Fusion 360 - Lathe Post ??

That's an interesting paper. I see no mention of lathe or G95 in there, so presumably the lathe content came later. As I mentioned, it seems to me that most of the lathe stuff resembles Fanuc Group Type B which itself predates this year 2000 paper. I'm guessing somebody in the EMC / LinuxCNC developer community must have needed to figure out which way to go. I wonder if they are still active here or is that part of the history lost in the mist of time?

Muzzer:

Did you mean G76 rather than G71? I believe I deleted my thread model but would only take a minute to rebuild it. If you'd like I'll try to send you a copy of the model. Send me an email address and I'll give it a try.

When I rebuild the threading model I'll see if I can duplicate your results regarding thread pitch.

Yep, a closing G94 (or G95) should go in the onClose. It would assure the machine is in a consistent state after program end.


I think I remember someone here saying EMC was based on an long ago G-code and still is closest to that company's control language. I swear I remember this, but know for a fact my memory is poor. Seems to have all started around 2000 for hobby use. I remember spending 3-4 12 hour days getting EMC running from floppies around this time. I'm pretty sure it had no pre-coded lathe functionality then.

Wikipedia says about G-code "The main standardized version used in the United States was settled by the Electronic Industries Alliance in the early 1960s". But that group wasn't called that till 1997, they may mean its predecessor "Electronic Industries Association". It seems the EIA put out a "final revision" in 1980 as RS-274-D. They go on to say the market between 1970 and 1990 was dominated by Fanuc (in the USA), and many manufacturers based their controllers on this. Fanuc G-codes, circa 1996, sure look familiar. It includes G33 and G76 for turning. I think this was in place when NIST came on the scene. Whatever sources they started with they began development of EMC (LinuxCNC) for us. Cool.


That was an interesting diversion. Now back to something productive.

Thanks.

Hugh