Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
  1. #41
    -Mesa 7i80+7i76 or 5i25+7i76 . More and more seems Linux is the way. First combo is 119$+150$ +~ 40$ shipping=~250euro , second combo is 200$+~40$shipping =~180 euro.
    Silyavski If you are thinking of Linuxcnc and need to slave motor on one axis there is a problem with homing that has not been ironed out yet. See here LinuxCNC Support Forum :: Topic: Homing and limits with X axis 2 joints (1/2) and here LinuxCNC Support Forum :: Topic: Configurate Slave Axis (1/4) This might be being fixed in the next release. ..Clive

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Clive S For This Useful Post:


  3. #42
    again, a few very important bits of info between you lot there.

    I see the sence in the more expensive cards, i will pick one of them. and its seems that there on it with linuxcnc and homing double axis, and there are some work arounds, I like mach3, but hate windows, although i have to use it sometimes, but it is worth using a windows machine just for mach3/4.

    I found a local company that can supply me the b-screws and rails and barings ect. and there are a few high precision engineering company's near me as well, so am looking at some alternative mounts for the Y gantry to the x axis. I have been reading with interest on here the posts for R&P over ballscrews. I will put the designs in sketchup in the next day or so.

    2 rails per x axis side, one above, one below, 2 barings per rail, seems to make the most sense on an equal loading/force approach. Maybe its not a bad idea to have the barings as the week point, Because they are cheeper to replace in time and money, compared to unbending a machine gantry. If, from the design stage, you consider the barings as consumables ( not to short a life time though ). it free's up some design options.

    R&P suits a heavy gantry, and i can see why most heavy machines use it, but, when your building your 80k to 100k + to sell to a customer, the customers not going to acsept thaty every n100 hours of running, they will have to replace the barings, and every n1000 hours , the ballscrews, so you design a machine thats heavy enough to absorb the forces, to give your barings and ballscrews some help. but the extra weight requires bigger motor or servoes, and causes other problems, or pushes you design in certan directions.

    wereas, if you specificaly design your machine for the barings to be the week point, you can make you Y gantry a box, that contains a Z Axis, thats a box iteslf with rails on both insides of the Y gantry. The hole Y ganty, clamped by rails and barings on the top and bottom of the X axis, with the ballscrew in the gap between them (between the edge of the Table frame/X axis and the Y ganrty box ).

    Done this way, every axis forces are contained within the box frames, and takes out any levers if you get what i mean, all the above gantry designs are big leavers that you have to compensate for. Whereas, if the only leaver is the projection of the bit from the Z bottom, and that is within the X frame box. What this gives you is equal forces/loading in X and Y both directions, and a very strong Z Boxwith heavy down force capability, but, very heavy loading X and Y, if the Z is retracted and only the tip of the bit is projecting, Like for surfacing a large piece of stone.

    Also, a box within a box makes sence because you can bolt certan cruital parts inplace ( Y gantry ), on the machine, make sure there all square and level, before you weild, and you can use the bolt points to strengthen up the metal near the weilds, to help ofset any twisting/pulling your frames wants to do while its weilded.

    My main reason for designing like this, apart from equal forces in all directions, is machine down time if a mistake is made, This is through experiance of owning/running a Gocarting track 97-2001. Go carts have lots of expencive barings in them, and after 2 years of large parts bills, we redesigned and refitted the frames, to eas of on the barings, What a mistake, we spent a lot less on barings that season but down time per cart frame due to bending was horrendus, each frame had to be stripped and bolted in the jig for 2 days, heated and coolded, then brazzed, then rebuilt, That job went from once after the end of each season, to frames queing up to be placed in the jig.
    My point being, make a mistake and bend your machine, your down time is a lot more (maybe days ), and you dont know what the cost of repair might be, whereas, if you pop your barings, its costly, but you know how long it will take and how much it will cost before your machine is running.

    I will try get it in sketchup later

  4. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Clive S View Post
    Silyavski If you are thinking of Linuxcnc and need to slave motor on one axis there is a problem with homing that has not been ironed out yet. See here LinuxCNC Support Forum :: Topic: Homing and limits with X axis 2 joints (1/2) and here LinuxCNC Support Forum :: Topic: Configurate Slave Axis (1/4) This might be being fixed in the next release. ..Clive
    Thanks for the info. Though here is what i think of it in my case, may be concerning this build also:
    -if the machine is rigid like mine and like this will be , may be it shouldn't be a problem. With Hiwin 20 HA bearing spacement at the gantry sides of 40cm/ or even 30/ i don't see how it would go out of true, its not a flimsy machine we are talking about here.
    -i would use servos, they will simply stop due to error

    Quote Originally Posted by george uk View Post
    again, a few very important bits of info between you lot there.


