Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Re: Windows Real-time
Posted by
Art Fenerty
on 2000-11-28 16:48:47 UTC
Ballendo:
Yeah, I know, I though the same thing at first. But when you think about
it, the pulse only has to be a microsecond long, so when I set the pulse, I
just wait a microsecond to turn it off again. Now say I want 6000hz,
well, lets just set the time to next pulse to 166.6667uS after the pulse I
just made. So on the next interrupt 122uS
has passed, since I know that the next interrupt will be after the 166uS I'm
set for, I just hang on to the interrupt for anoth 42.6667uS and then turn
on the pulse and then turn it off again a microsecond later, then release
the interrupt. I won't need it again for another 166uS. or a repeat of the
above proceedure. This is very accurate
so that I can actually pulse from 1hz to 8192 on my 500mhz computer. The
pulse with can be accurate to the nanosecond for the most part. 122uS
granularity only sounds like a problem, it really isn't one at all.
My stepper motors have never sounded as smooth,
and have doubled in speed capacity. As long as a higher
interrupt does not occur, its better than the emc spec's I've read. And the
higher interrupts do not occur unless you start to do some pretty heavy
stuff. I know its not
a perfect solution, but it does seem to work quite well.
Art
Yeah, I know, I though the same thing at first. But when you think about
it, the pulse only has to be a microsecond long, so when I set the pulse, I
just wait a microsecond to turn it off again. Now say I want 6000hz,
well, lets just set the time to next pulse to 166.6667uS after the pulse I
just made. So on the next interrupt 122uS
has passed, since I know that the next interrupt will be after the 166uS I'm
set for, I just hang on to the interrupt for anoth 42.6667uS and then turn
on the pulse and then turn it off again a microsecond later, then release
the interrupt. I won't need it again for another 166uS. or a repeat of the
above proceedure. This is very accurate
so that I can actually pulse from 1hz to 8192 on my 500mhz computer. The
pulse with can be accurate to the nanosecond for the most part. 122uS
granularity only sounds like a problem, it really isn't one at all.
My stepper motors have never sounded as smooth,
and have doubled in speed capacity. As long as a higher
interrupt does not occur, its better than the emc spec's I've read. And the
higher interrupts do not occur unless you start to do some pretty heavy
stuff. I know its not
a perfect solution, but it does seem to work quite well.
Art
----- Original Message -----
From: <ballendo@...>
To: <CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@egroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 2:53 PM
Subject: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Re: Windows Real-time
> Art wrote:
> <snip>If the pulse should occur within the 122 us granularity I wait
> until then to pulse the port. All masking, pulsing,status checks and
> control outputs are done at the same time,<s>
>
> Art,
>
> What happens when the "ideal" pulse output occurs outside of your
> 122us granularity? Yes, I think you already answered this above; I
> just want clarification.
>
> So is it "every 8196th of a second, I either "DO" or "DO NOT" pulse a
> given axis(set/clear the port pin) or are you using the sub-timing of
> the rdtsc to output pulses at a "more exact" time?
>
> Since a pulse involves BOTH a set AND a clear, is the pulse rate
> max'd at 4048hz? Else how do you clear the bit?
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Ballendo
>
>
>
>
>
> Welcome to CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@...,an unmoderated list for the
discussion of shop built systems, for CAD, CAM, EDM, and DRO.
>
> Addresses:
> Post message: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@egroups.com
> Subscribe: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-subscribe@egroups.com
> Unsubscribe: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> List owner: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-owner@egroups.com, wanliker@...
> Moderator: jmelson@... [Moderator]
> URL to this page: http://www.egroups.com/group/CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO
> FAQ: http://www.ktmarketing.com/faq.html
> bill,
> List Manager
>
Discussion Thread
Art Fenerty
2000-11-23 10:40:51 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Windows Real-time
Art Fenerty
2000-11-23 10:50:07 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Windows Real-time
Alan Marconett KM6VV
2000-11-24 13:24:00 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Windows Real-time
Art Fenerty
2000-11-24 13:37:41 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Windows Real-time
Alan Marconett KM6VV
2000-11-24 18:43:15 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Windows Real-time
Art Fenerty
2000-11-25 05:17:13 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Windows Real-time
Alan Marconett KM6VV
2000-11-25 10:55:35 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Windows Real-time
Art Fenerty
2000-11-25 12:35:13 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Windows Real-time
phil@p...
2000-11-25 16:48:35 UTC
Re: Windows Real-time
PhilC
2000-11-26 13:19:39 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Windows Real-time
Art Fenerty
2000-11-26 15:14:13 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Windows Real-time
Art Fenerty
2000-11-26 15:35:31 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Windows Real-time
phil@p...
2000-11-27 04:44:12 UTC
Re: Windows Real-time
Smoke
2000-11-27 09:31:47 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Windows Real-time
PhilC
2000-11-27 09:48:47 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Windows Real-time
Art Fenerty
2000-11-27 11:40:38 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Windows Real-time
Art Fenerty
2000-11-27 11:42:18 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Windows Real-time
Art Fenerty
2000-11-27 11:44:59 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Windows Real-time
Art Fenerty
2000-11-27 11:46:12 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Windows Real-time
Smoke
2000-11-27 12:34:54 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Windows Real-time
phil@p...
2000-11-27 13:10:30 UTC
Re: Windows Real-time
Art Fenerty
2000-11-27 13:17:58 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Windows Real-time
Ian Wright
2000-11-27 14:34:19 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Windows Real-time
Art Fenerty
2000-11-27 14:58:44 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Windows Real-time
PhilC
2000-11-27 16:04:44 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Windows Real-time
William Scalione
2000-11-27 18:41:43 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Windows Real-time
Alvaro Fogassa
2000-11-28 00:07:12 UTC
Re: Windows Real-time
Art Fenerty
2000-11-28 12:08:47 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Windows Real-time
Art Fenerty
2000-11-28 12:12:17 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Windows Real-time
Art Fenerty
2000-11-28 12:13:25 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Windows Real-time
Alan Marconett KM6VV
2000-11-28 13:16:25 UTC
Re: Windows Real-time
Art Fenerty
2000-11-28 13:33:54 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Windows Real-time
ballendo@y...
2000-11-28 14:56:55 UTC
Re: Re: Windows Real-time
Art Fenerty
2000-11-28 16:48:47 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Re: Windows Real-time
Alan Marconett KM6VV
2000-11-28 18:01:42 UTC
Re: Windows Real-time
Art Fenerty
2000-11-28 18:06:13 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Re: Windows Real-time
Art Fenerty
2000-11-28 18:18:16 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Windows Real-time
Hugh Prescott
2000-11-29 10:00:56 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Windows Real-time
Art Fenerty
2000-11-29 10:22:47 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Windows Real-time
Wally K
2000-11-29 10:36:28 UTC
Re: Windows Real-time
Art Fenerty
2000-11-29 11:09:11 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Windows Real-time
Alan Marconett KM6VV
2000-11-29 12:16:51 UTC
Re: Windows Real-time
Art Fenerty
2000-11-29 13:41:19 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Windows Real-time
William Scalione
2000-11-29 20:02:12 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Windows Real-time
Art Fenerty
2000-11-30 06:43:41 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Windows Real-time
Jeff Demand
2000-12-03 07:41:33 UTC
RE: Windows Real-time
Art Fenerty
2000-12-03 17:47:44 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] RE: Windows Real-time