. .

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Neale View Post
    You shouldn't just wire two controllers in parallel and drive them from the same BOB output; in theory it might work but I can see that if the driver inputs are opto-isolated, there could be issues. So, ideally, you need a way to generate synchronised drive pulses on master and slave axes. That could be via Mach3 (can it do that internally?) or LinuxCNC (same question),
    In LinuxCNC you can just assign two step pins to the same axis and the same for the direction pins. If you are just sending the signal to each, that's a bit of a waste of pins - you might as well connect the same pins to both drivers inputs and if the impedance of the breakout board is too high to drive them properly, just buffer it with your favorite logic gate / transistor. In fact you can kill two birds with one stone here - we need the Arduino board to also be connected to the driver inputs, so the easiest way to do that is to for example put an OR gate in so either signal can reach the drivers. Just be safe I'd block the signal from the parallel port with an AND/NAND gate to ensure the computer can't accidentally move the machine whilst the Arduino is homing it.

    Once the Arduino has set the gantry square, you can safely send the same signals to both drivers and leave the Arduino idle, or even use it for some sort of fault protection to monitor both motors and detect loss of synchronization.

    Quote Originally Posted by Irving
    It's amazing how cheap Arduino's have become, but I'm starting to like them over a raw PIC just for the ease of programming and deploying them - writing a sketch is very quick in the IDE on the PC then testing it is arguably much easier, IMHO, than doing the same with a PIC
    I tend to agree - they're a good 'stepping-stone', until you meet the limits imposed by their IDE, to programming them 'properly' in C/ASM. On a vaguely related topic, have you spotted this one? It's a bit good.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neale View Post
    With the an advanced algorithm it homes both motors simultaneously and after that it performs gantry geometry correction.
    Advanced, really! The sad thing is that this isn't remotely advanced, so should really be included either way...

    It's occurred to me that one could quite easily program LinuxCNC to set the gantry square by making a profile that defines the X axes motors as separate axes. You then run some G-code (or something more sophisticated, who cares) to set the gantry square, then load the normal profile to run the machine.
    Last edited by Jonathan; 01-12-2014 at 05:53 PM.
    Old router build log here. New router build log here. Lathe build log here.
    Electric motorbike project here.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. ES-D1008 + CSMIO/IP-S wiring
    By Matt81 in forum CS-Lab (CSMIO)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-05-2014, 10:56 PM
  2. Home Switches & Slave Axis in Mach 3
    By Tenson in forum Artsoft Mach (3 & 4)
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-03-2014, 11:43 PM
  3. CSMIO/IP-M vs Ethernet SmoothStepper (Begone foul parallel port!)
    By Greeny in forum Control Hardware & Systems
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 14-11-2013, 11:59 PM
  4. NEW MEMBER: Goal - Enable 3-Axis CNC Bed Mill to Perform 5-Axis Milling
    By LoveLearn in forum New Member Introductions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 25-01-2012, 08:46 PM
  5. Precision metal processing (3 axis, 5 axis, 7 axis) OEM
    By 7AxisCNC in forum Manufacturer News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 17-05-2011, 02:04 PM

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
  •