] <dmess> 0
[22:00:10] <anonimasu> body shape
[22:00:24] <toastatwork> look at an f1 body
[22:00:34] <anonimasu> http://www.flowgrid.com/img/LMP_p400.jpg
[22:00:37] <archivist> aero foil top/bot streamlined on the sides
[22:01:02] <anonimasu> Yes what about them?
[22:01:31] <anonimasu> red zones are higher pressure zones
[22:01:45] <toastatwork> the base question i'm trying to ask is what's the difference between the downforce on an F1 body, with all the downforce-generating elements, versus an LMP, which seems to be mostly a streamline design rather than downforce seeking
[22:01:55] <dmess> i could see why i would deffinitly close the back wheels
[22:01:56] <anonimasu> they are integrated into the bodywork..
[22:02:12] <anonimasu> ie the whole body acts like a big wing
[22:02:33] <dmess> 2 wings actually
[22:02:35] <toastatwork> so does an F1 body.
[22:02:45] <dmess> 1 a little over the other
[22:02:51] <anonimasu> http://www.flowgrid.com/img/indy_psurf400.jpg
[22:03:00] <anonimasu> close enough to a f1 car?
[22:03:14] <dmess> but this one's wing is the body of the car
[22:03:15] <toastatwork> not at all, but continue
[22:03:36] <anonimasu> google for a cfd image of a f1 car..
[22:04:08] <dmess> no indy car is a tube with wing and things hanging off it
[22:04:08] <toastatwork> anonimasu: images without numbers are not interesting to me
[22:04:44] <anonimasu> http://picasaweb.google.com/slimjim8201/TurbochargedEngineering?authkey=_IrBzKii1QU#5222994828064837634
[22:04:45] <toastatwork> i have seen plenty of both types of cfd images, but nobody seems to have pressure values mapped to the colors
[22:05:07] <toastatwork> wikipedia seems to say that lmp goes for top speed and sacrifices downforce
[22:05:14] <archivist> heh teams wont let numbers out
[22:05:16] <anonimasu> hm, might be so
[22:05:19] <toastatwork> whereas f1 has much higher downforce, but can't achieve the same top speeds
[22:05:20] <anonimasu> it's not like f1 teams like sharing that
[22:05:34] <toastatwork> plus f1 takes advantage of aero effects that closed wheel cars can't
[22:06:03] <anonimasu> I think ou have it the wrong way around
[22:06:19] <toastatwork> anonimasu: vortex redirection, barge boards, raised noses
[22:06:36] <anonimasu> closed wheelwheels are much better aerodynamically and causes less flow disturbance
[22:06:51] <toastatwork> they're more streamlined - that does not default to more downforce.
[22:07:08] <anonimasu> that depends on the shape of them
[22:07:16] <toastatwork> F1 uses the disturbances from the wheels and redirects them under the car to create low pressure strips under the car
[22:07:32] <toastatwork> same with the hook noses of the car
[22:07:37] <toastatwork> and the front wing
[22:08:28] <toastatwork> that's why you see a "floor" under the sidepods in F1, because they need to catch and contain the vortices
[22:08:42] <toastatwork> U shaped cutouts in front of the pods, etc
[22:09:12] <toastatwork> I'm not trying to definitively argue one over the other, just looking for decisive design information on why close wheel cars are designed the way they are
[22:09:57] <anonimasu> it's really hard to say one thing, I think that they utilize the whole body as a downforce generating element
[22:10:00] <toastatwork> maybe closing the wheels off creates such a huge potential for downforce that it renders additional elements a diminishing return
[22:10:20] <anonimasu> probably the biggest gain is drag reduction and the ability to shape the forflow over the car..
[22:10:20] <toastatwork> but i can't find anything saying that definitively
[22:10:29] <anonimasu> airflow..
[22:10:31] <anonimasu> like angle it \
[22:10:48] <anonimasu> to create higher pressure zones..
[22:11:06] <toastatwork> i don't find that a compelling arguement on it's own
[22:11:09] <dmess> that is what it is doing...
