...but that is really difficult to find. Of course, it could be done with 2 or even 4 individual switches also.
Printable View
It is getting difficult to help because I don't know your background and don't have a clue about your wiring or who did the original work, but I'll make a new effort.
1. If you are sure you NEVER will use the enable signal then you don't have to care about that, so just ignore as it is ignored in your picture.
2. Check PUL - and DIR - with a DMM, I think those are connected to the same source, so basically you could have only the blue wire connected and from that bridge to PUL -.
3. In theory, if both your controlling devices share a common signal ground then you don't need to switch that signal, but it is a good engineering practice to do it, so I would definitely switch that also.
4. This leaves you with three signals to switch and these are the same as PUL + , DIR + and DIR -. Remember that DIR - is bridged to PUL - otherwise it will not work.
In the end, according to the above, you will need a relay which can switch three signals, but you won't find such relay. They are always made as 1, 2 or 4 (or more) pole relays.
I wouldn't assume -DIR or -STEP are connected to ground, the output circuit could be a NPN transistor (open collector). So the safest bet would be to put each (for lack of better description signal) on a separate pole.
Maybe the output circuit of one of the boards can recognize an open circuit, on either the STEP or DIR causing a fault condition.
The user has provided no circuit diagrams so it is really hard to say which way to jump.
It would be the same as asking a programmer to design a routine to process a data packet without actually telling them anything about the format of the data packet.
If you'd looked at the relevant photo, you would see the Enable on the driver has nothing connected to it, plus there is also the post stating he doesn't want the axis to become disabled to avoid the axis dropping, so connecting the enable is not needed.
Not on the existing step source, as again, the photo shows differential outputs.Quote:
GND is the same as STEP - , DIR - and EN -. It is better to connect those to the same - output as the one providing the control signals. Again, it would do no harm and we know too little about his design and implementation.
However I did think about this earlier, as the alternative controller may not have differential outputs, so some thought may be needed in that regard.
All relays, apart from specialist relays have minimum switching currents. It is not something that only applies to contactors.Quote:
That's why I said that a small signal relay needs to be used, not a contactor. You talk about a contactor which is designed for high voltage and current.
Good relay manufacturer's will publish the relevant detail in the datasheet.
Well, taking your advices I have a relay with appropriate socket on the way
https://www.rapidonline.com/Relpol-R...-Relay-61-6063
and I will connect Pul-, Pul+,Dir- and Dir+ and power the relay from a 12V power supply.
I also bought this fancy button
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/...?ie=UTF8&psc=1 .
The last advice need it is where should I connect the button to make the change of the inputs?
Thank you
Gabi
Yes, that's the key issue. We are all only guessing. I provided my solution, but yes, other solutions might be needed, we have no idea since we don't have enough information about his design. I was however very clear that the solution I proposed is what I use and it works for me, and I bet you that I could make it work with his driver also.
There are two documented possible ways of connecting the driver, in one case you bridge all the + to the same and switch all the - signals, the other way is what I am using, which is I think the most commonly used. Basically there is very little difference between them (I know that electrically the difference is huge), and both uses the same principle, but without knowing all the details of his solution it is impossible the say which is right and which is wrong.
Attachment 30722
Yes, that's the key issue. We are all only guessing. I provided my solution, but yes, other solutions might be needed, we have no idea since we don't have enough information about his design. I was however very clear that the solution I proposed is what I use and it works for me, and I bet you that I could make it work with his driver also.
There are two documented possible ways of connecting the driver, in one case you bridge all the + to the same and switch all the - signals, the other way is what I am using, which is I think the most commonly used. Basically there is very little difference between them (I know that electrically the difference is huge), and both uses the same principle, but without knowing all the details of his solution it is impossible the say which is right and which is wrong.
Attachment 30722