    2 rails per x axis side, one above, one below, 2 barings per rail, seems to make the most sense on an equal loading/force approach. Maybe its not a bad idea to have the barings as the week point, Because they are cheeper to replace in time and money, compared to unbending a machine gantry. If, from the design stage, you consider the barings as consumables ( not to short a life time though ). it free's up some design options.
    I still don't like that design of yours, but that shouldn't discourage you :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by george uk View Post
    R&P suits a heavy gantry, and i can see why most heavy machines use it, but, when your building your 80k to 100k + to sell to a customer, the customers not going to acsept thaty every n100 hours of running, they will have to replace the barings, and every n1000 hours , the ballscrews, so you design a machine thats heavy enough to absorb the forces, to give your barings and ballscrews some help. but the extra weight requires bigger motor or servoes, and causes other problems, or pushes you design in certan directions.

    I don't know if i am understanding you wrong. But:
    RP is far more wear prone than ball screw. Ball screw is far more better and smooth. for 6m long table, yes RP, but for anything under 3m-ballscrew.

    Quote Originally Posted by george uk View Post
    wereas, if you specificaly design your machine for the barings to be the week point, you can make you Y gantry a box, that contains a Z Axis, thats a box iteslf with rails on both insides of the Y gantry. The hole Y ganty, clamped by rails and barings on the top and bottom of the X axis, with the ballscrew in the gap between them (between the edge of the Table frame/X axis and the Y ganrty box ).
    IMHO the weakest points in order of a DIY machine FYI:
    1. Router bit - deflection
    2. Z overhang-plate twist
    3. Gantry twist and bend ,
    4. Gantry sides
    5. bearings/assuming you use square
    6.Spindle power
    7. Balscrew support bearings, spindle bearings
    8...etc

    Quote Originally Posted by george uk View Post
    My main reason for designing like this, apart from equal forces in all directions, is machine down time if a mistake is made, This is through experiance of owning/running a Gocarting track 97-2001. Go carts have lots of expencive barings in them, and after 2 years of large parts bills, we redesigned and refitted the frames, to eas of on the barings, What a mistake, we spent a lot less on barings that season but down time per cart frame due to bending was horrendus, each frame had to be stripped and bolted in the jig for 2 days, heated and coolded, then brazzed, then rebuilt, That job went from once after the end of each season, to frames queing up to be placed in the jig.
    My point being, make a mistake and bend your machine, your down time is a lot more (maybe days ), and you dont know what the cost of repair might be, whereas, if you pop your barings, its costly, but you know how long it will take and how much it will cost before your machine is running.
    You can not bend with steppers a properly constructed machine. They will simply stall. Remember this. Nor you can wear Hiwin bearings if properly mounted. When you have them in your hands you will see why. They will be probably that last element in a machine to fail.

    Back to the BOBs

    I have another questions in mind concerning the BOBs. Please some one more knowledgeable clear it for me:

    -With steppers: If Mach 3 outputs as max 100kHz pulse/ even less normally/, then a normal reliable board that supports 100khz should be ok, yes?

    -With servos: If Mach 3 outputs as max 100kHz pulse/ even less normally/, then why should i care to buy a board like the CSMIO or other? I know, apart from the reliability and connections, i mean. Every modern servo drive can upscale by gearing the frequency and generate the proper signal , so why waste money on expensive cards that will do exactly the same thing in fact? I start to believe that the driver generating the pulses will be quite better and reliable..
    It seems that mach3 is the limiting factor, not the board?

  5. #44
    Hi

    Though here is what i think of it in my case, may be concerning this build also:
    i agree with what your saying here, am thinking i may cog and belt the 2 ballscrews together, to stop any small chance of them going out of alignment. Or, go back to using one motor to drive both ballscrews.

    I still don't like that design of yours, but that shouldn't discourage you :-)
    Dont worry me, i prefare people to be direct and to the point. and getting something wrong is not failing, its a leaning step on the way to success.

    I don't know if i am understanding you wrong. But:RP is far more wear prone than ball screw.
    I was thinking aloud, i am going with ballscrew,

    You can not bend with steppers a properly constructed machine.
    .

    I have seen this happen, Nema23 on z, Z bocx mounted forward like you pictured. Z down gave it enough leaver, that when his limit switch failed, put a slight bend in a very well constructed Y gantry, both the mounting rails and ballscrew had a noticable movment when passing the point were it had bent.