[22:11:27] <anonimasu> how does airplane wings do it?
[22:11:40] <toastatwork> you don't see airplane wings designed to generate maximum uplift.
[22:11:47] <toastatwork> because that's kinda hard to fly.
[22:12:11] <anonimasu> no, but they angle the flow that gets directed into them to create a high pressure zone
[22:12:20] <dmess> in a straight line the open wheels would probably not add alot of drag... but in a corner... they blow the slipstream to shite
[22:12:22] <anonimasu> lift..
[22:12:32] <toastatwork> all cars do that in the corner, it's called delamination
[22:12:33] <anonimasu> (I might be wrong)
[22:12:56] <toastatwork> anonimasu: you are right, sort of
[22:12:57] <anonimasu> dmess: what do you say about that?
[22:13:24] <toastatwork> but an airplane needs lift for something completely different
[22:13:34] <dmess> but a closed wheel car has LESS
[22:13:38] <anonimasu> Yes, but just to get a grip what downforce means..
[22:13:52] <dmess> and when shooting for speed...less is better
[22:14:00] <anonimasu> what causes it..(which would be higher pressure zones forcing the car into the ground)
[22:14:46] <toastatwork> sry slow response, changing parts in machine
[22:14:52] <dmess> its an upside down wing in its inherent shape
[22:15:15] <dmess> or what??
[22:15:21] <anonimasu> yep
[22:17:38] <toastatwork> okay, what i am looking for
[22:17:46] <dmess> the whole car slices under a layer of air as it starts to move over probably 60 km/h and d/force is just there.... then the designers try to make the rest as smove and effective as possoble
[22:17:56] <toastatwork> is a statement that says "because of X on closed whee, it has higher downforce over open wheel equivilents"
[22:18:35] <toastatwork> if i were to close over the wheels on F1
[22:18:41] <toastatwork> who would win in cornering speed?
[22:18:55] <dmess> me
[22:18:56] <anonimasu> because X is a closed wheel it gives you a better chance to shape the flow that goes over the car
[22:19:36] <toastatwork> shape the flow, yes
[22:19:40] <anonimasu> and less parasitic drag, ie from the wheels just being there
[22:19:42] <toastatwork> shape the flow in such a way that it creates more downforce?
[22:19:44] <toastatwork> not clear.
[22:19:46] <anonimasu> yeah
[22:19:52] <dmess> no X is the fact that HE is still a tube and wing construction... i am Only a wing
[22:19:56] <toastatwork> parasitic drag is not an issue in cornering force, just in top speed.
[22:20:13] <anonimasu> Yes, but closed wheels have that function
[22:20:22] <toastatwork> which function
[22:20:30] <anonimasu> to let you shape the flow where you want it..
[22:20:43] <toastatwork> that's an ambiguous statement, again
[22:20:49] <toastatwork> does it decrase drag, absolutely
[22:20:49] <anonimasu> ie create higher pressure zones..
[22:20:55] <toastatwork> there is no question that it decreases drag
[22:21:09] <anonimasu> if you can shape the flow you can create zones of higher pressure, that means more downforce
[22:21:10] <toastatwork> the question is can that be translated into downforce
[22:21:16] <toastatwork> and i've not seen a substantial arguement for that yet
[22:21:27] <anonimasu> more surface area means you can shape more flow..
[22:21:31] <dmess> im outta this battle... they both go too fast for any of us to drive anyway... bbl
[22:21:52] <anonimasu> laters dmess
[22:21:53] <toastatwork> it means less drag, not that you can put the air in any arbitrary place
[22:22:52] <toastatwork> i'm not arguing one over the other, just that it isn't clear
[22:22:59] <anonimasu> it means you can shape the airflow that goes over and around the wheels in a open wheed design..
[22:23:01] <toastatwork> and that there aren't any sources (that i can find) to answer it
[22:23:12] <toastatwork> but they use that disturbance to create downforce in open wheel
[22:23:28] <anonimasu> Yes, but how much money do you think that costs to calculate :p
[22:23:48] <toastatwork> but is it raining in Africa?
[22:23:59] <toastatwork> i'm just curious as to the fundamentals, is all
[22:24:16] <anonimasu> how does a aircraft wind generate lift?
[22:24:34] <toastatwork> depends on which answer you want me to give - the bernoulli answer or the newtonian answer
[22:24:50] <anonimasu> pick either one
[22:25:08] <toastatwork> bernouelli says that the pressure variations created by the flow create lift
[22:25:20] <toastatwork> newtonian says that accelerating a mass of air creates a reaction
[22:25:45] <anonimasu> yeah and flip a wing?
[22:25:53] <toastatwork> uh, it's the same?
[22:26:02] <toastatwork> angle of attack of that wing determines the lift
[22:26:14] <anonimasu> yeah
[22:26:23] <anonimasu> and what are we looking at when we look at a lmp bodywork?
[22:26:34] <toastatwork> look at the angle of attack of the lmp.
[22:26:53] <toastatwork> Not exactly an aggressive value.
[22:27:25] <toastatwork> and indeed, they take off when you give them any pitch
[22:27:40] <toastatwork> an f1 car slams back into the ground
[22:27:47] <toastatwork> shattering everything spectacularly.
[22:28:32] <toastatwork> that leads me to wonder if that kind of behavior is an unfortunate side effect of design descisions, or is a fundimental aspect to the design itself.
[22:29:12] <anonimasu> the f1's used to go \ once the got air beneath them before too
[22:29:24] <toastatwork> right, but an LMP will actually take off
[22:29:25] <anonimasu> http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/t464789.html
[22:29:56] <anonimasu> last post..
[22:30:24] <toastatwork> dude, that's as ambiguous as any other answer
[22:30:40] <toastatwork> "better aerodynamic qualities" is not a good arguement because it's ambiguous
[22:30:54] <toastatwork> yes, he described the high parasitic drag of an f1 car
[22:31:08] <anonimasu> I think it clearly states that closed wheels generate less turbulence and allows you to shape the flow better
[22:31:09] <toastatwork> but did not mention ANY downforce effect at all
[22:31:22] <toastatwork> those words do not mean anything, anonimasu
[22:31:33] <toastatwork> not in the context of downforce
[22:31:45] <anonimasu> a bigger wing means you can have more lift/downforce
[22:32:02] <toastatwork> not if you can't give that wing any angle of attack.
[22:32:10] <toastatwork> Or if you have to give it a positive value.
[22:32:17] <toastatwork> the the design is going to take off.
[22:32:52] <toastatwork> the ability to keep a flow laminar is not equvilent to saying you can turn that flow into a force generator.
[22:33:55] <anonimasu> no, but if you can nudge that flow over the rear wing it ends up as downforce..
[22:34:26] <toastatwork> sure.
[22:34:46] <anonimasu> however from the looks of it it looks like the arch over the wheels ends up being a high pressure zone on the cfd diagrams
[22:35:30] <anonimasu> http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/sportscar/256582/from-the-archives-audi-r8-aerodynamics.html <- that might be more useful
[22:38:05] <toastatwork> reading, thanks
[22:38:39] <anonimasu> the closed wheelwheels are forbidden in f1 btw..
[22:38:52] <anonimasu> likewise some diffusers and wing shapes/sizes
[22:39:19] <anonimasu> and they work around them in f1.. as the rules state they ahve to be open wheeled..
[22:39:21] <toastatwork> there've been several points where designs got so fast that drivers couldn't race them
[22:39:23] <anonimasu> and look in a certain way
[22:39:30] <anonimasu> yep
[22:39:35] <toastatwork> so they have to restrict it, obviously
[22:39:47] <anonimasu> yeah, but as to why F1 dosent do closed wheels..
[22:39:50] <toastatwork> but because of that, more than any other factor, makes the issue more confusing
[22:39:56] <toastatwork> rather than less
[22:40:03] <toastatwork> because nobody DOES run a car in f1 with closed wheels.
[22:40:13] <toastatwork> so it's pure conjecture to say how it would fare.
[22:40:57] <toastatwork> and i guess my real, real, real question is what if?
[22:41:01] <toastatwork> what if you closed off the wheels in f1
[22:41:08] <toastatwork> would it look like an f1 car, with wheel fenders?
[22:41:12] <toastatwork> or would it look like an LMP
[22:41:32] <anonimasu> it would probably look like a lmp,(pure speculation)
[22:41:35] <toastatwork> could you stick a "front wing" on an LMP and make more power? could you seperate the nose out?
[22:41:53] <toastatwork> pergot just put a car out that looks like an f1 with pods
[22:41:55] <toastatwork> over the wheels
[22:41:59] <toastatwork> for lmp
[22:42:00] <anonimasu> I think that's allowed
[22:42:03] <toastatwork> so i have no idea
[22:42:09] <anonimasu> lmp == free
[22:42:10] <anonimasu> :p
[22:42:19] <toastatwork> lmp is also not pulling 5-6 g corners
[22:42:22] <toastatwork> F1 is
[22:42:24] <anonimasu> http://www.mulsannescorner.com/audir8-01.html
[22:42:43] <anonimasu> check that page
[22:43:01] <toastatwork> what am i looking for
[22:43:24] <anonimasu> wings and stuff :p
[22:43:43] <toastatwork> you know what i am referring to
[22:43:45] <toastatwork> that's not it
[22:44:09] <anonimasu> you need a friend with cfd software
[22:44:12] <anonimasu> :)
[22:44:41] <toastatwork> i have cfd
[22:44:43] <toastatwork> just never used it
[22:44:45] <toastatwork> i also have time on a cluster
[22:44:53] <toastatwork> time to get out solidworks, i guess
[22:44:57] <anonimasu> maybe you should prove your theory..
[22:44:58] <anonimasu> :p
[22:45:10] <anonimasu> (err find one )
[22:45:40] <toastatwork> i don't have a theory - i have a question
[22:46:04] <toastatwork> i have NO clue which is superior
[22:46:14] <toastatwork> and no evidence i am taking as authoritative either way
[22:46:37] <toastatwork> =)
[22:46:50] <anonimasu> I guess it boils down to the most efficient way to control flow based on how much money you can spend..
[22:46:58] <toastatwork> that is true
[22:47:00] <anonimasu> ie.. rule restrictions..
[22:47:09] <anonimasu> if you are limited you perfect what you can within the rules
[22:47:09] <toastatwork> i'd really like to build a car one day
[22:47:14] <anonimasu> * anonimasu too
[22:47:16] <toastatwork> that would be so awesome.
[22:47:28] <anonimasu> I love the stohr dsr concept..
[22:47:33] <anonimasu> I'd like it a bit more refined :)
[22:48:08] <anonimasu> I think that f1 has reached the point where it's hard to compare against lmp because of the investment in the aerodynamics
[22:48:17] <anonimasu> to compate them ends up hard because there
[22:48:25] <anonimasu> err the invested time/money isnt avaiable..
[22:48:39] <anonimasu> what's the most cost effective way to generate the best airflow..(perhaps)
[22:48:42] <toastatwork> yeah
[22:48:44] <toastatwork> i agree
[22:48:48] <toastatwork> also the differences in goals
[22:48:52] <anonimasu> yeah
[22:52:13] <anonimasu> it seems to me the only obvious difference between closed and open wheelwells are less drag
[22:52:20] <anonimasu> the only solid fact anyone can state.
[22:52:29] <anonimasu> err drag/turbulence.. that is.
[22:52:34] <toastatwork> yar
[22:53:44] <anonimasu> disturbing -_-
[22:54:14] <toastatwork> ?
[22:54:38] <anonimasu> hmm, I dont know about lemans rules but they might state you need to have wheel's closed off
[22:57:44] <anonimasu> toastatwork: http://www.lemans.org/sport/sport/reglements/ressources/auto_2008/cdc_reglement_lmp_fr_gb_2008.pdf
[22:58:04] <toastatwork> is that huge
[22:59:15] <toastatwork> uh, it is french though
[22:59:19] <anonimasu> let m,e a/ As viewed from the side :
[22:59:19] <anonimasu> It must cover the whole circumference of the complete
[22:59:21] <anonimasu> wheels (wheels and tyres)
[22:59:22] <alex_joni> good night all
[22:59:30] <toastatwork> night alex
[22:59:33] <anonimasu> bodywork regulations
[22:59:34] <toastatwork> oh, so it is closed
[22:59:59] <anonimasu> yeah
[23:00:23] <anonimasu> you cant do underbody venturis either
[23:00:41] <toastatwork> venturis are just too fast
[23:00:51] <toastatwork> they take the car right into "undrivable"
[23:01:04] <anonimasu> diffuser is regulated too
[23:01:16] <toastatwork> just like wheel mounted aerodynamics
[23:01:24] <toastatwork> and underbody vacuum fans
[23:01:28] <anonimasu> :D
[23:01:47] <anonimasu> well, you cant do underbody trickery with aerodynamics I think that's the point
[23:02:21] <toastatwork> haha, yeah
[23:02:58] <dmess> so the only other option is to shape the top like an upside down wing
[23:03:19] <anonimasu> yeah
[23:03:31] <anonimasu> seems like it
[23:03:48] <anonimasu> it seems like in f1 you can tunnel air and pry it alot more then in lmp :)
[23:04:14] <toastatwork> perhaps, but maybe they don't want to do that and sacrifice top speed
[23:04:18] <anonimasu> lmp seems to be restrictive about protruding bodywork and open holes
[23:04:22] <toastatwork> f1 doesn't break 200 on most tracks
[23:04:36] <toastatwork> and they struggle to get there
[23:04:36] <anonimasu> and that limits how you can split flow too
[23:04:56] <anonimasu> * anonimasu nods
[23:05:18] <toastatwork> i guess it's obviously time to petition the FIA to create a closed-wheel road racing analouge to f1.
[23:05:24] <toastatwork> to answer this question.
[23:05:36] <anonimasu> yep
[23:05:46] <dmess> good luck...
[23:05:59] <dmess> we lost our Montreal GP
[23:06:00] <anonimasu> it might happen the FIA is pretty random
[23:06:27] <toastatwork> haha, "today all cars will be BLUE"
[23:06:33] <toastatwork> "NO EXCEPTIONS"
[23:06:34] <dmess> random ruling body=flacky
[23:06:41] <anonimasu> I've had that happen at a race once
[23:07:00] <dmess> wraps on EVERTHING
[23:07:02] <anonimasu> not with colors, but with helmets :)
[23:07:11] <toastatwork> lol
[23:07:13] <toastatwork> amazing
[23:07:27] <anonimasu> and someone knew in advance and sold regulation helmets.. -_-
[23:07:55] <anonimasu> they sold like 200 :p
[23:07:56] <toastatwork> party foul =(
[23:08:13] <dmess> yeah... buddy just happened to have qty of the blue helmets to unload...
[23:08:23] <anonimasu> :)
[23:08:40] <anonimasu> only race ever where they've been enforcing that rule..
[23:08:53] <toastatwork> what do you race
[23:08:54] <anonimasu> if your helmet has a worn sticker = buy new
[23:09:02] <anonimasu> not anmore .)
[23:09:16] <toastatwork> oh
[23:09:22] <anonimasu> pm
[23:09:38] <dmess> worn stickers mean scrapped..
[23:09:54] <anonimasu> no, scraped..
[23:09:56] <anonimasu> :p
[23:10:30] <dmess> meme chose...
[23:13:17] <dmess> same as hang gliding helmets.... if its been used for its intended purpose 1 time.... i run it over with the van...
[23:13:56] <dmess> just so no one will ever find it and say it looks good..
[23:14:05] <dmess> enuf
[23:24:45] <anonimasu> dmess: oh.. this was just from keeping the helmets stored the wrong way on the floor
[23:24:48] <anonimasu> :)
[23:25:54] <archivist> * archivist wonders what the cutting forces are on the average bridgeport and smaller mill is with an up to 1" cutter , thinking of forces in a trunnion against the worm/wheel and its anti backlash supports
[23:29:42] <dmess> bronze worm??
[23:29:56] <archivist> probably
[23:29:59] <dmess> or wheel??
[23:30:09] <archivist> wheel
[23:30:20] <archivist> steel worm
[23:30:23] <dmess> it makes a big differance
[23:30:35] <dmess> will it be cnc
[23:30:45] <archivist> yup
[23:30:51] <dmess> and working for extended periods??
[23:31:08] <archivist> so the anti backlash has to be reasonable
[23:31:18] <dmess> hoh big a rotary table is it
[23:31:28] <archivist> Im thinking low cost and not heavy use
[23:31:34] <dmess> hhow
[23:31:41] <anonimasu> night
[23:31:43] <archivist> about 5"
[23:33:08] <dmess> 5" table with a 1 " cutter has a shelf life of about 24 hours... and you'll have bronze filings in the oil and uncontrollable backlash issues if you reverse directions
[23:34:18] <archivist> designing in anti backlash
[23:34:20] <dmess> unless you limit your DOC on the cutter to .010" max.. and that may add a day or so
[23:35:13] <dmess> then go with double pinion table... and you have a chance but there goes cheap
[23:35:56] <dmess> look up the Toshiba 200 QF boring mill on google..
[23:36:10] <archivist> I think I can get better accuracy from worm/wheel than pinion
[23:36:41] <dmess> it has an awsome double pinion table... and spins 50 rpm... i mill-turned on it ;)
[23:37:36] <dmess> its a worm-pinion wheel on the Toshiba... strong as a team of horses
[23:39:50] <archivist> thats a large factory workhorse, Im doing something sensible for the light user, different animal
[23:41:16] <archivist> could do with something like that to make mine on, but need to get rich first
[23:41:53] <dmess> i can get us a good deal on 1...750K canadian
[23:42:26] <BigJohnT> dmess: any luck on your drive?
[23:42:45] <archivist> heh a few lifetimes wages at this crap job
[23:43:43] <dmess> no... i havent really tried BigJ
[23:44:11] <BigJohnT> k
[23:44:57] <BigJohnT> I hit the ground running this am and just got done
[23:45:14] <dmess> but it looks like i may be euchered from the keypad... seems it Might only work on the c series.. mine is a b series
[23:45:42] <dmess> wow.. arent you an eager beaver...
[23:46:04] <BigJohnT> sometimes it is that way
[23:46:06] <lerman______> lerman______ is now known as lerman
[23:47:00] <dmess> brb gotta fine the smallest child..
[23:49:15] <jepler> how big is the fine?
[23:49:37] <cradek> small children don't have much money anyway
[23:50:00] <cradek> jepler: I'm going to run a few more knobs before I go on to face them - now is the time if you want to come see it
[23:50:08] <BigJohnT> but they move at the speed of light
[23:50:18] <archivist> fines, ground to a powder
[23:50:41] <jepler> cradek: sure, I'll come out in the next half hour or so?
[23:51:01] <jepler> * jepler wonders if the shaft size is the same on your encoders as on the ones I have around here somewhere
[23:51:56] <cradek> ok, come anytime
[23:56:10] <dmess> are you two local to one another??
[23:56:30] <cradek> pretty close, yes
[23:56:54] <dmess> cool..
[23:57:25] <dmess> Alpha is near me we've met but that pretty much it
[23:58:16] <jepler> cradek: my encoders are a .236 metal shaft--that's not anywhere close, is it?
[23:58:27] <dmess> 6mm
[23:58:43] <cradek> no, but there's enough room for that diameter
[23:58:43] <jepler> dmess: yeah, sure could be
[23:59:09] <jepler> cradek: I'll bring one of the encoders .. you can decide if you want to try making a knob to fit it