#emc-devel | Logs for 2006-07-04

[00:56:15] <jmkasunich> well, I have a plan (for my worn motor shaft)
[00:57:11] <jmkasunich> just made a sleeve, 0.2497 ID, 0.312 OD for most of its length, 0.322 (rough) for the last 0.3" (where the ball bearing is gonna go)
[00:57:38] <jmkasunich> the sleeve is long enough that 1/4" of it will bear on undamaged 0.250 shaft (0.0003" press fit)
[00:58:00] <jmkasunich> gonna use retaining compound to fill the gap, and the press fit to keep it centered
[00:58:39] <jmkasunich> then after it hardens, turn the bearing seat to 0.315 (bearing ID is 8mm = 0.3149)
[00:59:12] <jmkasunich> turning the bearing seat between the original centers on the original shaft will ensure concentricity
[01:03:27] <fenn> eh why not just weld some material back onto the shaft?
[01:04:06] <jmkasunich> its a precision balanced 10,000 RPM motor, 1/4" dia shaft
[01:04:19] <cradek> I'm still stuck on the 0.2497 ID part
[01:04:22] <jmkasunich> heating it would A) ruin the motor windings B) warp the shaft
[01:04:34] <jmkasunich> cradek: why?
[01:04:42] <cradek> doubt I could reliably turn an OD to that size
[01:04:42] <fenn> its a press fit
[01:04:47] <jmkasunich> I can't either
[01:04:51] <jmkasunich> I have a 0.2497 reamer
[01:04:56] <cradek> ah
[01:05:29] <jmkasunich> and a 0.250 reamer... wonderful for dowel pins, use the small reamer thru both parts, then the big one on the removable part
[01:05:44] <jmkasunich> "fits like a glove" ;-)
[01:06:10] <cradek> nice
[01:06:54] <fenn> find anything neat at hgr?
[01:07:17] <jmkasunich> yeah, the thing I'm fixing
[01:07:25] <jmkasunich> dumore 1/4 HP toolpost grindr
[01:07:35] <fenn> oh - *scrolls up*
[01:08:04] <jmkasunich> bit of a fixer-upper, but...
[01:12:11] <jmkasunich> cradek: I could probably make an OD pretty close to that size
[01:12:21] <jmkasunich> for OD, turn till close, then polish to size
[01:12:28] <jmkasunich> I can take off a couple tenths polishing
[01:13:12] <cradek> http://timeguy.com/cradek-files/emc/x-motormount.png
[01:13:41] <jmkasunich> aw, I thought you were gonna show us a finished part ;-)
[01:13:51] <cradek> nope, sorry
[01:13:56] <jmkasunich> get busy!
[01:14:00] <cradek> still working on the gcode now that I have a design laid out
[01:14:24] <jmkasunich> gotta admit, I'd not like to make that part without CNC
[01:14:39] <cradek> no, it would have more square corners without cnc
[01:15:10] <jmkasunich> and still take two setups
[01:15:22] <cradek> yes
[01:15:24] <jmkasunich> one with an axis parallel to the slots, and one with an axis parallel to the top edge
[01:15:31] <cradek> well that's not counting the holes
[01:15:47] <cradek> not sure how you'd get them in the right place
[01:15:58] <jmkasunich> X-Y coords, from the CAD
[01:16:00] <cradek> I guess you could center drill in the mill
[01:16:17] <cradek> I've never been able to step drill and keep on center
[01:16:21] <cradek> I always mill holes that have to be right
[01:16:25] <jmkasunich> you mean the big hole?
[01:16:29] <jmkasunich> how big is it?
[01:16:33] <cradek> yeah that would be the problem
[01:17:05] <cradek> .670
[01:17:32] <jmkasunich> I have a 5/8 drill bit that centers pretty well in a smaller hold
[01:17:34] <jmkasunich> hole
[01:17:45] <jmkasunich> that last 50 thou would be a challange tho
[01:18:00] <jmkasunich> I'd probably just spot drill the hold, then put it on the faceplate and bore to size
[01:18:04] <cradek> you'd have to bore it on the lathe
[01:18:10] <jmkasunich> (if ID and or location is critical)
[01:18:27] <cradek> yeah
[01:18:34] <cradek> cnc is sure good for some things.
[01:18:52] <jmkasunich> is the top edge of the motor bracket flush with the top of the table?
