re:smart box command set

Hi Mariss, Jon, Ballendo and the List,

I like that! So later, for a "second" generation, WE/(I?) can build a
"FlashCut" style (level) microprocessor control, and plug it into the
"interface" slot!

YES! This should even bring the two "camps" closer together! AND I
think your Pulse Gen is the way to start it all off! Having a "chassis"
or "motherboard" standard to BOTH camps would be a plus!

G-codes are TOO high a level for the "box". For a higher level box,
simple compound move commands are about as high as I want to go. Do the
parse, file I/O, buffering, look-ahead, format (IN/MM, REL/ABS etc) in
the PC.

A thought. Long term. For those on the list who might not fancy
themselves "programmers" or "hardware designers" who want to contribute
to the efforts, how about evaluating existing products (spec'ing them
out), so that a consensus (appreciation) can be reached on what other
"higher level" boxes currently do?

Alan KM6VV


Mariss Freimanis wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> Regards to the dumb/smart box. It's going to be like Burger King, you
> will be able to have it your way. Provisions are being made to have a
> microcomputer plug-in card. If it is totally dumb then this slot will
> be a null card. If smart, then you will be able to plug a
> microcomputer in it.
>
> Mariss
>
> --- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@egroups.com, ballendo@y... wrote:
> > Wally K wrote:
> > >If you want to make the box smart, then make it smart. Start by
> > >making it accept Gcodes and Mcodes. Use the machinery and tool
> > >handbook for the command set and descriptions of commands. Later
> > >add mfg specific Gcodes as required.
> >
> > Wally,
> >
> > This is a bad idea, IMO. Bad partitioning of the problem, as Jeff B
> > might say. The gcodes are not well defined and standardised enough
> to
> > be a good command set. The specific source you mention, Machinerys'
> > Handbook, is at least several years out of touch, even in their
> > latest, 27th edition!
> >
> > In addition, I don't believe that we should be trying to make the
> > smart box THAT smart. Doing so will exponentially increase the
> time,
> > effort, and confusion already inherant in a project such as this.
> We
> > already have a PC!
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> > Ballendo
> >
> > P.S. In every product, it is a good idea to find the "crossover"
> > point where expenditure of resources stops having a direct
> > relationship with results. In other words, the point where you stop
> > getting out as much as you are putting in...
> >
> > Making a smart box that accepts G&M codes is just another way of
> > saying make a CNC control. This CONSIDERABLY ups the 'ante' AND
> > considerably reduces the benefits for a LARGE number of people, IMO.
>