Re: Re: Tool change also smart/dumb boxes(4 Bill G)

Bill,

Thanks for your response. It shows the danger of text only
communication. First let me say I did not intend to be in any way
adversarial to you! I DO see how my typed words could be seen the way
you appear to have seen them, I will try to be more careful in the
future. Disagreement does not imply that EITHER side is WRONG.
(more snips, inserts below)

>>><s>deal with this,it will only make the system more robust
>>>and valuable.

>>I AM the one who brought this up, so I obviously think it
>>needs to be considered...

>I was simply making a statement, not trying to steal YOUR
>thunder!

Maybe a smiley face here would have shown I was simply agreeing with
you! :-)

>>Why not use the AhHa! approach?<s>

>You still need to interface these software outputs to the
>real world. Solid state relays work for some, some want dc
>outputs, some want relays etc. The inexpensive PLC would
>offer the user the choice to mix and match and get what he
>needs / wants. Not to mention that these things designed
>for exactly these purposes and relatively low cost.

Again, I have no problem with your idea. Personally, I like the idea
of a soft PLC (prob'ly implemented in the desktop, but it could be on
a 'smart' card). As I mentioned above, I prefer S/W solutions where
possible. If others feel that a serial port for connection to a plc
needs to be added, both Mariss' and Jons' implementation would only
require a card to be added which implements the functionality.

The PLC (Programmable Logic Controller, for those wondering) is just
another way to spit I/O bits, with timing relationships maintained in
a pre-programmed way. It does not, by itself, prevent or enable the
USE of the output bits BY SSR's, mech. relays and/or other I/O
devices. Bits are bits! I am aware that some of the newer higher-end
PLC's have MASSIVE functionality (they're 'smart' boxes for sure)
which go way beyond the traditional PLC usage!

>>>I wonder if this protocol can be purchased from automation
>>>direct?

>>You will call and ask?

>Ill call and ask, I don't know that I know all the right
>question to ask as I am not a programmer but Ill see if
>there is some sort of developers package.

Thank you. I'm not sure any of us know all the right questions to
ask... :-)

>>From your Macro toolchange code:

>>>O%M05 ;SPINDLE ON CCW
>>>AOUT103,0 ;CW SPINDLE OFF
>>>AOUT104,0 ;CCW SPINDLE OFF
>>>M99

>>I think you want the first line here to be:
>>O%M05 ;SPINDLE OFF
>>I know, it's just a comment, but it may confuse someone :-)

>Just for your information, that is not part of the tool
>change macro, those are the m-code maps under the heading
>machine control. And I am sure you realize that not everone
>turns off the spindle on a lathe to do a tool change.

Yes, I know that. I called it part of the macro because you put it
under the heading "here's the macro". I am familiar with AhHa!.
Others may not be, and might find themselves confused as they try
to 'work through' the posted code. Simply a possible error
correction. As you say, it is not NECESSARILY part of a toolchange...

>>Hope this helps.
>Wasn't looking for help, was just offering a suggestion...

And the suggestion is appreciated! Hope this helps is like a 'tag
line' or 'sig' on my posts...

Hope this helps. (clear up a misunderstanding)

Ballendo

P.S. I like your website. The SSR box is NICE!