Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] black box specs was Re: interpolation and algorithms of multiple axes

On Thu, 07 Dec 2000 05:54:39 -0000, Ballendo wrote:

>
>P-ports are familiar and easy. And disappearing??!!
>Serial ports are a pain, and familiar. And being replaced???
>USB seems to be gaining steam as the NEXT "desktop" std...
>Firewire seems to be a good choice ?? (evolving as an industrial std)
>
>
>The "flashcut box" is a std. microcontroller serial-type board. Has a
>processor and oscillator, a max232, and some "update able" ROM. I
>believe it is a proprietary "motion system on a chip". I would not
>want this!! I really would want to keep the interp algorithms and
>trajectory planning on the pc.
>
>But I do like the idea of a multi-axis pulse gen that I have
>to "update" periodically... And I'd like some I/O "out there in the
>box" as well... How many I/O bits do you think we NEED? And how many
>do we Want? :-)
>

Being a "microcontroller in a box" kind of guy, I keep wondering if this
isn't a good way to go. Keep the interp algorithms and trajectory
planning on the pc, put just the real time stuff in a micro. If
partitioned correctly this type of thing can work.

>
>Agreed. NO "plug-in" boards! So, again I ask, Which protocol?
>

Ethernet, anyone? Don't laugh, it works, it's fast, cheap, and not going
away any time soon. Yeah, I know it has a few problems of it's own, but
so do all the others.

>
>Yes. Again agreed. And let's keep Jeff Bs' advice in mind. Figure out
>the LEAST BIT that NEEDS hardware! This is a product/ project/
>situation which will scream for feature-itis, IMO! Let's keep the box
>really simple.
>

Many times the simplest, cheapest hardware turns out to be a
microcontroller. I was talking about chip count, cost, etc. not
conceptual complexity.

>
>I'm VERY interested in this project. But I'd like to see some answers
>from the list to my questions/opinions above first...
>

Me, too.

Ok, there's my straw man, let's see those flaming arrows.

Jeff