    He was very ham fisted with his limit switches, hence it failed, but it did bend it, i will have a go at doing the math tonight again,

    IMHO the weakest points in order of a DIY machine FYI:
    1. Router bit - deflection
    2. Z overhang-plate twist
    3. Gantry twist and bend ,
    4. Gantry sides
    5. bearings/assuming you use square
    6.Spindle power
    7. Balscrew support bearings, spindle bearings
    8...etc
    Wen i consider the list of week points, i think of it more the order i would want it to break if it does go wrong. I need to put my design is sketchup so you can see it,

    am thinking ( but will acsept that am wrong, ), is that No 1 should be the baring mount screws or the baring, I think you will understand when you see my X design.

  6. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by george uk View Post
    Hi



    .

    I have seen this happen, Nema23 on z, Z bocx mounted forward like you pictured. Z down gave it enough leaver, that when his limit switch failed, put a slight bend in a very well constructed Y gantry, both the mounting rails and ballscrew had a noticable movment when passing the point were it had bent.

    He was very ham fisted with his limit switches, hence it failed, but it did bend it, i will have a go at doing the math tonight again,
    Thats why i insist that only 2 possible models of homing and limit switches should exist, no other variation trade-offs, like the ones popularized by Mach3 in fact:

    1. Small hobby machines with weak motors and more or less rigid / like mine current one/ - no limit switches, instead software limits . Mistake, axis go to end , motor stalls and nothing happens. Probably limits only on Z, as there could be a problem with flimsier ones/ like mine :-)/ Its typical situation where the BOB has limited I/O.

    2.BOB with a lot of I/O and homing and limit on for each axis on SEPARATE I/O, so a limit switch is a limit switch, nothing else. Thats what i intend to do and advice you for your build, this with my limited knowledge. And if servos, the limit switches directly to the servos, not the BOB, i don't see a reason why the servo should wait for the BOB to tell him to stop. Cause with servo, a lot could happen in a very short time if geared and running fast. It seems most of the servos i looked at support it, so they stop and later they tell the BOB that they are not moving .

  7. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by silyavski View Post
    -With servos: If Mach 3 outputs as max 100kHz pulse/ even less normally/, then why should i care to buy a board like the CSMIO or other? I know, apart from the reliability and connections, i mean. Every modern servo drive can upscale by gearing the frequency and generate the proper signal , so why waste money on expensive cards that will do exactly the same thing in fact? I start to believe that the driver generating the pulses will be quite better and reliable..
    It seems that mach3 is the limiting factor, not the board?
    Mach3 is only the limiting factor when using the parallel port and even then it's Not really Mach3 it's the Parallel port and it's driver.
    When you use an external motion control card all these restrictions are taken away and infact Mach3 does very little other than watch I/O's and this is why low spec PC and Laptops can be used.

    Now with servo's the freqency rate becomes important because the encoders and depending on the encoder count will depend on if you need higher than 100Khz. Which for most servos you will with out using the electronic gearing feature built into the drives.
    Most who are using servos avoid electronic gearing because it lowers resolution and often the whole point of servo's and encoders is to give high resolution.

    Now lets say you are using typical servo's with quadrature encoders having 2500cpr this means you need 10,000 pulses per rev so divideing the controler Pulse rate (IE: KHZ) by this amount gives Pulses per sec then times x 60 will determine the maximum speed you'll get from the Servo's. . .IE: 100Khz / 10,000ppr=10pps x 60s=600RPM

    So has you can see 100Khz won't be much good if have 3000rpm servos has the fastest speed you'll get is 600rpm.!!

    Now if the drives have electronic gearing multiplier then you can use this at the expense of resolution. So when 4x multiplier is applied then for every 1 pulse Mach3 controller sends out the drive will see it has 4 so 100Khz becomes 400Khz but the resolution is divided by 4.!!
    400khz/10,000x60=2400Rpm better but still not enough so you'll need to use the nearest or above to give the 500Khz you'll need for 3000rpm with 2500CPR encoders.!!
    Electronic gearing can be ok for some machines because the resolution will be very high to start with.!!

    The next problem comes from the BOBs if used and it's Max pulse rate causing a bottle neck and yep most typical BOB's don't go that high so you'll need a very fast BOB and high quality BOB if your using servos with high pulse counts.
    This is also why lots of High end motion control cards don't use BOB's so to speak (IE Csmio) and connect direct to any devices attached or thru dedicated daughter boards which don't cause a bottle neck.!

    So be warned to all those dreaming of using servo's just be aware they take you to another all new level of head scratching and expense.!! . . . . . So I honestly suggest you ask your self do you Really Really Really need Servo's.??? . . . . . . . Oh and just be aware they are still not closed Loop with Mach3.!! . . . . . The best they can do is Fault if they see a following error.

