Connecting to a CNC machine, pros and cons of USB vs PP vs Ethernet etc.

[JAZZCNC]

Jess Enough now please your splitting Hairs to suit your unrealistic cause, again detracting from L.A.N problem.!! . . . Drop it sit back and watch this machine running on a CSlabs Ethernet motion controller doing all those things you say Ethernet can't do.!!

[Jess]

Jess Enough now please your splitting Hairs to suit your unrealistic cause, again detracting from L.A.N problem.!!

From the perspective of my own experience, the distinctions I'm making are significant.

To try to explain: It's a bit like someone claiming you can do (arbitrary) under cuts on a vertical mill that has 3 axes. If you're a machinist, whether it's a 3, 4 or 5 axis job is a big difference, but to someone who just wants their design made it might seem like a trivial issue after all, it's 'just one more'.

Apologies for the detraction from the L.A.N. problem, though, you're absolutely right. I was erked by someone claiming a couple of decades of experience, but then, making the sort of error that should have been learned on day one. (Like if someone told you they had 20 years of experience as a machinist, but then couldn't explain climb versus conventional milling.)

Drop it sit back and watch this machine running on a CSlabs Ethernet motion controller doing all those things you say Ethernet can't do.!!

It's an example of moving the controller, so Ethernet doesn't have to deal with realtime demands (my point 2). Actually, you made this distinction really well earlier in the thread, when you referred to this kind of setup as 'Buffered not realtime'.

Very cool video too though! :)

[JAZZCNC]

Well I'm not going any deeper because you clearly don't get that Mach3 isn't real time so WTF does it matter.!! . . All I'll say is if it's good enough for them it's good enough for me.!! . . . . . http://www.haas.co.uk/

Check the "Whats Included" list Second from bottom.!!!


Oh and who says you can't undercut with 3 Axis.!!. . . . .. . I've done it many times.!!

[Jess]

Well I'm not going any deeper because you clearly don't get that Mach3 isn't real time so WTF does it matter.!!

I just quoted you on those Ethernet controls (like the CSlab) being 'buffered not realtime' because it's a great way of putting it, so, yes, I definitely get that part!

Oh and who says you can't undercut with 3 Axis.!!

I included the word 'arbitrary' to try to rule out the use of specialised tooling as used in that video (and, of course, to rule out things like tilting tables, vices etc.,)

However, it works just as well as the example: you jumped in with a correction because you saw something you felt to be misleading.

This is exactly the same thing as I've done - difference is that I've been called a fair few names plus suggestions of physical violence for my trouble.

[magicniner]

I get it, Ethernet isn't suitable for something no-one here needs to do, good point(less) well made!
I didn't mention TCP/IP and in that I was wrong, I suspect there is very little TCP/IP-Free Ethernet in use outside industrial applications though.
As for ethernet being unsuitable for rigid tapping and other "closed loop" control processes you are entirely correct and that's why it isn't used for that, but neither is any other remote communication system - the motion controller deals with closed loop rigid tapping locally.
;-)

[JAZZCNC]

This is exactly the same thing as I've done - difference is that I've been called a fair few names plus suggestions of physical violence for my trouble.

Twas a Joke Hence the Jester.!! . . . The names I stand by because to me you where being a ***REMOVED*** for arguing something that wasn't relavant and pointless to the discussion.! My reference to USB motion controllers being troublesome with Mach3 and Ethernet not being was based on Fact thru experience not theory. You where just being provoking IMO.!! . . . I was stupid enough to respond I should have known better.!

Now FFS lets leave it alone.!!

Except this.!!

I included the word 'arbitrary' to try to rule out the use of specialised tooling as used in that video

Nothing specialised about that tool it's just a T-slot cutter.!!!

MODERATED: Section 2 of the Community & Forum Guidelines, points 5 & 6.

What you should NOT do:

• Discuss or link to objectionable and/or offensive topics. This is not permitted and includes but is not limited to: things of a violent nature, pornography, sexism, racism and/or other discriminatory subjects, this includes things considered to be as a “joke”. Religious and/or political discussions or anything considered to be of the same nature are not appropriate for these forums and will be removed from public viewing.
• Create threads and/or posts deemed to be soliciting any kind of harassment, discrimination, flaming, trolling and/or behaviour considered by the site staff as intentionally abusive or inappropriate. Such content will be removed from public viewing.

[Jess]

Twas a Joke Hence the Jester.!!

Yeah, I saw the jester, but I'm afraid that it didn't entirely put my mind at ease at the time. I guess I'm jaded, heard too many 'jokes' where someone's actually a bit more serious than they're letting on etc., If I actually knew you, of course, I'm sure my interpretation would have been totally different!

arguing something that wasn't relavant and pointless to the discussion.!

From my side, if you're interested:

L.A.N. had just bought a machine with a USB controller, so whatever ethernet ones did was irrelevant; if you've just paid well over £3k for your mill, the last thing you want to see is that you need to go buy a different controller (well, except that it's jammed itself in estop again, of course.)

At this point if I'd read 'The Same can't be said for USB Controllers they've all been irratic and unpredictable...they're just not good or suitable for reliable Motion control', I think we'd have been fine. There's lots of (frankly) crap computer peripherals, so a few dozen more isn't a surprise - especially with USB peripherals where the spec often feels more a guide to how it won't be implemented.

Unfortunately, I read 'The Same can't be said for USB it's irratic and unpredictable...it's not a good or suitable connection for reliable Motion control'...I replied about USB as a connection (I've experience with it on the design side) and the rest is...well...this thread.

Now FFS lets leave it alone.!!

Deal.

Nothing specialised about that tool it's just a T-slot cutter.!!!

It's not fancy, but I think we both know what I was trying to get at there! (Also, I'll take an undercut of twice the diameter of your largest t-slot cutter! )

I get it, Ethernet isn't suitable for something no-one here needs to do, good point(less) well made!

I've found that it's dangerous on forums like these to assume that nobody needs to do it...and exceptionally dangerous to assume that no one wants to do it!

I suspect there is very little TCP/IP-Free Ethernet in use outside industrial applications though.

There's a good bit actually! Ignoring nitpicks like UDP/IP, SCTP/IP etc.,
Just off the top of my head, there's methods of attaching hard disks (like ATA over Ethernet), some thin clients etc., PPPoE does too, and that's used by almost everyone who's got VDSL2 (BT Infinity) or got Virgin Media before they moved supplying an all-in-one.

And of course, some of the industrial standards go and use, say, UDP/IP anyway!

but neither is any other remote communication system - the motion controller deals with closed loop rigid tapping locally.
;-)

If the communication system was explicitly designed for control purposes, you can! If you want to see a video example, the spindle encoder in the earlier rigid tapping video Dean posted is connected over CANbus. I'm sure that you can also do it over other things like Modbus/RS485 too...but I'm not going to bother finding examples.

[JAZZCNC]

If the communication system was explicitly designed for control purposes, you can! If you want to see a video example, the spindle encoder in the earlier rigid tapping video Dean posted is connected over CANbus. I'm sure that you can also do it over other things like Modbus/RS485 too...but I'm not going to bother finding examples.

There you go splitting hairs again when you actually don't know the full story or have experience of the controller.!!
The only reason it's using CANbus because it's a External I/O module that connects to the Main Controller Via CANbus. Hood could have easily connected straight to the main IP-A controller, but with So much I/O to make the Chiron work he's using the I/O Module.!!. . . The Controller still does all the Work and number crunching. CANbus is just used has an easy and stable way to move I/O modules around large machines to localise I/O and keep short Signal wire runs. Other wise it would mean running long signal wires back thru machines risking EMF issues.

Yeah, I saw the jester, but I'm afraid that it didn't entirely put my mind at ease at the time. I guess I'm jaded, heard too many 'jokes' where someone's actually a bit more serious than they're letting on etc., If I actually knew you, of course, I'm sure my interpretation would have been totally different!

Rest assured your not and never where in any Danger from me ***REMOVED***. And if you was I'm not stupid enough to post my intentions on a Forum. ***REMOVED***

MODERATED: Section 2 of the Community & Forum Guidelines, points 5 & 6.

What you should NOT do:

• Discuss or link to objectionable and/or offensive topics. This is not permitted and includes but is not limited to: things of a violent nature, pornography, sexism, racism and/or other discriminatory subjects, this includes things considered to be as a “joke”. Religious and/or political discussions or anything considered to be of the same nature are not appropriate for these forums and will be removed from public viewing.
• Create threads and/or posts deemed to be soliciting any kind of harassment, discrimination, flaming, trolling and/or behaviour considered by the site staff as intentionally abusive or inappropriate. Such content will be removed from public viewing.