gmoccapy plasma struggle bus

We agree on most of what you said here. However, you cannot assume that using external hardware is obsolete or not the way to go. One example, Hypertherm has an interface to their plasma cutters that works on a comms link. That is an external piece of hardware and in order to interface with it you will need to write a component. That is why the original Plasma screen was written in the way it is.

I predict that in the future all plasma sources will have this interface and then we will no longer need external hardware.

I am happy to see that there other contributions and as long as you dont break current system go for it. You will however not be able to submit a plasma screen with the same name as there are systems out there that use the current functionality as it is. I am busy with such a system as we speak.

I would like to see a plasma version that is done for Mesa and the THCMOD but as I said, not at the expense of the current system.
As you rightly said there are many ways of doing THC.

Remember that some people make an income from selling their external hardware. They cannot charge for LinuxCnc but they can for their hardware and their effort. That means they are not a user with a one time requirement but a machine builder with a very much varying requirement. Again hence the way the plasma screen was written.

I built a Laser machine of 6m x 4m with 150w laser using the plasma screen with some minor changes. All the work was done with external components. It was not difficult at all because it all happened outside of the python environment. I am waiting on permission from Norbert and if so I will publish the laser screen and config.

I will revisit the WIKI to see if I can improve on some stuff.

Please share a link to PhilC's stuff.

mariusl wrote:

We agree on most of what you said here. However, you cannot assume that using external hardware is obsolete or not the way to go. One example, Hypertherm has an interface to their plasma cutters that works on a comms link. That is an external piece of hardware and in order to interface with it you will need to write a component. That is why the original Plasma screen was written in the way it is.

There are already examples of python code that communicates via Hypertherm's RS485 interface that have been shared on the forum. I think it would be possible to achieve this in real time using the UART that is included in many Mesa devices and which is already supported in LinuxCNC. But at the fixed serial port speeds adopted by Hypertherm, its unlikely real time will be useful in the air plasma's most people use with LinuxCNC.

mariusl wrote:

I predict that in the future all plasma sources will have this interface and then we will no longer need external hardware.

Your future is already here in 2018. The new Hypertherm High definition plasmas can optionally use Ethercat and allow you read various statuses in real time.eg gas pressures, torch voltage, ArcOK etc. Of course you can control the device by Ethercat commands as well. We already have ethercat support so interfacing for these devices won't be that hard but the test bed will be expensive!

mariusl wrote:

Remember that some people make an income from selling their external hardware. They cannot charge for LinuxCnc but they can for their hardware and their effort. That means they are not a user with a one time requirement but a machine builder with a very much varying requirement. Again hence the way the plasma screen was written.

Personally, I think their days are numbered and its only a matter of time they end up on the scrap heap of technology along with external SCSI drives.. Jim Colt, brand ambassador for Hypertherm states that the very best THC systems are managed internally by the motion controller and its trajectory planner. He went on to say thats how Hypertherm does it. Thats how LinuxCNC can do it too. Some of what has been happening here in open source is very disruptive technology as we are finally seeing what is truly possible with internal THC managed by LinuxCNC.

People can still charge for their effort with a LinuxCNC software solution, they just need to keep confidential the code for the components they write and distribute their binaries with the hardware they sell.

But I thought that the goal of open source was to bring proven working code to the masses in a spirit of open communication. There are a couple of manufacturers that have been part of that conversation but their need to protect their IP does cause conflicts from time to time.

mariusl wrote:

Please share a link to PhilC's stuff.

Where have you been this last month?
forum.linuxcnc.org/plasma-laser/35449-an...ma-component?start=0