Back
[00:40:03] <jmkasunich> jepler: I _think_ that backlash only uses an additional 50% of accel
[00:41:12] <BigJohnT> jmkasunich so do you need to double it?
[00:41:14] <CIA-1> EMC: 03bigjohnt 07TRUNK * 10emc2/docs/src/hal/pyvcp.lyx: add more info on widgets
[00:41:18] <BigJohnT> cd ..
[00:41:27] <jmkasunich> probably 1.5x would do the trick
[00:41:27] <BigJohnT> opps wrong window
[00:41:32] <BigJohnT> ok
[00:41:48] <jmkasunich> note: I think, and probably ;-)
[00:50:31] <BigJohnT> then I'll CMA and give a suggested range :)
[00:52:48] <CIA-1> EMC: 03bigjohnt 07TRUNK * 10emc2/docs/src/common/Stepper_Diagnostics.lyx: add info on using backlash
[00:52:48] <CIA-1> EMC: 03bigjohnt 07TRUNK * 10emc2/docs/src/config/ini_config.lyx: add info on using backlash
[01:08:05] <BigJohnT> say goodnight Gracie
[01:08:11] <jmkasunich> goodnight Gracie
[01:08:36] <BigJohnT> :)
[01:08:46] <CIA-1> EMC: 03bigjohnt 07TRUNK * 10emc2/docs/src/gcode/main.lyx: shorten some index entries
[01:41:49] <cradek> good evening
[03:43:40] <skunkworks> jmkasunich: did you see my exciting video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY-FCN5ZXkg
[03:53:32] <cradek> wow, neat
[03:53:37] <cradek> that looks ... big
[03:54:13] <cradek> that's your driver?
[03:54:16] <skunkworks> yes
[03:54:20] <cradek> cool!
[03:54:23] <skunkworks> :)
[03:55:12] <skunkworks> it is not a 'servo' but it was light enough I could carry home to test ;)
[03:55:46] <skunkworks> it is off of a large conveyor belt.
[03:55:53] <skunkworks> 100v 5.8a
[03:56:36] <cradek> woo
[03:56:46] <skunkworks> hammering the piss out of it.. mosfets get warm with not heatsinks. (driver chips still working)
[03:56:59] <skunkworks> *no
[03:57:20] <cradek> seems like you've accomplished your goal
[03:57:48] <skunkworks> next is the big ass servo. (and I need to make the larger power supply)
[03:58:35] <cradek> http://xkcd.com/37/
[03:59:24] <skunkworks> heh ;)
[04:00:18] <cradek> dang, your hermes is so cool
[04:00:28] <cradek> what a great engraving machine
[04:00:39] <skunkworks> heh - yah - it is now the garage floor. ;)
[04:00:54] <cradek> very practical!
[04:00:56] <skunkworks> yes
[04:01:06] <skunkworks> soon the building above it.
[04:03:11] <skunkworks> I had a heck of a time catching it - but the input of the comparator was going negative. the spec says never go below .3v and if there is a possiblity of it happening - it could put it in an unknown state. I put a snubbing diode across the input and so far so good. (time will tell) I need to get some schottky diodes
[04:03:36] <cradek> the comparator is the current limit sensor?
[04:03:40] <skunkworks> yes
[04:04:07] <skunkworks> -.3v
[04:04:24] <cradek> that's much less than .3
[04:04:46] <skunkworks> I meant -.3
[04:04:54] <cradek> ah
[04:05:17] <cradek> heh, funny comment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDX_fa1KFI0&NR=1
[04:06:45] <skunkworks> heh :)
[04:19:26] <skunkworks> wow - welcome back
[04:19:29] <SWPadnos> especially if it gets to the east coast by Monday/Tuesday
[04:19:48] <skunkworks> wait - maybe I was the one gone
[04:21:13] <Lerman_______> Lerman_______ is now known as Lerman
[04:26:13] <skunkworks> and back again
[05:39:42] <KimK_> KimK_ is now known as KimK
[07:59:03] <micges> hello all
[08:00:00] <micges> I saw on
http://cvs.linuxcnc.org/cvs/emc2/debian/changelog?rev=HEAD that is written "converted many pins to parameters for added flexibility"
[08:00:21] <micges> there should be parameters to pins
[09:12:09] <CIA-1> EMC: 03alex_joni 07TRUNK * 10emc2/debian/changelog: fix thinko (parameters changed to pins, not the other way around), thanks to micges for pointing it out
[09:38:09] <CIA-1> EMC: 03tissf 07TRUNK * 10emc2/docs/src/gui/halui_fr.lyx: french translation update
[12:02:42] <CIA-1> EMC: 03tissf 07TRUNK * 10emc2/docs/src/config/ini_config_fr.lyx: french translation update to follow John
[12:02:42] <CIA-1> EMC: 03tissf 07TRUNK * 10emc2/docs/src/hal/ (pyvcp_fr.lyx pyvcp_meter_fr.png): french translation update to follow John
[12:03:43] <CIA-1> EMC: 03tissf 07TRUNK * 10emc2/docs/src/common/Stepper_Diagnostics_fr.lyx: french translation update to follow John
[12:35:08] <CIA-1> EMC: 03bigjohnt 07TRUNK * 10emc2/docs/src/ (Submakefile docs.xml index.tmpl): add system req to html and fr one too
[13:02:24] <micges_emc> http://imagebin.org/35960
[13:03:11] <micges_emc> I think this is issue that joint velocity jump above limits
[13:04:17] <micges_emc> this is the config file
http://www.pastebin.ca/1310016
[13:04:41] <micges_emc> joint limit is 80*60=4800
[13:12:54] <micges_emc> and axis.0.joint-vel-cmd is 83.3*60=4998
[13:22:25] <micges_emc> oh and gcode was F1000 FeedOverride is 5.0
[13:52:00] <CIA-1> EMC: 03tissf 07TRUNK * 10emc2/docs/src/ (4 files): french translation update changed copyright to 2009
[13:52:05] <CIA-1> EMC: 03tissf 07TRUNK * 10emc2/docs/src/common/Document_Header_fr.lyx: french translation update changed copyright to 2009
[13:52:06] <CIA-1> EMC: 03tissf 07TRUNK * 10emc2/src/po/fr_axis.po: french translation update changed copyright to 2009
[14:08:28] <CIA-1> EMC: 03tissf 07TRUNK * 10emc2/docs/src/common/Stepper_Diagnostics_fr.lyx: french translation - fix typo
[14:58:13] <micges_emc> in the docs on linuxcnc.org in section about G73 there is letter L in description, but when I'll MDI it error shows up "L word with no G10, cutter compensation, or canned cycle"
[15:00:39] <micges_emc> http://www.linuxcnc.org/docview/html//gcode_main.html#sub:G73:-Drilling-Cycle
[15:01:36] <cradek> trunk?
[15:02:23] <jepler> cradek: that URL corresponds to the v2_2_branch documentation
[15:02:26] <micges> yep
[15:03:19] <micges> on that same page in section canned cycles there is no mention about G73
[15:03:20] <BigJohnT> hmm, L is not listed in 1.3 Word table
[15:04:00] <cradek> micges: it is a bug, thanks for noticing it
[15:04:18] <jepler> umm I don't think G73 is actually in v2_2_branch
[15:04:33] <cradek> that's also a doc bug then
[15:04:38] <BigJohnT> ok
[15:04:48] <cradek> but trunk's g73 has a bug with not accepting L
[15:04:56] <jepler> RELEASE_2_2_8: 1.13, but G73 was first added in revision 1.14
[15:05:19] <BigJohnT> is "L" not a valid word for G73?
[15:05:45] <cradek> BigJohnT: it should be, but due to a bug in trunk, it is not accepted
[15:05:53] <BigJohnT> ok thanks
[15:05:54] <cradek> "L" (repeat) is accepted for all canned cycles
[15:06:55] <BigJohnT> ok
[15:08:17] <cradek> hm, something is wrong with all canned cycles in trunk - rapids aren't
[15:09:41] <CIA-1> EMC: 03cradek 07TRUNK * 10emc2/src/emc/rs274ngc/interp_check.cc: allow "L" repeats with G73
[15:10:01] <jepler> micges: there are no joint constraints in emc 2.2 or in TRUNK. joint constraints remain unimplemented.
[15:10:10] <jepler> only cartesian constraints are implemeneted
[15:10:14] <jepler> I thought I'd made this clear in the past
[15:11:33] <cradek> boy did I screw cycles up. looks like my regexp coding replaced all traverses with feeds.
[15:11:37] <cradek> grr
[15:11:53] <jepler> cradek: argh, oops
[15:12:08] <micges_emc> yes I want to make sure that is it, rarely I see it on real machine (only from notes from operators)
[15:13:36] <cradek> haha
http://cvs.linuxcnc.org/cvs/emc2/src/emc/rs274ngc/interp_cycles.cc.diff?r1=1.17;r2=1.17.2.1
[15:13:53] <cradek> bonk
[15:20:54] <skunkworks_> ship it!
[15:20:57] <skunkworks_> ;)
[15:22:32] <skunkworks_> I got an PM from a guy on cnczone saying he has an excellent servo drive schemantic and he would send it to me. It ended up being the hacked gecko drive schematic. That thread on cnczone is not gone. ;)
[15:23:34] <skunkworks_> It does interestingly enough have a diode across the input of the comparator. And it is schottky ;) I get there at some point usually.
[15:24:20] <skunkworks_> no heat here at work.. I meant 'That thread on cnczone is gone'
[15:24:22] <jepler> omg u copeid marisss?
[15:24:31] <skunkworks_> heh
[15:25:13] <skunkworks_> marisss schematic has a big block where the power electronics are anyways.
[15:25:43] <jepler> yep I recall that
[15:26:17] <micges_emc> cradek: G73 is working now
[15:29:50] <CIA-1> EMC: 03cradek 07TRUNK * 10emc2/src/emc/rs274ngc/interp_cycles.cc: put back the traverses I accidentally changed to feeds
[15:30:04] <cradek> micges_emc: thanks
[15:30:42] <jepler> skunkworks_: I'm not sure what about that thread merited deletion
[15:31:09] <jepler> for instance, I'm pretty sure that producing and disseminating a schematic that corresponds to a circuit board you own is not copyright infringement
[15:32:47] <skunkworks_> no - but cnczone gets paid advertising.. So mariss probably has a big say in what gets deleted.
[15:33:19] <cradek> yay web bbses
[15:33:27] <skunkworks_> there was a big stink recently when a tormach thread got deleted.
[15:37:25] <jepler> that's easy; just delete the stink thread too
[15:37:52] <cradek> jepler: stinks cause ad revenue
[15:38:42] <skunkworks_> heh - both attachments are also missing from cnczone. ;) I guess mariss didn't want his schematic out there.
[15:39:15] <cradek> sometimes you later realize a post was a mistake...
[15:40:10] <cradek> (same goes for a cvs commit)
[15:47:19] <skunkworks_> http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net/showthread.php?t=32670
[15:48:39] <jepler> oh dear god
[15:48:53] <jepler> what disease or chemical imbalance makes people produce GUIs like that
[15:49:16] <cradek> hahaha
[15:49:23] <cradek> that's amazing
[15:49:33] <jepler> Hey, that's great David! I like TurboCNC's GUI a heck of a lot more than the gauche Mach3 GUI.
[15:49:36] <skunkworks_> dave seems like an interesting character..
[15:49:51] <BigJohnT> kinda hard on the eyes
[15:50:14] <cradek> the gcode readout should be punched tape that scrolls by.
[15:51:25] <skunkworks_> ooh I like that idea
[15:51:49] <cradek> What made me wonder though is if this is a true windows application what don't they use a standard font instead of the dot matrix font used.
[15:51:51] <jepler> that's great, but what about when the interpreter goes faster than 1200 baud?
[15:59:01] <SWPadnos> that UI would translate well to a VFD though (Vacuum Fluorescent Display)
[15:59:11] <SWPadnos> or a car radio or something
[15:59:42] <cradek> yes, a 5x7 vfd could do a decent job at displaying paper tape (7 bit only)
[15:59:49] <SWPadnos> yep
[15:59:59] <SWPadnos> I like the first comment though :)
[16:00:36] <cradek> and the continuing rants about how programmers don't know a damn thing about anything
[16:00:55] <SWPadnos> oh, I haven't noticed those yet. should I just top reading?
[16:01:01] <cradek> I bet I'm a much better machinist than those ranting machinists are programmers.
[16:01:05] <cradek> quite possibly, yes
[16:01:11] <SWPadnos> that seems likely
[16:01:36] <cradek> (also, I bet not one of them has ever given me anything)
[16:04:54] <SWPadnos> hmmm. looks like someone is misremembering their conversations here
[16:07:56] <cradek> you didn't stop reading, did you
[16:08:04] <SWPadnos> welllllll
[16:08:20] <SWPadnos> that's the kind of remark I'd expect from him, given past experience
[16:08:51] <jepler> now I just have to integrate it with AXIS:
[16:08:51] <jepler> now I just have to integrate it with AXIS: Originally Posted by MTNGUN
[16:08:51] <jepler> To my taste, most of the gcode interpreters are written for hobbyists who like have lots of whistles and bells and eye candy to play with..
[16:10:09] <SWPadnos> yes, because interpreters are so pretty
[16:11:07] <jepler> er, oops
[16:11:23] <jepler> I meant to paste this:
http://emergent.unpy.net/files/sandbox/tape.py
[16:11:30] <SWPadnos> heh
[16:12:51] <SWPadnos> hmmm. it's 52 degrees in my office. I wonder if it's time to turn on the downstairs heat
[16:12:56] <cradek> jepler: you fool programmers don't know that nc tape isn't punched in ascii
[16:12:58] <BigJohnT> makes me dizzy
[16:14:19] <skunkworks_> eia
[16:14:36] <skunkworks_> sorry EIA
[16:15:02] <SWPadnos> for some reason, that made me think of the engineering senior who burned assembly code into an EEPROM, and expected the computer to boot
[16:15:38] <SWPadnos> "see, it's right there" is what he said when we finally read out the PROM
[16:16:02] <SWPadnos> (actually, it was probably just EPROM, since we had to use UV to erase back in those days)
[16:21:33] <skunkworks_> this is kinda funny...
http://www.cnczone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71528
[16:30:23] <jepler> cradek: what encoding is nc tape in?
[16:30:40] <SWPadnos> it must be EBCDIC, just to keep things interesting
[16:30:41] <cradek> I don't know... I don't know if there's a standard
[16:30:59] <cradek> seems like the machines always have a key on the front panel...
[16:31:29] <jepler> http://faculty.etsu.edu/hemphill/entc3710/nc-prog/images/Fig04-01.gif
[16:32:07] <jepler> this calls it EIA, which I see skunkworks_ said half an hour ago
[16:36:47] <cradek> skunkworks_: wow, what a thread
[16:45:51] <jepler> there, now using the EIA encoding I found on the web:
http://emergent.unpy.net/files/sandbox/tape.py
[16:49:53] <cradek> jepler: when will you put it in AXIS?
[16:50:04] <cradek> showing it should be optional, of course
[16:50:10] <cradek> just add another display checkbox
[16:50:42] <skunkworks_> eia was just ascii with even parity wasn't it?
[16:52:09] <jepler> skunkworks_: no, have a look at that gif I linked above
[16:52:14] <jepler> they're quite different
[16:52:48] <jepler> for instance, even ignoring parity, 'J' is not 'I'+1
[16:53:16] <skunkworks_> ah - I guess it has been 16 years since I had to play with that.. :)
[16:54:05] <skunkworks_> that is what the k&t interface I made did - converted text to eia - hacked it into the tape drive.
[16:54:38] <SWPadnos> heh. you could make an LCD-based fake tape (if the reader is optical)
[16:56:34] <skunkworks_> I think I had thought about just using led's into the detectors - but I think I just hooked right into the photocells
[16:56:41] <skunkworks_> *instead of
[18:26:36] <micges_emc> good night all
[19:30:08] <cradek> http://timeguy.com/cradek-files/emc/wtf-splash.png
[19:30:48] <skunkworks_> umm
[19:30:48] <jepler> hm, I wonder if I had the "invert X" option enabled when I made the splash screen
[19:31:19] <cradek> how do you do that again? it's not a view option
[19:31:29] <jepler> some undocumented inifile thing
[19:31:52] <jepler> I think?
[19:31:53] <cradek> it's easy to add toggles in the view menu
[19:32:03] <cradek> [hint hint]
[19:40:25] <jepler> oh it's actually something in my ~/.axisrc
[20:00:36] <BigJohnT> cradek: where do you get the at speed light?
[20:01:00] <cradek> it's in trunk's sim/lathe.
[20:01:23] <cradek> sim/lathe has simulated spindle inertia, and I think I used 'near' to say when it's at speed
[20:01:42] <BigJohnT> cool
[20:06:33] <CIA-1> EMC: 03flo-h 07TRUNK * 10emc2/src/emc/rs274ngc/ (interp_queue.cc interp_queue.hh): includes for strdup and free; removed typedefs, not needed with C++
[20:10:31] <alex_joni> lol, the emc users list is getting weirder every day
[20:10:33] <alex_joni> "The machine that says NAK, didn't Monty Python write about this?
[20:11:45] <stustev> NAK is an AKnowledgement response, isn't it?
[20:12:19] <skunkworks_> I think it was NI
[20:12:19] <archivist> NAK is neagative AK
[20:12:25] <stustev> jepler: do you want me to respond on the wiki page or here?
[20:13:15] <jepler> stustev: I'd be happy to discuss it here, then I would update the wiki page
[20:13:20] <jepler> but if you'd prefer to do it another way I'm flexible
[20:13:55] <stustev> I will go to the machine and try things as necessary
[20:14:09] <stustev> the machine will not show a position of 360
[20:14:35] <stustev> it will show 359.999 the next .001 movement will show a position of 0
[20:15:14] <jepler> OK, so the DRO shows from 0 up to but not including 360
[20:15:23] <stustev> yes
[20:15:50] <stustev> g91 is incremental (relative)
[20:16:00] <stustev> I will go check to see what the DRO shows
[20:16:10] <stustev> bbiam
[20:16:25] <jepler> I tentatively assign a new code for this wrapped axis mode because I don't think we want to change what emc does for angular axes in G91 mode now
[20:18:25] <archivist> would it be more sensible in some cases to allow separate axis control of wrap mode rather than all 3
[20:18:51] <jepler> archivist: cradek wondered the same thing
[20:19:17] <jepler> from the standpoint of coding it I don't like that idea -- it makes the code 8x as complicated
[20:19:50] <archivist> a trunnion user has a +- 90ish and a full rotator
[20:21:50] <archivist> but I have never played with the expensive toys like others, just trying to think of coding gears and the like
[20:22:38] <jepler> I understand
[20:23:20] <jepler> myself, I don't have any machines with rotary axes
[20:24:49] <jepler> bbiab
[20:25:59] <archivist> what I really want is to do a move to 1xxxxxx degrees and move directly to 0 or some start value
[20:30:23] <stustev> the machine moves as follows
[20:33:46] <stustev> g90 g00 b45 - moves the machine to 45 degrees (the tip of the tool would move in a counter clockwise direction when viewed from Y positive) (looking in the Y negative direction)
[20:34:21] <stustev> g91 g00 b-10 - moves the machine 10 degrees opposite - the DRO shows 40 degrees
[20:35:58] <jepler> 40 degrees?
