From: Robert E. <rw...@gm...> - 2016-09-26 12:22:44
|
Hi Kirk, The best way to compare would be Z acceleration. It's easy to add to the HAL file (needs an extra differentiator). Then, we can look directly at the magnitudes of acceleration. Lower amplitude = less jitter. On a slight tangent what do you think of adding a warning / error if the TP can't reach the requested feed in G33 moves? It seems that if you're doing threading, close enough is not good enough in terms of tracking. The user might want to know before they cut that the spindle speed or feed / rev is too high. On Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 10:45 PM Kirk Wallace <kwa...@wa...> wrote: > On 09/25/2016 04:46 PM, Robert Ellenberg wrote: > > Hi Kirk, > > > > Thanks for giving it a run! It is hard to tell if it's an improvement, > but > > it does look like it's tracking smoothly, It would likely help to compare > > the same run without the patch to see if the velocity jitters more. > > Oops, I'm sorry, what I posted was a run of the stock LinuxCNC on my > lathe as a baseline. I haven't installed your fork yet. At this point I > think I have two tasks, update to Jon's timestamp feature and also try > your fork. If you can give me a hint for what to look for that may help, > or I'll look at the issue entries and go from there. > > I seem to recall, quite a few years back my threading on this lathe was > very unstable at the start of the thread. I think synchronized threading > was fairly new, and someone on the list said to try the new (now old) > version. Since then threading has worked very well. Jon's timestamp > feature has been around for a while, but I haven't used my lathe much > until recently. > > > -- > Kirk Wallace > http://www.wallacecompany.com/machine_shop/ > http://www.wallacecompany.com/E45/ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Emc-developers mailing list > Emc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers > |