Black boxes was Re: USB or Ethernet machine control

Jerry,

Proprietary, at least in my dictionary, means "exclusively
owned /private", or "befitting an owner"...

No, we do not wish to go back to the proprietary boxes (at least I
don't). We already have a few new ones as well (Carken, Flashcut,
Microkinetics-tho' theirs is 'subtle', as it is a required card).
BTW, so is EMC, when used for REAL servos. Anybody have an "open" stg
card?

What we want/need is an "open" (non-proprietary) black box, like
Mariss is working on (and others less publicly)...
I'd include Jon E's PPC project too, but I think it is going to be
proprietary as well. Jon?

I suspect that the reason most SBC's are not used "as is" for this is
that they are not well suited to the job and more expensive than need
be: (they have too much of "this", and not enough of "that", whilst
duplicating functionality already present in the pc; i.e., why go to
an sbc-based black box, if we're still dealing with granularity
issues due to pc type timers?)

I would LOVE to see an "opening up" of the current proprietary boxes!
But our capitalist society makes it unlikely. It will be done only by
someone who can gain "sideways" like Mariss, who will sell more
drives if more people write control programs (because he made it
easier to do). Or an independant altruist<G>

On another point you raise, No, we have not reached the end of the
line "hitching our star" to desktop pc's. The OpenCNC control is
entirely software based, runs in windows: http://www.mdsi2.com It is
a very advanced control; only its price prevents more widespread use.

And Art Fenerty's Master5 is rapidly evolving beyond its current step
rate limitations. Did you know his intent is to offer the "core"
functionality so that developers could create their own controls?
Very exciting, IMO. Already has it set up for OCX control. Now
personally, I dislike his GUI, but windows-only cnc control IS
possible.

So whether we NEED a "black box" is a matter of an individaul
developers' abilities, beliefs and focus.

What the NON-proprietary black box does is let more developers get
into the act. I look forward to competing in the market based on "my
idea" of a cnc controllers' "look and feel". I don't have the
programming skills that Art has to write the "windows-part" code, and
I lack Mariss's electronic skills to create the black box. When there
is an "open" core to write a front end for, I'll be there.

One persons thoughts,

Ballendo

P.S. If any developers reading this have something to offer me in the
way of a "black box", please let me know offlist.


--- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@y..., "Carol & Jerry Jankura"
<jerry.jankura@s...> wrote:

> It's interesting that, in one breath, we talk about not wanting to

go back

> to the expensive proprietary boxes that some of the commercial

equipment

> uses. Then, we talk about a 'smart' peripheral box which, when you

examine

> its contents, is nothing more than a proprietary box aimed at the

hobbiest

> market which is driven by a PC aimed at the office/home market.

What I'd

> suggest is that folks take a good look at what is left of

the "single board

> computer" market and find a good SBC with sufficient I/O to do the

job. This

> would mean, IMHO, several different I/O ports such that you could

assign

> each axis to its own (thus the same port functions either to drive

the

> bridge transistors directly or provides step/direction to drive

something

> like a Gecko) plus enough additional points to allow any auxiliary

controls

> such as air, coolant, etc.
>
> It would also mean coming up with a protocol to transfer the

control program

> (as opposed to the G-Code to be interpreted) to that 'peripheral.'
>
> Perhaps, we're coming to a point where the 'free ride' on the back

of the

> office computer is over and that we'll have to find a different

pony to

> ride.
>
> -- Carol & Jerry Jankura
> Strongsville, Ohio
> So many toys, so little time....
>
>
> |It has been my assumption when we talk about 'smart' peripheral
> |control boxes that these things run off of drip-fed g-code,

possibly

> |preinterpreted into something easier to digest, but basically

without

> |tight timing constraints. The tight timing is all inside the box,
> |between the motion planner, servo loops, and output to the drives.