From: Gene H. <ghe...@wd...> - 2013-09-30 05:01:25
|
On Monday 30 September 2013 00:25:56 Chris Morley did opine: > > We/I have. So while I'm still rowing with a toothpick here, I do not > > see the need to further the complexity of motion. The tools to build > > the 3 level suicide braking system for my lathe are right there in > > hal today. > > Thanks for your comments. > I'm not understanding which side you're voting for Gene. Voting that since motion is now a fairly complex piece, increasing its complexity unless the signals are there now but just not "pinned out", I see no real overpowering reason to seed it with more slow hatching bugs. > I am not adding complexity to motion, I am adding two pins. > This simplifies HAL code for other people. If they are there, and just need "bonding out", thats a different horse, probably already well trained. > My changes are to simplify a common configuration problem. > This didn't just pop up yesterday from someone using obscure > equipment. I've dealt with it a few times, what finally prompted me > to build a patch was a comment from Peter Wallace about it in the > forum. The devs and power users on the forum tend to see the common > problems for users. If it's easy and makes some sense I like to try > and eliminate recurring end user problems. > > I most say with a HAL file of what almost 300 lines I think you said, I > hardly think adding complexity is your primary worry ! :) You must > eat and breathe HAL code now! Yabut (yeah, that famous yabut) I goofed a bit, and I just recently found that with the current lashup I have cobbled up in hal, if I want to run the spindle backwards I have to start it fwd at about 1 rpm first. So there is still a subtle bug in all that hal stuff. I have a rockhopper drawing on inside of the left 2nd door to the shop, so I need to drag it open and study on it to refresh my aging wet ram now, which is about 90 days since I taped it there, thinking I was finally done. But, that complexity is right there in front of me, not hidden inside a module I can't see into. To me, that is a preferred scenario. OTOH, see the size of my oar. :) There was, before I started trying to synthesize a stop phase, a wish I had for another signal from motion, but that was last spring and we all know what happens to short term memory at my age. I try to pass it off with humor, but its real. > My change will not affect you what so ever. > > Removing all the extra spindle pins from motion and using another > component most likely will and in fact most likely will for everyone, > past, present and of course future. > > As I said if we were starting clean, or didn't care about current users, > It would make some sense to pull out the pins. > But there is little upside other then feeling good about motion being > less prickly with pins. > > When Michael rewrites motion and remove NML etc that would probably > be a time when we can say hey lets not worry too much about breaking > configs because (My guess ) lots of things will need changes. > That is the time to remove extra motion pins and add a generic spindle > control component. With staged braking for those that reverse via DPDT relays. My current setup throws a 24 ohm load above 750 revs, drops it to 4 ohms below, then crowbars the motor when its down to about 175 revs. Out of pity for the PM fields. That controller can do 25 amps, but I ramp the PID input to keep it at not more than 9, which is still, for a motor that size, a pretty brisk windup. There is also a desire to not be too brutal to the backgears in that 7x headstock since its now swinging a 5" chuck that weighs around 20 lbs. > All MHO of course. > > Chris M And in the long run I think it makes sense to do it that way once its been explained like that. I just didn't want to be surprised by my next pull from the buildbot, I do try to stay current with 2.5.3. Cheers, Gene -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) FOOLED you! Absorb EGO SHATTERING impulse rays, polyester poltroon!! A pen in the hand of this president is far more dangerous than 200 million guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens. |