Advanced Search

endian wrote:

 
I saw at my own eyes synchronization of 120 seconds with beckhoff SoE AX5125 driver with older firmware ... its not odd behaviour 

beckhoff IPCs have sometime very similar behaviour with their own hardware from my close experiences...

The more i read here about ethercat = the less i like it.
Thank you for pointing out the quirks, not only the good stuff.
 

ethercat is the best from the best ... everything has some + / - ... finally synchronization issues and these childhood illnesses are not fault of the ethercat protocol itselft which is very robust... Its issue of HW at side of master, slave or connection itself ... 

If we use native bckhff driver at native stuff around these issues are suppressed limiting to zero ...

 

I have a 600PPR quadrature encoder linked to my spindle with a 3:1 ratio, so 7200 PPR @ mesa spindle encoder input. A & B quadrature signals only, no 1PPR signal, but I don't think I need the 1PPR signal.

In Halshow
 - spindle.0.revs counts up as expected
 - spindle.0.speed-in appears correct
 - spindle.0.index-enable is disabled

in my SM-10.hal file I have: 
net spindle-index-enable      <=>  spindle.0.index-enable

IF I comment out this line, I can then enable spindle.0.index-enable manually in Halshow

Regardless when I try to open my 2 line G76 program I get the following error:
"Chosen spindle(0) not turning in G76"

I'm not sure if this is a HAL configuration issue or perhaps I need to do something in the gcode prior to the G76 command, not sure?

I have attached files for clarity.

Thanks,
Jeff


 

Hi eraserhd,

Thank you for your answer. I'd like to hear more about that spinlock var; I'm a noob in coding but willing to learn. I quickly checked your repo and saw that you changed tons of things. I didn't go into the details but will get into the code and test it soon.

On my side, found out that it works stable if I don't use the base thread. And as I'm currently trying to work with TMC5160 in full SPI (with the driver internal step generator), I can live with the servo thread only.

Found it, i forgot the python section in the ini file

Hello forum,
I have 6 x 1KW Lichuan LC20 drives and have been trying to get them to work with Raspberry Pi 4B 4GB and LinuxCNC for about 9 months.  I realised I don't have the technical knowhow to make this work.  Using this forum, youtube and Grok, I was able to get close, getting the Raspberry Pi to work as a master and I even got all 6 drives to work as slaves, but trying to get them in to OP mode proved impossible.  On one occasion, when I unplugged 5 of the 6 drives, I managed to get it to go into OP mode but have not been able to replicate it since.  And I have never been able to understand how to get them to turn using LinuxCNC, that baffles me a bit so I have never actually seen the motors work ever.
I am open to buying hardware that kinda works out of the box but I have no idea what that is.  
Can anybody on this forum work with me over time to help me to get these things to work with LinuxCNC, or even Mach???  I can't return them, and after spending $2K on them, I can't afford to buy something a little more 'out of the box'.
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
Andrew.
 

Witam udało mi się uruchomić z płytą SSK-MB2
to link
Ciekawostka chińska alternatywa MESY - Strona 6 - cnc.info.pl - FORUM CNC

The proposal on the table is a new modal G64.1 P Q
jerk-aware continuous path mode that behaves like G64 P Q but adds automatic full stop fallback when the jerk-constrained cornering velocity rounds to zero. Off by default to preserve existing behavior, opt-in for integrators who need provably clean command streams or are running drives without internal interpolation. That seems like the right balance between being true to the physics and being useful across the wide range of hardware LinuxCNC runs on.

I agree.

voila cela fonctionne parfaitement ,il fallait enlever le not sur l 'entree 12

Nice!

Hi, i installed probebasic on debian bookworm, can reference the machine and jog, but get this error when calling m6: (from the logfile)
qtpyvcp.plugins.notifications - ERROR - pycall(remap.change_prolog) failed
Thanks Michael


 

Is it this?  github.com/cakeslob/RRW_LAB
google does not find it but duckduckgo shows it first

@rodw

Agreed that the planner should be true to the physics, but the physics here has two valid outcomes depending on the machine. A small bounded jerk spike on a 1ms grid at a sharp corner is absorbed transparently by any drive with internal interpolation, the part comes out correct, no stop needed. On a drive without internal interpolation, the spike is real and a stop is the right answer. Both are physically correct responses to the same situation on different hardware.

The point is not to hide the problem but to give the integrator the right tool to handle it. A blind stop at every corner where the jerk limit cannot be met on the 1ms grid would significantly hurt cycle time on complex CAM toolpaths for no benefit on machines where the drive handles it anyway.

The proposal on the table is a new modal G64.1 P Q
jerk-aware continuous path mode that behaves like G64 P Q but adds automatic full stop fallback when the jerk-constrained cornering velocity rounds to zero. Off by default to preserve existing behavior, opt-in for integrators who need provably clean command streams or are running drives without internal interpolation. That seems like the right balance between being true to the physics and being useful across the wide range of hardware LinuxCNC runs on.

Yes, I was aware of the issues. Blind workflows where you have little control over the inputs is always a problem compared with a closed workflow.
My thought is you should be true to the physics. If a blind stop is required, do it. If the outcome is undesirable, its up to the user and his client to resolve.

Just because a part can be designed in paper or computer, does not mean it is machinable.

@endian
Exactly right, the cycle time is a fundamental constraint that belongs in the tolerance budget, not something to fight against. G-code level control of spike tolerance makes a lot of sense and aligns well with what I have been discussing as a TP option.

@rodw
Fair point in an ideal world, but LinuxCNC has to interface with a very wide range of CAM outputs, many of which the end user has no control over. We should strive for maximum compatibility. Yes, some G-code will be genuinely nonsense and will need fixing at the source, but for cases where the geometry is valid and the only issue is a parameter mismatch between the toolpath and the machine limits, an INI or G-code option that lets the integrator choose the behavior is the right balance rather than rejecting the job outright.

andypugh wrote:

I have a need for some Pico hardware to validate some updates to the driver (github.com/LinuxCNC/linuxcnc/issues/2331)

Could I persuade you to send the cards to the UK (and maybe reduce the price even more, as this is for the project, not for me, and the project has exactly zero money)
 

How much does the project need me to send the OP?

I can't code my way out of a paper bag, but I know how to solve this problem.