Re: Threading :: A report
- --- In email@example.com, Dave <dc9@...> wrote:
>I dont think that is going to happen on this version of the SmoothStepper, it was talked about and hoped to be possible. Greg will probably be the only one that can really say whether it will or won't be done.
> OK, this is the old Mach3 LPT port method also, but the SS works better?
> I guess there are varying degrees of what "works".
> Using a single pulse to determine the spindle timing and speed was never
> an ideal situation. I thought the
> SS was going to move beyond that and use a true geared axis approach by
> gearing the Z axis to the spindle position at least during the thread
> cutting move (perhaps not the decel and retract etc).
> If you have a full quad encoder on the spindle with channels A, B and
> index it seems sort of silly to only use the
> index pulse when the other channels can tell you exactly where the
> spindle is at any moment in time.
> If I cut 3" of external threads onto a shaft, and then cut 3" of
> internal threads into a hole, will the threaded shaft screw into the
> hole without pitch errors causing problems?
> I wasn't expecting rigid tapping.. but I thought spindle sync was the
> original goal.
What I understand being a possibilty is SwapAxis getting implemented in the SS and thus if you have a servo spindle you can fully synchronise the spindle to the axis so even rigid tapping will be possible.
Threading has always been perfect for me on the lathe, both with PP and SS and I have no pitch errors, or at least that I can measure, over a distance of 150mm plus.
I am not at all against the PP, but with the 2 machines I am having it would be slow. I want high resolution for smooth operation and FAST rapids...
That is why earlier I asked in the forum if a tricky feature could or could not be realized: have a "turbo" pin assigned to each axis, when mach sets it HI then 1 step would be x units, when Mach sets it LO then 1 step would be 5x units...
But then I was suggested to have a SS isntead of waiting or asking for such a feature of MACH, so here I am with 2 SS-s for my machines.
If I had a "conventional" machine converted to CNC (or this "turbo" feature, for sure I'd use the PP, too. :)
However, even if PP disappears one day, there will be plenty of useable motherboards / LPT cards available for decades...
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, art2 <fenerty@...> wrote:
> >>But this decision came only after deciding that I will never use the parallel port for driving the machine, I started using MACH only after obtaining a pair of SmoothSteppers.
> Im not sure I agree with the hard angle you have on the PP, for 6 years and about 10 computers, my PP has never given me trouble, and Ive run a lot of code through it. Ive seen multi-ton machines run on the PP, and small chocolate making machines run on it. Ive seen production shops making brownies by the thousands, and all the users of them were more than happy even though they had used much more expensive hardware in the past.
> The PP is truly a remarkably stable device for most of us, and I personally would hate to see it go.
> There's a lot of ways one can manage motion, EMC, Mach3, Galil and many others all use different theories and schemes
> to get the job done. Each has advantages and disadvantages.. so each will appeal to a different type person or philosophy.
> But for me, A Printer port running at 45Khz, and a few Gecko's is all it takes to make me happy.. :)
> Of course for years I ran only other peoples code, and debugging code.. Now that Im actually cutting things and making stuff
> for myself, I see a few things Id change from my new position as a user of the software, and Ill likely be making some plugins
> over the next couple years to automate some of the limitations Im finding.. but overall.. Im pretty happy, and every few days
> I find myself thinking.."Ahh, so thats why so many people use Mach3. Im loving it, and my Shuttle Pro I think Ill bronze..... LOL "