[01:18:56] <cradek> yes
[01:19:14] <jmkasunich> you might want to think about clearance cuts so you can access the tee-slots then
[01:19:49] <cradek> I thought about that, but the other open end is only a few inches away
[01:20:20] <jmkasunich> someday you're gonna have something already on the table and want to put something else on the far side of it
[01:20:54] <cradek> that's probably true
[01:21:05] <cradek> and I'll sure curse about it
[01:21:13] <jmkasunich> I'm starting to wonder about this grinder
[01:21:25] <cradek> whether it's worth it?
[01:21:28] <jmkasunich> I think the previous owner was a moron
[01:21:30] <jmkasunich> yeah
[01:21:37] <cradek> lots of previous owners are morons
[01:21:44] <jmkasunich> the motor shaft, and both ends of the spindle shaft, are threaded 1/4-32
[01:21:55] <jmkasunich> three of the four nuts in the box were 1/4-28
[01:22:03] <jmkasunich> and the threads are somewhat buggered
[01:22:13] <cradek> oh man
[01:22:24] <cradek> that's a special kind of moron
[01:23:09] <jmkasunich> something tells me I'm gonna learn alot about high speed precision spindle design
[01:23:26] <jmkasunich> (which isn't a bad thing, but I'd rather not have spend $150 for the lesson)
[01:23:28] <cradek> however I bet the 1/4-32 nuts are right next to the 5-40 screws in the typical hardware store
[01:23:35] <jmkasunich> nope
[01:23:38] <jmkasunich> 1/4-28 are
[01:23:43] <jmkasunich> (national fine)
[01:23:50] <jmkasunich> 1/4-32 is an oddball
[01:23:59] <jmkasunich> but mcmaster has a tap, $5 or so
[01:24:18] <cradek> yeah that's what I meant (oddball just like 5-40)
[01:24:36] <jmkasunich> 5-40 is _not_ an oddball
[01:24:41] <cradek> haha
[01:24:43] <jmkasunich> its a standard national coarse
[01:24:56] <jmkasunich> its the standard thread between 6-32 and 4-40
[01:25:12] <cradek> I know, but still it's relatively hard to find
[01:25:22] <jmkasunich> its an oddball wannabe
[01:26:44] <jmkasunich> I think I want to take this spindle apart
[01:31:07] <jmkasunich> step 1: build a pulley puller ;-/
[01:31:37] <cradek> I think you bought more project today than you intended...
[01:34:25] <jmkasunich> pulley puller built already (just some creatively arranged mill table clamps, and some steel bars)
[01:34:54] <jmkasunich> however, applied a fair amount of force to the pulley, no come off
[01:35:18] <jmkasunich> threaded on? doesn't look like it, but maybe...
[01:38:12] <jmkasunich> some good news
[01:38:39] <jmkasunich> a munged up thing that I thought was part of the spindle shaft turned out to be a little sleeve.. easily replaceable
[01:38:48] <cradek> cool
[01:39:00] <jmkasunich> still can't figure out the pulley tho
[01:39:44] <jmkasunich> its a two step flat belt pulley
[01:39:51] <jmkasunich> 1-1/8 and approx 3/4
[01:40:02] <jmkasunich> the larger step is slightly crowned, as you'd expect
[01:40:17] <jmkasunich> the smaller one isn't
[01:40:20] <fenn> i'm going crazy here trying to get gcc to see the include files it ships with - it should search through /usr/include and /usr/local/include and emc2/include right?
[01:40:26] <jmkasunich> it looks badly worn
[01:40:53] <jmkasunich> it searches thru whatever directories are specified by -I options on the command line, I think
[01:41:05] <fenn> right now the compile dies with stdarg.h: no such file or directory, from rtapi.h
[01:41:34] <fenn> even though stdarg.h is in like 5 different places
[01:41:41] <cradek> sounds like you've got a very porked gcc install
[01:41:51] <cradek> can you just start over with whatever rpm?
[01:42:12] <jmkasunich> he had 3.4, build the kernel with it, then replaced it with 4.x, then reinstalled 3.4
[01:42:15] <jmkasunich> so yeah, its borked
[01:42:47] <fenn> i should be able to build an rt kernel with 4.0.2 right?
[01:42:55] <jmkasunich> no clue
[01:43:16] <cradek> last I tried, I got a warning when I used gcc4 to build rtai
[01:43:31] <fenn> it wont actually be running anything
[01:43:55] <cradek> we need non-rt sim don't we
[01:44:19] <jmkasunich> yeah
[01:44:33] <cradek> argh I think I've screwed up radius comp for mills
[01:44:43] <jmkasunich> bad cradek!
[01:45:04] <cradek> shit.
[01:45:29] <cradek> http://timeguy.com/cradek-files/emc/wrong.png
[01:46:14] <jmkasunich> oops
[01:46:23] <jmkasunich> blue is the toolpath?
[01:46:26] <cradek> yes
[01:46:34] <jmkasunich> where did you start?
[01:46:50] <cradek> http://timeguy.com/cradek-files/emc/right.png
[01:47:03] <cradek> this is what I get (the right thing) if I just change the g41 to g40
[01:47:13] <cradek> it's going clockwise
[01:47:20] <jmkasunich> trying to remember the diff between 40 and 41
[01:47:27] <cradek> 41 is left comp, 40 is comp off
[01:47:49] <jmkasunich> where does the path start?
[01:47:54] <cradek> the white line is the feed down
[01:48:08] <jmkasunich> its on the part edge
[01:48:09] <cradek> then it jumps up and goes back down on the blue line
[01:48:14] <cradek> right
[01:48:31] <jmkasunich> oh, thats up/down, not horizontal?
[01:48:46] <fenn> don't you need a lead-in move from outside of the outline?
[01:48:48] <cradek> the blue goes up to the previous Z then back down by the end
[01:48:53] <cradek> fenn: yes, it's above
[01:48:54] <fenn> in x/y plane
[01:49:06] <cradek> it's the dashed one to the right before the white downfeed
[01:49:07] <jmkasunich> thats where I was going fenn
[01:49:27] <jmkasunich> if you're gonna do comp, you gotta start at least one tool radius outside the cut line
[01:49:35] <jmkasunich> (I think)
[01:49:37] <cradek> it does, above in Z
[01:49:45] <jmkasunich> not above
[01:49:51] <cradek> you can turn comp on, then cut down to go around the part
[01:49:59] <cradek> well, except I broke it
[01:50:13] <jmkasunich> if you are doing comp in XY (which I think you are), then Z should be irrelevant
[01:50:24] <jmkasunich> you start outside the part in X and/or Y
[01:50:33] <cradek> no, listen to me
[01:50:40] <cradek> you can cut up or down in Z with XY comp active
[01:50:45] <cradek> it's perfectly fine
[01:50:47] <jmkasunich> yeah
[01:51:03] <cradek> so you can start "outside" the part (but also above)
[01:51:07] <cradek> then cut down
[01:51:11] <jmkasunich> yeah
[01:51:27] <jmkasunich> but you're not doing that, you're starting _on_ the part (but above)
[01:51:56] <fenn> i don't see the lead-in move on the backplot, but even so it shouldn't mangle the toolpath like that without an error
[01:52:58] <cradek> http://timeguy.com/cradek-files/emc/leadin.png
[01:53:34] <jmkasunich> blue is the leadin move?
[01:53:42] <cradek> yes
[01:54:00] <cradek> this is left comp, so it makes a convex corner, that's the only requirement
[01:54:04] <jmkasunich> so you're leading in before you plunge, then plunging, then beginning to cut the profile
[01:54:08] <fenn> why do we need a lead-in move again?
[01:54:09] <cradek> right
[01:54:26] <jmkasunich> I guess I agree its borked...
[01:54:28] <cradek> fenn: to tell the tool how to transition from on-the-line to next-to-the-line
[01:54:55] <jmkasunich> but I still don't understand why you don't plunge in the waste, get that out of the way (tool deflection, etc), then leadin and cut the profile
[01:55:19] <cradek> I could, I'd have to leadin with an arc
[01:55:23] <cradek> but it would hide this bug :-)
[01:55:52] <jmkasunich> couldn't you lead in just like you are now?
[01:56:08] <jmkasunich> just plunge before you do the blue move
[01:56:08] <cradek> no, I'd cut off that nice radiused corner
[01:56:19] <cradek> the one at the end of the path
[01:56:23] <jmkasunich> ok, I'm clueless
[01:56:37] <jmkasunich> can you post a top view, the perspective has me all screwed up
[01:57:07] <jmkasunich> I thought the blue line started out in the waste, and ended up with the (compensated) tool tangent to the arc
[01:57:17] <cradek> http://timeguy.com/cradek-files/emc/top.png
[01:58:11] <cradek> from above it looks right, you can't see the Z problem
[01:58:14] <jmkasunich> ok, what am I seeing here... blue is the left hand edge of the part?
[01:58:18] <cradek> yes
[01:58:27] <cradek> the blue is generated from the highlighted gcode line (a g1)
[01:58:44] <cradek> it makes an arc (to go around the convex corner) then a line parallel to the original part edge
[01:58:46] <jmkasunich> and I can't see the actual part, so I can't tell what the comp is doing
[01:59:23] <cradek> the problem is the endpoint between the generated arc and line is at the wrong Z
[01:59:25] <jmkasunich> the white is the end of the path, also compensated? so the actual part edge is somewhere to the right of the path?
[01:59:32] <cradek> yes exactly
[01:59:55] <cradek> so in order to do this kind of leadin at this spot, I have to be above so as to not cut off that corner
[02:00:11] <jmkasunich> regardless of the Z problem, seems to me the leadin move should start _outside_ the compensated path
[02:00:26] <cradek> yeah, generally, but if you're above it doesn't matter
[02:00:36] <cradek> if you make a convex corner like this, you don't have to mess with getting an arc right
[02:00:40] <jmkasunich> but I am probably just confusing things, I've never done comp
[02:01:28] <cradek> from outside a part without any sharp corners (like this one) you have to leadin with an arc otherwise you make a concave corner
[02:02:03] <jmkasunich> duh, I think I get it now
[02:02:20] <cradek> it's NOT obvious
[02:02:20] <jmkasunich> when its cutting the leadin move, it thinks the part has a sharp corner there
[02:02:43] <cradek> right, if you leadin with a line from outside the part
[02:02:44] <jmkasunich> so the arc it draws is just the arc it would do to cut a sharp corner
[02:02:52] <cradek> right
[02:03:28] <jmkasunich> ok, now you got me straightned out
[02:03:32] <jmkasunich> go fix the Z bug ;-)
[02:03:57] <cradek> haha
[02:04:15] <cradek> the problem is I've broken and "fixed" this a couple times now
[02:09:09] <fenn> was something recently hardcoded to look in /usr/local/bin? i've never seen this error before: Can't execute server program /usr/local/bin/emcsvr
[02:09:21] <jmkasunich> well, fix it right, dammit... what are we paying you for?
[02:09:24] <fenn> (i'm running from /pub/emc/emc2 btw)
[02:09:52] <fenn> grep /usr/local/bin/ ./ -R
[02:09:52] <fenn> Binary file ./objects/hal/utils/halcmd.o matches
[02:09:52] <fenn> Binary file ./objects/hal/utils/scope_horiz.o matches
[02:09:53] <cradek> argh
[02:09:53] <jmkasunich> configured for run in place?
[02:10:04] <fenn> oh whoops that might be it
[02:10:25] <fenn> i still think run in place should be the default
[02:10:36] <jmkasunich> only developers run in place
[02:10:56] <fenn> i guess
[02:11:18] <fenn> let's say we get a sim mode working
[02:11:29] <cradek> * cradek gleefully attaches the debugger to the userland interpreter
[02:11:30] <fenn> and you want to compile and run axis on a machine you dont have root priveleges on
[02:15:18] <jmkasunich> fenn: not gonna happen
[02:15:27] <jmkasunich> sim mode will still load the code into kernel space
[02:15:42] <jmkasunich> you still need the "sudo make setuid" step
[02:16:48] <cradek> but non-rt sim will not use kernel modules right?
[02:17:41] <jmkasunich> sure it will
[02:17:53] <jmkasunich> the code will still be in kernel space, it just won't be running hard RT
[02:18:09] <cradek> why kernel space?
[02:18:27] <cradek> I think the whole point is to get it away from the kernel
[02:18:32] <jmkasunich> (the alternative is to build all the code for userspace, IMO that would be a gawd-awful mess in both the makefiles and the individual source files
[02:18:51] <jmkasunich> the point (I thought) was to get away from requiring a patched kernel)
[02:19:03] <cradek> we obviously have different goals for it
[02:19:08] <jmkasunich> yep
[02:19:33] <jmkasunich> my approach would be pseudo realtime
[02:19:45] <cradek> if it's not for realtime I see no reason to involve kernel modules, and doing that messes up any benefit for developers.
[02:20:06] <jmkasunich> what benefit?
[02:20:09] <jmkasunich> gdb?
[02:20:16] <cradek> yes, and bugs don't oops your kernel
[02:20:29] <cradek> and you can run without root
[02:20:47] <jmkasunich> you can run without root now (can't build without it...)
[02:20:47] <cradek> and you can run on any unix OS
[02:21:00] <jepler> "or setuid binaries"
[02:21:08] <cradek> hi jeff
[02:21:11] <jepler> hi cradek
[02:21:12] <cradek> yeah, you know what I mean
[02:21:38] <jmkasunich> hal as it exists will never work in userspace
[02:21:48] <cradek> it's irrelevant how you get your superpowers - they are still required
[02:21:56] <jmkasunich> because one thread of execution (rt or not) needs to invoke code that lives in many modules
[02:22:05] <jmkasunich> that works in kernel space, but not in user space
[02:22:26] <cradek> dlopen?
[02:22:34] <jmkasunich> sure, that is possible
[02:22:34] <cradek> fwiw I have nfc about that
[02:22:58] <jmkasunich> if you want to have two completely different approaches, and piles of ifdef's everywhere
[02:23:07] <cradek> if we aren't going to get away from kernelspace, I think we're wasting our time doing anything.
[02:23:25] <jmkasunich> thats a developer who likes gdb speaking
[02:23:59] <cradek> so?
[02:23:59] <jmkasunich> the users that I've heard gripe about it are upset about kernel patches, don't give a shit whether its kernel or user as long as they can run it on a vanilla kernel
[02:24:23] <jmkasunich> like you said before, different goals
[02:24:44] <jmkasunich> I _don't_ think their goal is "wasting our time"
[02:25:04] <SWPadnos> as long as they don't think they can run a machine with it, that would be OK
[02:25:27] <jmkasunich> I do think two completely different models for the two modes adds complexity for minimal benefit
[02:25:40] <SWPadnos> the main goal I've heard is to be able to look at a simulated machine, and be able to look at part previews in axis
[02:25:45] <jmkasunich> if getting it into user space is that critical, then we should do it in userspace all the time
[02:25:53] <cradek> for that, we can fix axis to not use emc
[02:26:06] <cradek> I'm talking about a simulator, not a gcode previewer
[02:26:16] <SWPadnos> I think they may also want to "run" a part
[02:26:22] <SWPadnos> right
[02:29:42] <jmkasunich> IMO, the simulator should be as close as possible to the real thing
[02:29:58] <jmkasunich> running in userspace isn't
[02:33:01] <cradek> IMO, the simulator should not require superpowers, should not be able to crash the machine, and should NOT be able to run hardware
[02:33:29] <jmkasunich> no drivers at all?
[02:33:52] <cradek> no output, input is fine
[02:34:08] <jmkasunich> whats the difference?
[02:34:20] <cradek> as soon as there's output, someone will try to run a machine with it because patching is "hard"
[02:34:29] <fenn> ugh especially with encoder counting
[02:34:50] <cradek> let me rephrase
[02:34:50] <jmkasunich> and their machine will be all jerky, and we'll tell them "you need realtime you idiot"
[02:35:24] <cradek> output requires root access, so is incompatible with "no superpowers" anyway
[02:35:39] <cradek> I'm thinking of parport here, there may be other things I haven't thought of
[02:35:47] <fenn> what do you expect to be doing in sim mode?
[02:35:56] <cradek> simulating an emc run
[02:35:57] <jmkasunich> its becoming very clear that we have completely different goals in mind
[02:36:10] <cradek> you want to let people control machinery without realtime?
[02:36:14] <jmkasunich> to the point that we need two "simulator modes"
[02:36:25] <fenn> does 'simulating emc" include running classicladder and hal components?
[02:36:56] <jmkasunich> what I have in mind and what cradek has in mind are incompatable - differnent goals, different approaches
[02:36:56] <cradek> fenn: yes
[02:37:09] <cradek> brb
[02:37:15] <jmkasunich> cradek: yes, I do want to let people control machinery without realtime
[02:37:42] <jmkasunich> machinery that can safely be operated with the kind of latencies that you get with vanilla linux that is
[02:38:03] <jmkasunich> that may not include _any_ CNC machine, but I'm not limiting it to CNC machines
[02:38:30] <jmkasunich> classicladder running at the jiffies rate can do plenty of usefull things without a RT kernel
[02:39:15] <fenn> if you believe people will go through extra hassle for a realtime kernel if they can use their favorite distro instead... well..
[02:39:33] <fenn> a lot of people won't
[02:39:37] <fenn> and that would be unfortunate
[02:40:17] <jmkasunich> I believe people aren't stupid (which is probably my mistake)
[02:40:22] <fenn> yeah :)
[02:40:36] <jmkasunich> if somebody wants to run christmas lights with classicladder and the parport, I intend to let them do it
[02:40:43] <jmkasunich> (using a regular kernel)
[02:41:40] <fenn> well i guess this boils down to the same debate about estop
[02:42:22] <fenn> * fenn motions for the board to come up with a policy on whether or not to trust the user with safety decisions
[02:42:45] <jmkasunich> s/user/integrator/
[02:42:48] <jmkasunich> and the answer is yes
[02:42:50] <jmkasunich> we must
[02:43:07] <jmkasunich> the alternative is to assume all risk ourselves, and I'll be damned if I'm going there
[02:43:17] <fenn> ok
[02:43:41] <jmkasunich> we do _not_ tell anyone "if you do this you'll be safe"
[02:44:07] <jmkasunich> we tell them "it is your responsibility to ensure your machine is safe, and btw, don't trust software for safety"
[02:44:36] <fenn> right now there seems to be precious little documentation on safety, is that intentional?
[02:44:40] <jmkasunich> no
[02:44:46] <jmkasunich> it does need to be better
[02:45:00] <jmkasunich> from hal.h (and many other files):
[02:45:08] <jmkasunich> TO RELY ON SOFTWARE ALONE FOR SAFETY. Any machinery capable of
[02:45:08] <jmkasunich> harming persons must have provisions for completely removing power
[02:45:08] <jmkasunich> from all motors, etc, before persons enter any danger area. All
[02:45:09] <jmkasunich> machinery must be designed to comply with local and national safety
[02:45:11] <jmkasunich> codes, and the authors of this software can not, and do not, take
[02:45:13] <jmkasunich> any responsibility for such compliance.
[02:45:33] <jmkasunich> those words need to appear somewhere in the integrators manual, not just in the code
[02:46:07] <fenn> are "local and national safety codes" the sort of thing that would be on the internet that we could link to from a wiki page?
[02:46:54] <jmkasunich> maybe, but again, its not our job to say "if you follow these cods you'll be alright"
[02:47:05] <jmkasunich> the codes depend on where they are
[02:47:14] <jmkasunich> in europe, rules are different than in the US
[02:47:14] <fenn> yeah but pointing people in the right direction is better than nothing, isnt it?
[02:47:34] <jmkasunich> rules are differnet for personal machines vs. machines that employees are gonna use
[02:48:02] <jmkasunich> you're thinking of hobby type people
[02:48:14] <jmkasunich> I'm not
[02:48:56] <jmkasunich> if somebody is designing a machine that is capable of killing people, he damn well better know what he's doing
[02:49:35] <jmkasunich> if he doesn't, I don't want even the tiniest little hint of a possiblity of a chance that his widow's lawyer can come to me and say "you said if he did X, Y, and Z he'd be safe"
[02:50:20] <fenn> one thing we could do if someone were to donate money would be to hire a lawyer to write up a disclaimer :)
[02:50:40] <jmkasunich> there is a long history of declaimers for software
[02:50:51] <jmkasunich> and the one in our code goes farther than that
[02:51:09] <jmkasunich> but giving out safety advice tends to counteract the disclaimer
[02:51:18] <fenn> that just seems wrong somehow
[02:51:47] <jmkasunich> welcome to the 21st century
[02:51:49] <fenn> BE SAFE (but who knows what that means)
[02:52:19] <jmkasunich> BE SAFE: but only you know exactly what that means, because only you fully understand _your_ situation
[02:53:07] <jmkasunich> believe me, I don't want uninformed people getting hurt
[02:53:42] <jmkasunich> but my approach to that is to tell people who have no business designing dangerous stuff "DON'T DESIGN DANGEROUS STUFF"
[02:54:00] <jmkasunich> not "go read this and then you'll be qualified"
[02:54:23] <jmkasunich> because some of the people I've seen, they could read a bazillion pages and still not be qualified
[02:57:36] <jmkasunich> going back to: are "local and national safety codes" the sort of thing that would be on the internet that we could link to from a wiki page?
[02:58:11] <jmkasunich> most of the codes are written by engineer types, for engineer types
[02:58:28] <jmkasunich> most of them are _not_ on the net, the standards bodies that make them up sell copies
[02:58:38] <fenn> right, i figured, thats why i asked
[02:58:40] <jmkasunich> and they are thick
[02:58:47] <fenn> and useless
[02:59:00] <jmkasunich> why do you say that?
[02:59:16] <fenn> i've been drowning in STEP buzzwords all week
[02:59:28] <fenn> i dont imagine any other "standards" documents are any better
[02:59:33] <jmkasunich> step isn't a safety code
[02:59:48] <jmkasunich> the national electric code is a very long, very complex document
[02:59:50] <fenn> i know, but its made by the same type of bureaucracy
[03:00:11] <jmkasunich> but every rule in there is the result of a fire, electroction, or some other bad thing
[03:00:21] <jmkasunich> there's a new one every 3 years too...
[03:00:39] <fenn> the complexity results from the need to explicitly define every possible situation (which is of course an impossible task)
[03:01:07] <jmkasunich> right, there are rules, then subsections, exceptions, variances, and fine-print-notes
[03:01:48] <jmkasunich> I've used the NEC in my work, its just one of probably a half dozen standards that our products need to comply to before we can sell them
[03:01:59] <jmkasunich> 99% of that is irrelevant to the basement guy
[03:02:31] <jmkasunich> the pro's already know what standards they need to follow
[03:03:26] <jmkasunich> anyway, one place where we do agree: we need more safety info in the manual
[03:03:44] <jmkasunich> we _might_ want to cover the basics, to keep the idiots from frying themselves
[03:04:08] <jmkasunich> but we need to be very very clear that we are only covering the basics, and the responsibility for a safe machine lies with the machine builder
[03:07:06] <jmkasunich> time for bed
[03:13:20] <fenn> nite nite
[13:58:09] <rayh> Hi Todd
[16:56:15] <jepler> hm. program g81 z-1 r1 f0
[16:57:09] <cradek> it went to z1 at a speed much higher than 0
[16:57:26] <jepler> the retract move is supposed to be at traverse, I think
[16:57:50] <jepler> but for me it sometimes sticks (never moves, never accepts the next g-code) and sometimes it goes directly to z1 (retract height), not to z-1 first
[18:27:27] <cradek> jepler: rain detector?
[18:28:53] <jepler> cradek: no, moving the computer back to the regular room
[18:29:18] <jepler> turns out sometime in the last 6 years, linux got broken so that if you don't have a ps/2 mouse attached when you boot, you can't attach one later
[18:29:21] <jepler> so I had to reboot bald
[18:29:40] <jepler> after going through all the trouble of moving UPS, CVS server, and gateway as a single unit to avoid powering anything off
[18:29:48] <cradek> you got the ceiling fixed already?
[18:29:55] <cradek> heh it's always something
[18:29:57] <jepler> no, I'll have to move it again
[18:30:03] <jepler> or maybe we'll just leave it
[18:30:18] <jepler> "larry"'s phone has been disconnected
[18:30:24] <cradek> if it's not too in the way, you can cover it
[18:30:30] <cradek> eek
[18:30:40] <cradek> wonder if he's moved away
[18:47:36] <jmkasunich> who is larry? ;-)
[18:50:49] <jepler> jmkasunich: the guy cradek told me does good drywall work
[18:51:00] <jmkasunich> ah
[18:51:11] <jmkasunich> drywall sucks
[18:51:38] <jmkasunich> I had to do our kitchen ceiling after the upstairs bathroom drain leaked
[18:53:15] <jepler> yeah, this is a ceiling
[18:54:12] <jmkasunich> you are smart to get someone else to do it