    For 99.9% of DIY machines and even relatively slower Light industrial machines steppers if spec'd and setup correctly are far far far less hassle and plenty accurate enough.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JAZZCNC For This Useful Post:


  9. #47
    Dean,

    thanks for the great input, cleared some clouds :-) , but still my question stands:

    Mach3 outputs normally 25khz pulse. On a perfect PC it could output stable 100kHz /or even up to 300kHz before it locks, on a top computer, according to its creators/ .

    Now, how these 100kz become 1Mhz or 4Mhz on CSMIO, Galil or whatsoever when mach3 outputs only pulses, not trajectory information. They generate them, the same way a geared servo drive generates them, so in fact - no real resolution benefit at all with expensive boards for the $$$, coupled with servos, steppers and Mach3. Apart from the reliability , ethernet or usb connection and I/O. It seems to me that these Mhz they are offering are a hype. No body can prove to me that a generated signal from a BOB is better from the same signal generated from a Panasonic servo drive electronically geared, for example.

    Dont ask me who put this in my head :-) but now i have it clear after that digging, it took me a week to wake up from the hype- until Mach3 or 4 or.. closes the loop at the PC and transmits trajectory signal to the motion control, i wouldn't care for the Mhz of the boards. It wouldnt happen on windows, except on some kind of dedicated hardware pc probably.

    That investigation answered the other questions of mine, why the good DSP motion control cards have + encoder inputs, / not only for Analog servo drives i mean/ . And why a separate dedicated motion control solution for a machine is so darn expensive.

    Now seems Linux a kind of do that what we are speaking of. Wow, i am starting to defend Linux

  10. #48
    No you miss understand. Mach is only limited and prone to crashing when using the Parallel port at high Khz ratings.
    The Parallel port and it's driver are the problem when using high Khz and struggle above 60Khz.

    Motion control cards free Mach of these problems and it's Now the job of the Hardware on the Motion control card to generate the pulses NOT Mach3.
    Mach3 just passes the trajectory Data to the Motion control which Buffers it in memory then generates the pulses needed, which it can do at very high pulse rates.

    The main differance between Mach3 and Linux Cnc is that Mach3 and it's Motion control cards have to buffer information and Linux works in real time.
    Can't speak for Linux has I don't use it but I can for MAch3 and it's motion control cards and trust me it's not hype. They do exactly what they say and generate very clean high quality pulses very fast.!!. . . . . If they didn't there would be lots of very very unhappy people who are now daily running industrial machines for there living which have been converted to Mach and using high count Servo's with encoders.!!

    Also not sure what your on about regards Bob and Servo drives.? . . . . Bob does nothing more than distribute signals and servo drive does nothing but receive signals. Again I think you confused here.??
    Last edited by JAZZCNC; 07-01-2014 at 10:26 PM.

  11. #49
    Ok,
    May be i am mistaken in my limited understanding. Will stop here. Still not knowledgeable enough. Will have to investigate further. It still though is quite mystery to me how Mach3 passes trajectory data if it sends only pulses, meaning the card doesn't know whats next or what to expect. May be it has to do something with the drivers/plugins for each card and mach3.

    No problems with the BOBs :-) , just want to make sure they do all what they claim to do and don't mislead us in some subtle way. Want to be a wise buyer and make sure where my $ could do a better job.

  12. #50
    Mach doesn't send Pulses it sends "DATA". . .Has in Trajectory DATA to the Motion control Card which use's this DATA and does some Complex Maths with it to then create "PULSES" which it outputs to the drives at very high speed and with nice clear crisp signal. Whether that be Stepper or Servo drives or any device that expects Pulse signals.

    Now if you want Closed Loop with Mach3 then you can have it.? . . . . But Mach can't do it internally, the Motion control card has to do it and there are very few that do and these come at a cost.

    Electronic gearing in Servo drives are just Multipliers, they can only multiply what comes in and essentialy this comes from the encoder. So to give an overly simplified example say the lowest resolution your encoder can read equals 1mm and you have 4:1 gearing in the Drive then your lowest count or best resolution encoder can read now = 4mm. . . . So your speed increases but your resolution drops.!! . . . . . . Just has in life Everything that's free cost's something.!!
    Last edited by JAZZCNC; 07-01-2014 at 11:53 PM.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to JAZZCNC For This Useful Post:


Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Design Help Pt2 Required for CNC design/Build
    By MikeyC38 in forum Gantry/Router Machines & Building
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 21-07-2014, 02:05 PM
  2. Design help etc required with DIY CNC Router Design / Build
    By MikeyC38 in forum Gantry/Router Machines & Building
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 21-10-2011, 04:50 PM
  3. Opinions
    By p1lts in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-02-2011, 08:47 PM
  4. RFQ: Manual Lathe Repair & Syil SX3 CNC Re-build Required.
    By Chas in forum Projects, Jobs & Requests
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-11-2010, 09:28 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •