Re: Re: step pulse timing resolution

Jon Elson wrote:
<snip> Also, moving at 8192 steps/sec is unattainable

>(with a simple,as opposed to computerized microstepping drive that
>smooths out the rate) because the next lower speed is 4096
>steps/sec. That is a 2:1 jump, and no stepper motor could follow it.
>Even the next lower jump , from 2730 Steps/sec to 4096 won't work.
>Regularly scheduled interrupts won't hack it, unless they are going
>at a MUCH faster rate, or you resign yourself to about a thousand
>steps/sec as the maximum rate.

Jon,

Well said.

Ballendo

P.S.
How's the hardware solution coming? I hear you found a well qualified
helper to work with you on it?