CamBam
News:
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 18, 2017, 10:02:53 am


Login with username, password and session length


Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
 91 
 on: November 13, 2017, 20:49:50 pm 
Started by jk - Last post by Lou van Wijhe
If I have some time I'll do some testing, but I simulate parts of jobs all the time.  I just name them differently when I get to that point.  Am I missing the point? 

Usually I have a TEST.nc file I use whenever I am doing CAMotics simulations.  I just keep over writing it since I don't cut from it anyway. 

I sometimes create different G-code files per part and do cut from them. So, I thought this would be convenient. Nevertheless, I'm curious about the outcome of your tests.

Lou

 92 
 on: November 13, 2017, 20:48:26 pm 
Started by jk - Last post by EddyCurrent
Right mouse click on a Part name in the tree view.
Then use produce gcode, note the outfile box is empty.

 93 
 on: November 13, 2017, 20:39:12 pm 
Started by jk - Last post by Lou van Wijhe
With my testing I have nothing in the Parts 'outfile' text box, it's just blank.
I can see how the method you are using inserts a dash though.

The problem arises because CamBam uses a "." if a right click method is used but uses a "-" if the outfile method is used  Huh

I'm still pleased with the updated plugin, despite the peculiarities. I know where I have to pay attention to. By the way, where did you use the "right click method".

 94 
 on: November 13, 2017, 15:35:19 pm 
Started by dave benson - Last post by Bob La Londe
Maybe this is over simplification, but why not setup so you can just add a tool post when you need to do that?  A lot of guys run a t-slot table on their cross slide for gang tooling. 

 95 
 on: November 13, 2017, 15:32:40 pm 
Started by jk - Last post by Bob La Londe
If I have some time I'll do some testing, but I simulate parts of jobs all the time.  I just name them differently when I get to that point.  Am I missing the point? 

Usually I have a TEST.nc file I use whenever I am doing CAMotics simulations.  I just keep over writing it since I don't cut from it anyway. 

 96 
 on: November 13, 2017, 11:40:42 am 
Started by jk - Last post by EddyCurrent
With my testing I have nothing in the Parts 'outfile' text box, it's just blank.
I can see how the method you are using inserts a dash though.

The problem arises because CamBam uses a "." if a right click method is used but uses a "-" if the outfile method is used  Huh

 97 
 on: November 13, 2017, 11:33:29 am 
Started by jk - Last post by Lou van Wijhe
The updated plugin works. However, there are some peculiarities:

I have a project named CS Rudder and within it 2 machining parts named Registration Holes and Front Side. When I produce G-code it is placed in a file called CS Rudder.nc and CAMotics starts a project CS Rudder.xml. So far, so good.

1. When I want to produce different G-code files for each part, say for Registration Holes, I click on the [...] button in its Properties panel and CamBam creates a file named {$cbfile.name}-Registration Holes.nc (i.e. CS Rudder-Registration Holes.nc). However, when I then use the Simulate with CAMotics (Part) routine, the dash character is replaced by a full stop character and the simulation doesn’t work. When I manually replace the dash character in the Out-File name by a full stop character, it does work.

2. When I use these unique Out-File part names, I can no longer run a simulation for the entire project because all G-code output goes into the Out Files per part. I suppose this is as designed by CamBam. When I want to review the entire project, I must erase the Out-File part names first.

All in all, the updated plugin works well, with a proviso for the peculiarities.

Thank you!!
Lou

 98 
 on: November 13, 2017, 05:03:59 am 
Started by dave benson - Last post by dave benson
Hi Eddy

Yes it's been a interesting  project  'and' on the whole I'm satisfied with the result, But far from content.

When I started out, the goal was to make a cordless\Bluetooth tool changer that was Plug'n Play
for example if you had a job in the lathe which requires changing to  the manual tool post (perhaps you need to do some deep boring)  then you would unbolt the turret install the manual tool post
and continue on without changing tool scripts or fiddling with mach3 at all.

With the batteries, I was figuring on 500 tool changes at the outset, and so to get 864 just means that
I've got plenty of power left to do something else.

What I propose to do is make another two (based on the lessons learned from this build) and flog them off on Ebay and if  They sell I will use the proceeds to build a Beagle Bone Powered version
with a video camera (maybe a Xbox connect) to run Opencv and some python Ai to add →

1. Home switch functionality
2. True Tool identity
3. Tool Change complete confirmation
4. Tool damage and misalignment
5. Collision Detection\electronic fencing 

I've already drawn up the turret to standard Steel\Fasteners dimensions.
I have some cold rolled 12mm and 16 mm plate.
I've ordered  two more housings which have even heavier bearings but are shorter in the snout.

The new ones will have Bi directional control meaning that the turret will select the shortest path for the next tool change.
As part of doing this requires using two pawl's and a (RC servo or a solenoid ) .
The by product of this is that the turret will be rigidly locked in position for both directions.

I did look at 4 axis positioning capability and with the addition of a disk brake, it would be possible
But not very practical, what you would really need is a high torque compact motor and drivers ect.
that fit in the same space, as the present kit, I did look at one compact atmega2560 board and a slew of micro style stepper drivers, and so miniaturisation is possible for the controller but not the stepper drivers as they don't provide the mode I'm using.

One  thing I'll have a look at is to use one of those “One battery for many tools” and charger from the local big box stores, as the battery has visual indication of charge  as well as low voltage cut-out
in this way I could off board the battery and electronics and free up space inside the turret. And as you can see in the cad file image, there's not much room and that's without the LM298 driver.

The tricky bit would be to machine a fitting to suit the battery.
But I  will look into this as the benefits would clearly outweigh time spent making the CB file in the first place.

Dave








 
 

 99 
 on: November 12, 2017, 22:10:58 pm 
Started by jk - Last post by Lou van Wijhe
Thanks very much for this, Eddy. I do have <regen_gfile_before_post>true</regen_gfile_before_post> in cb2cm.config.

I'll test the update tomorrow and come back to you. At the moment it's close to midnight in Holland and old people like me should go to bed now. Zzzzz...

Lou

 100 
 on: November 12, 2017, 21:46:27 pm 
Started by dave benson - Last post by lloydsp
"....what if the electronics required a totally ripple free DC supply?"
--------------
'Tain't no such thing, Eddy, MOST ESPECIALLY from batteries, which possess a specific series resistance, and ALWAYS cause 'ripple' (load variations) with varying loads.

A properly filtered power supply with a large post-filtering capacitor posessing a low series resistance will beat a battery every time!

Lloyd

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines

Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM
Page created in 0.102 seconds with 15 queries.

Copyright © 2008 HexRay Ltd. | Sitemap