[20:36:00] <stustev> the DRO shows 35 degrees instead
[20:36:03] <jepler> I can't understand 40 degrees
[20:36:07] <stustev> sorry
[20:36:43] <stustev> g91 g00 b10 - moves the machine back to the 45 degree position - the DRO shows 45
[20:37:54] <stustev> when the DRO stays <360 I call that a rotary scale
[20:38:11] <cradek> I follow so far, makes perfect sense
[20:38:43] <stustev> when the DRO shows ex. +720 or -720 - I call that a linear scale
[20:39:04] <jepler> so far this sounds like what emc does now
[20:39:43] <jepler> I thought there was a way of commanding angular movement that was different than emc
[20:39:43] <jepler> that you told me about once
[20:39:43] <cradek> stustev: what happens with the sequence G90 G0 B0; G0 B-0
[20:39:43] <stustev> no motion
[20:39:43] <cradek> is there any way to get one full turn?
[20:40:16] <cradek> jepler: I think he is describing that, but hasn't hit on any of the cases that are different yet
[20:40:26] <stustev> 360 would probably be one full turn - I will try it - 720 would be two full turns
[20:41:17] <stustev> the difference would be g90 g00 b45 and g90 g00 b-45 are the same position
[20:41:37] <cradek> stustev: so G90 G0 B30; then I want to turn 360+10 degrees to end up at B40 - is it impossible in G90?
[20:43:01] <cradek> (these multiturn or exactly one turn cases are the ones that are baffling to me)
[20:43:05] <stustev> bbiam
[20:43:08] <cradek> :-)
[20:43:24] <jepler> maybe you would command B400 (360+40)?
[20:43:28] <cradek> jepler: sorry for taking over the questioning
[20:44:48] <jepler> np
[20:44:56] <cradek> you should maybe just forbid anything outside <= -360 and >= 360 in G90 mode
[20:45:03] <cradek> I bet nobody would program that anyway
[20:45:07] <cradek> s/outside//
[20:45:57] <cradek> for multiturn you'd use G91, which is a lot clearer
[20:46:46] <cradek> a bit of good news is that 2/4 of the concave corner situations work in lathe mode
[20:47:00] <cradek> I spent minutes and minutes of my life making test cases
[20:48:02] <archivist> I cant wait to play cnc lathe as well
[21:04:37] <stustev> g90 g00 c330 - moved to c330 - tool tip moving counter clockwise when viewed from z positive
[21:04:57] <stustev> c340 moved to c340 in the same direction
[21:05:13] <stustev> c-330 moved clockwise 10 degrees to c330
[21:05:38] <stustev> c700 - (360 + 10) - moved 10 degrees to c340
[21:06:40] <stustev> you are correct - g91 would be the way to do 360 degree or more motion
[21:07:22] <SWPadnos> 700-(360+10) is 330, should c330 have moved to c=340?
[21:07:42] <stustev> it did
[21:07:58] <SWPadnos> that wasn't the question :)
[21:08:11] <stustev> c330 moved to c340
[21:08:30] <SWPadnos> that sounds a bit incorrect to me, as a design goal
[21:08:53] <stustev> 10 degrees of motion on an absolute scale
[21:09:15] <SWPadnos> 330 should be either 330 or 30 degrees of motion
[21:09:33] <SWPadnos> or it should move to a position of 30 or 330 absolute
[21:09:51] <SWPadnos> IMO
[21:10:19] <stustev> depending on the sign of the motion command - from zero c330 is either a 30 degree move or a 330 degree move
[21:11:08] <stustev> the resulting position is the same place - the direction of motion depends on the sign of the command
[21:11:50] <stustev> from zero a c330 command and a c-330 command is the same place
[21:11:51] <SWPadnos> or was that move actually c720-(360+10) ?
[21:12:14] <stustev> the resulting motion is 30 degrees or 330 degrees
[21:13:25] <stustev> the c700 command was from a starting point of c330
[21:13:35] <SWPadnos> ok, understood
[21:14:17] <SWPadnos> from C=330, issue command C(700-(360+10)), which evaluates to C330, if I'm doing the subtraction right
[21:14:39] <stustev> yes
[21:14:50] <SWPadnos> which means you are at C=330, and you issue the command C330
[21:15:00] <SWPadnos> that makes me surprised when the machine moves 10 degrees to C=340
[21:15:35] <SWPadnos> since 340 is either 340 or -20, and 330 is either 330 or -30 when looked at modulo 360
[21:15:51] <stustev> I was at c330 I told the machine to move to c700 (one 360 degree rotation + 10 degrees)
[21:16:04] <stustev> the resulting motion was a 10 degree move
[21:16:30] <SWPadnos> ok, so that wasn't an equation? :)
[21:16:31] <cradek> it moved to (700%360)
[21:16:45] <cradek> using the +/- direction rule I guess
[21:16:56] <cradek> if this is the formula I can understand it
[21:17:20] <SWPadnos> sure, if the command was 700 (=340 in base 360), then I'm with you
[21:17:26] <stustev> if I had told it to go to c-700 it would have stopped in the same place after a rotation of 350 degrees in the other direction
[21:18:00] <cradek> stustev: you actually typed G90 G0 C700, right?
[21:18:33] <stustev> yes
[21:18:38] <cradek> so if I understand right, in G90 mode, you can do no more than one full turn
[21:18:52] <SWPadnos> ok, it was a reading error on my part :)
[21:18:53] <stustev> just less than one full turn
[21:19:08] <cradek> the target position is word%360 and you get there in the specified direction
[21:19:17] <stustev> yes
[21:19:37] <SWPadnos> I saw "c700 - (360 + 10)" and read it as an equation that evaluated to C350 :)
[21:19:58] <cradek> ok, I see that, agree that was not very clear
[21:20:20] <stustev> must run - bbl
[21:20:21] <jepler> looking at the wiki page, it sounds like I got the first 3 bullet points right
[21:20:23] <cradek> in G91 mode, the machine moves 'word' degrees relatively
[21:20:52] <jepler> what about the next thing I said: # The motion is always greater than 0 degrees but never greater than 360 degrees
[21:21:11] <cradek> the DRO is %360 and shows the position
[21:21:41] <cradek> yes, seems like you can not get a zero degree move, you get a full turn if 'word' is the current position (numerical instability problem here)
[21:22:06] <cradek> we have not yet explored the behavior of offsets
[21:22:43] <jepler> * If 0 is the result of a calculation or is taken from a #-parameter (not a literal "0", "+0" or "-0"), then the sign is undefined. The equivalent +360 and -360 can be used instead.
[21:23:04] <jepler> -360 and +360 are equivalent to -0 and +0, right, except that you can reliably get them as the result of operations?
[21:24:25] <cradek> I think that's right
[21:28:05] <jepler> OK, that leaves the two questions on my list:
[21:28:11] <jepler> * What does G10 L2 A- mean?
[21:28:23] <jepler> * Should G91.2 modify the behavior of non-wrapped axes
[21:28:37] <cradek> what is G91.2?
[21:29:00] <jepler> G91.2 is the code I propose to switch into this new mode
[21:29:15] <cradek> I don't like that
[21:29:16] <jepler> we'll retain compatability with old gcode except when this mode is turned on
[21:29:26] <jepler> you don't like the specific number, or you don't like having it be a mode?
[21:29:37] <cradek> wrapped or not wrapped should be inifile
[21:29:44] <cradek> per axis I think
[21:29:47] <jepler> I don't care about the number, and I think we have to keep compatablity with old gcode somehow
[21:30:02] <cradek> compatibility is don't set up your machine this new way
[21:30:20] <jepler> I don't like that. It means that when you install this emc you have to throw out all your old programs if you want to enable this mode
[21:30:21] <cradek> default is definitely not wrapped rotaries
[21:31:06] <cradek> hmm
[21:31:22] <cradek> I guess I see your point, but I don't like either option now
[21:31:46] <cradek> how will you do one wrapped and one not, if using g9[01].2?
[21:32:35] <archivist> that needs an axis as well
[21:32:50] <cradek> that way lies madness
[21:33:35] <archivist> G91.2 B
[21:33:40] <SWPadnos> ini config for which axes should be wrapped, and aG-code to select old or new behavior
[21:33:48] <cradek> madness madness
[21:33:51] <cradek> SWPadnos: possibly
[21:34:10] <SWPadnos> certain axes can't wrap, regardless of a G-code switch
[21:34:22] <jepler> certain axes on certain machines can't wrap
[21:34:26] <SWPadnos> yes
[21:35:20] <SWPadnos> I don't know if it's possible to have more than one axis that can travel i
[21:35:28] <SWPadnos> "infinitely"
[21:35:55] <SWPadnos> maybe if you can run a lathe spindle as an indexer or spindle, and you have a rotary table
[21:35:55] <jepler> if your machine has B wrapped but you code something that fits in my machine's non-wrapped "B", I'd like to be able to run it
[21:36:01] <cradek> sure there is
[21:36:13] <jepler> but you're saying I can't, if you used the wrapped mode
[21:36:14] <cradek> think of a gantry's C (spindle turns around and around) and A on the table
[21:36:22] <archivist> I can think of a hobbing machine set up with two infinites and a non infinite
[21:36:26] <SWPadnos> yes, that's what I just said :)
[21:37:35] <cradek> jepler: I don't think that kind of code is generally going to be portable, no matter what you do
[21:38:38] <SWPadnos> jepler, you have a point - if wrapped code still fits within the envelope of your machine, you should be able to run it
[21:38:48] <SWPadnos> that's a limit problem though
[22:04:27] <jepler> it's friday!
[22:06:40] <skunkworks_> tgif
[22:06:51] <skunkworks_> (goodness)
[22:10:31] <SWPadnos> (freezing)
[22:10:33] <SWPadnos> oh, wait :)
[22:11:04] <SWPadnos> I wonder if anything of value will be available in the Circuit City going out of business sales
[22:12:52] <skunkworks_> we don't have a circuit city in lacrosse.
[22:13:00] <SWPadnos> lucky you
[22:13:21] <SWPadnos> I don't like them, but I'm willing to set that aside if I can get something useful out of their demise :)
[22:20:55] <skunkworks_> heh
[22:49:59] <CIA-1> EMC: 03bigjohnt 07v2_2_branch * 10emc2/docs/src/gcode/main.lyx: remove g73... must have been a senior moment when I added it
[22:53:47] <jepler> I'd rather have a senior moment than no moment at all
[22:54:34] <BigJohnT> :)
[22:54:43] <BigJohnT> ain't that the truth
[22:55:11] <archivist> I would just like a moment
[22:55:35] <archivist> type of chocolate over here :)
[22:55:49] <jepler> well I have no idea why I'm still at the office, an hour after I loudly proclaimed it was friday...
[22:55:52] <jepler> * jepler leaves
