Re: troubleshooting help
Posted by
mariss92705
on 2002-02-17 20:51:47 UTC
Rick,
Good evening! Whose drives are you using? You didn't say in your
post. If they are ours, the help I can offer would be different if
they are not.
As a generic test, if all you have is a voltmeter, try the direction
from the parallel port line first. Pulses from the step output are
way to narrow to be "seen" with a meter. Direction is different
because it is held steady for a much longer time.
Cause the direction to be CW from the program you are using. Set your
multimeter to "DC volts" and measure the "direction" output signal on
the port. It should be either near +5VDC or near zero volts.
Then cause the direction to be CCW. Your voltmeter should show the
opposite of what it did before if everything is OK.
If not, or no change, check the pinout (do you have the correct pin
from the parallel port?). Never trust your own work until you can
prove it is right.
Second, check the return path for the step/direction outputs. If they
are our drives I could give you specific suggestions. This means
there has to be a "common" back either to the PC ground, or to PC
+5VDC with our stuff.
Don't feel bad, you are very close to having it all run. Your motors
have holding torque; that's good. They just aren't getting step
pulses for some reason. You are 95% of the way there.
Mariss
Good evening! Whose drives are you using? You didn't say in your
post. If they are ours, the help I can offer would be different if
they are not.
As a generic test, if all you have is a voltmeter, try the direction
from the parallel port line first. Pulses from the step output are
way to narrow to be "seen" with a meter. Direction is different
because it is held steady for a much longer time.
Cause the direction to be CW from the program you are using. Set your
multimeter to "DC volts" and measure the "direction" output signal on
the port. It should be either near +5VDC or near zero volts.
Then cause the direction to be CCW. Your voltmeter should show the
opposite of what it did before if everything is OK.
If not, or no change, check the pinout (do you have the correct pin
from the parallel port?). Never trust your own work until you can
prove it is right.
Second, check the return path for the step/direction outputs. If they
are our drives I could give you specific suggestions. This means
there has to be a "common" back either to the PC ground, or to PC
+5VDC with our stuff.
Don't feel bad, you are very close to having it all run. Your motors
have holding torque; that's good. They just aren't getting step
pulses for some reason. You are 95% of the way there.
Mariss
--- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@y..., "Rick Miller" <apollo@a...> wrote:
> Hello!
> I just finished wiring up my 3-axis controller, and I'm having
trouble getting it to work properly. I tried using TurboCNC, but I
couldn't get it to move the motors (after trying various combinations
of settings), or activate any of the relays.
>
> When the system is powered, the step motors are receiving
power; they hold their position firmly and cannot be rotated by hand,
so I know it's receiving power. Also, when the computer boots up, the
step motors turn a few steps on their own accord, so I know that
*some* type of signal is getting through the parallel port, at least
at that time.
>
> I tried to send step signals "manually" by using the OUT 888,
[x] command from qbasic, without having any luck. I'm wondering if
anyone knows what parameters (if any) from the basic OUT command
would send a signal to either pin 1, 14, or 16; this would allow me
to at least test the relay for function.
>
> If there are any other simple ways to test the parallel port,
I'd like to know... also, if anyone has any other troubleshooting
suggestions, I'd appreciate them. I did put my voltmeter across the
pins on the parallel port while running a loop of the OUT command;
there was no difference on the meter, it stayed at +4.5VDC the whole
time; perhaps the signal pulse is too short for my digital voltmeter
to read properly?
>
> Thanks in advance for any suggestions,
> Rick
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Discussion Thread
Rick Miller
2002-02-17 19:27:45 UTC
troubleshooting help
aspaguy
2002-02-17 19:46:59 UTC
Re: troubleshooting help
Rick Miller
2002-02-17 20:37:26 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: troubleshooting help
mariss92705
2002-02-17 20:51:47 UTC
Re: troubleshooting help
Rick Miller
2002-02-17 21:16:37 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: troubleshooting help
Rick Miller
2002-02-17 21:28:03 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: troubleshooting help
mariss92705
2002-02-17 21:29:42 UTC
Re: troubleshooting help
mariss92705
2002-02-17 21:58:58 UTC
Re: troubleshooting help
Rick Miller
2002-02-17 22:11:36 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: troubleshooting help
ballendo
2002-02-18 02:35:07 UTC
P-port 101 was Re: troubleshooting help
Alan Marconett KM6VV
2002-02-18 12:49:56 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] troubleshooting help
Bob Bachman
2002-02-18 15:52:25 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] troubleshooting help
Carol & Jerry Jankura
2002-02-18 17:45:25 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] troubleshooting help
Carol & Jerry Jankura
2002-02-18 17:53:29 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] troubleshooting help
Alan Marconett KM6VV
2002-02-18 18:00:16 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] troubleshooting help
dkowalcz2000
2002-02-18 18:55:13 UTC
Re: troubleshooting help
Bob Bachman
2002-02-18 19:12:34 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] troubleshooting help
Jon Elson
2002-02-18 20:11:20 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] troubleshooting help
Rick Miller
2002-02-18 20:13:01 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: troubleshooting help
Rick Miller
2002-02-18 21:14:00 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: troubleshooting help
ballendo
2002-02-19 02:35:16 UTC
more p-port 101 was Re: troubleshooting help
ballendo
2002-02-19 04:01:49 UTC
p-port alternative 8255PPI was Re: troubleshooting help
ballendo
2002-02-19 04:39:13 UTC
TTL 101 was Re: troubleshooting help
Carol & Jerry Jankura
2002-02-19 05:44:14 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] p-port alternative 8255PPI was Re: troubleshooting help
ballendo
2002-02-19 06:32:49 UTC
p-port alternative 8255PPI
Robert Bachman
2002-02-19 06:57:42 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] TTL 101 was Re: troubleshooting help
David Goodfellow
2002-02-19 08:37:36 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] p-port alternative 8255PPI was Re: troubleshooting help
Carol & Jerry Jankura
2002-02-19 09:22:22 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] p-port alternative 8255PPI
Alan Marconett KM6VV
2002-02-19 10:48:53 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] troubleshooting help
Bill Vance
2002-02-19 11:04:12 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] TTL 101 was Re: troubleshooting help
Bob Bachman
2002-02-19 11:24:21 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] TTL 101 was Re: troubleshooting help
Paul
2002-02-19 12:00:37 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] p-port alternative 8255PPI
Alan Marconett KM6VV
2002-02-19 12:24:16 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] TTL 101 was Re: troubleshooting help
Alan Marconett KM6VV
2002-02-19 12:42:17 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] p-port alternative 8255PPI
wanliker@a...
2002-02-19 13:36:28 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] TTL 101 was Re: troubleshooting help
Vajk Fekete
2002-02-19 14:24:21 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] p-port alternative 8255PPI
Alan Marconett KM6VV
2002-02-19 16:06:28 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] p-port alternative 8255PPI
Ian W. Wright
2002-02-19 16:35:00 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] TTL 101 was Re: troubleshooting help