Re: tool changer logic- mathematical challenge
Posted by
industrialhobbies
on 2004-08-13 08:52:39 UTC
Now you're cheating :), your changing the problem, earlier you
said "each" and relating to state change. I had the 135 (45 tool
offset plus 90 sensor offset), but now you mention 2 sensors at a
time. Technically, to solve the word problem part, you can also 225
degree opening.
Word problems suck. Give me a digital camera any day.
As far as making it work Think PIC
For a $50 setup you can make is do a little dance and sing a little
tune whenever you request a tool change and still get the position.
Seriously, a PIC is a cheap good little solution that you might want
to look into. The PIC itself is just a few bucks, the PIC burner is
the rest.
Thanks
Aaron Moss
www.IndustrialHobbies.com
--- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com, "Lance Hopper"
<snaggletto@c...> wrote:
said "each" and relating to state change. I had the 135 (45 tool
offset plus 90 sensor offset), but now you mention 2 sensors at a
time. Technically, to solve the word problem part, you can also 225
degree opening.
Word problems suck. Give me a digital camera any day.
As far as making it work Think PIC
For a $50 setup you can make is do a little dance and sing a little
tune whenever you request a tool change and still get the position.
Seriously, a PIC is a cheap good little solution that you might want
to look into. The PIC itself is just a few bucks, the PIC burner is
the rest.
Thanks
Aaron Moss
www.IndustrialHobbies.com
--- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com, "Lance Hopper"
<snaggletto@c...> wrote:
> Hello,to
> You seem to be on the right track, but not there yet. You have
> think of it as this;at
>
> What angle of opening, will create 2 trip points, so that sensors
> 90 deg. to eachother will trip every 45 degrees?a
>
> Imagine an arrangement of 4 sensors at 90 deg. "+" represented by
> crosshair. Now imagine a "C" shape. Put the + into the C andalign
> one point of the + with one of the endpoints of the C. Thisadjacent
> represents a trip location.
>
> Now forget about the currently tripped sensor, look at the next
> one, which is currently out in the opening of the C. We want this
> one to trip in another 45 deg of movement. So, 90 (between
> sensors) and another 45 deg. of movement for the not-tripped sensorgoes
> give 135 degrees.
>
> If you lay it out in CAD you will see that every 45 degree
> rotation causes one of the 4 sensors to trip on one side of the 135
> deg C opening every time. However, this means that I will have to
> check each sensor for when the go from 0 to 1 and for when each
> from 1 to 0. In other words, it appears I will need 4 active LOand
> 4 active HI inputs to read the position of the turret. Also, onethe
> output for a DPDT forward/reverse relay.
>
> I'm not so sure Mach2 with 2 parports will do this. I'm kinda
> thinking about a small $99 PLC with 8 inputs and 6 outputs to do
> tool turret. Mach2 will just send a 'start' signal to tell the PLCPLC
> to run it's program, then maybe recieve a 'done' signal from the
> after the tool change is complete etc... Got some thinking to doon
> this.22.5
>
> --- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com, "industrialhobbies"
> <admin@i...> wrote:
> > This is just a WAG (wild ass guess).
> >
> > To do it with only one sensor active (or not) at a time 45 degree
> > opening 22.5 degrees out of angular alignment with the number 1
> > position.
> >
> > That would meet the requirement of a single sensor (of four), and
> in
> > this case any opening between 22.5 and 45 degrees would work.
> >
> > Somewhere else you mentioned a backup circuit, backing up to hold
> > position, you would need to change the angular alignment from
> > degrees out, to 0 degrees (just enough to trip the sensor). Thatonly
> > would allow you to index all the way around through each of the 4
> > sensors and change the state of one sensor at a time, based on
> > 45 degrees of motion.degrees
> >
> > The offset of angular alignment is only needed for real world
> > applications, theoretically it's not needed.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Aaron Moss
> > www.IndustrialHobbies.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com, "Lance Hopper"
> > <snaggletto@c...> wrote:
> > > Test yourself, see how good you really are...
> > >
> > > Given; a ratcheting action, rotary tool turret with 8 positions
> (a
> > > tool every 45 degrees). The turret can only index going one
> > direction.
> > >
> > > Given; a series of 4 optical sensors, spaced evenly @ 90
> > > around a circle.circular "C"
> > >
> > > Given; a "C" shaped, semi-circular raised area that passes thru
> and
> > > blocks/unblocks the optical sensors as it rotates with the tool
> > > turret. This creates 2 state change areas for each of the 4
> > > sensors. Assuming the "C" shape, and CCW motion, you can see
> that
> > > each of the 4 sensors will go from blocked to unblocked, and
> > > unblocked to blocked as the turret rotates.
> > >
> > > Problem; how many degrees is the opening of the semi-
> > > shape that will create an off - on and on - off transition fordegrees
> each
> > > of the 4 sensors. Resulting in an index resolution of 45
> > > when only looking at one sensor at a time.
> > >
> > >
> > > This is easier than it first appears, however, I never could
> figure
> > > it out without help. I thought this might be an interesting
> > > challenge for others. See what you come up with. Good luck.
Discussion Thread
Lance Hopper
2004-08-12 07:21:27 UTC
tool changer logic- mathematical challenge
cnc002@a...
2004-08-12 07:37:12 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] tool changer logic- mathematical challenge
Bob McKnight
2004-08-12 07:38:43 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] tool changer logic- mathematical challenge
Lance Hopper
2004-08-12 08:07:33 UTC
Re: tool changer logic- mathematical challenge
Lance Hopper
2004-08-12 08:09:32 UTC
Re: tool changer logic- mathematical challenge
cnc002@a...
2004-08-12 08:27:21 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: tool changer logic- mathematical challenge
Lance Hopper
2004-08-12 08:49:32 UTC
Re: tool changer logic- mathematical challenge
industrialhobbies
2004-08-13 01:04:24 UTC
Re: tool changer logic- mathematical challenge
Lance Hopper
2004-08-13 05:23:55 UTC
Re: tool changer logic- mathematical challenge
industrialhobbies
2004-08-13 08:52:39 UTC
Re: tool changer logic- mathematical challenge
Lance Hopper
2004-08-13 12:16:35 UTC
Re: tool changer logic- mathematical challenge
andyolney
2004-08-13 12:23:30 UTC
Re: tool changer logic- mathematical challenge
Stephen Wille Padnos
2004-08-13 12:43:22 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: tool changer logic- mathematical challenge
Jeff Jones
2004-08-13 12:59:54 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: tool changer logic- mathematical challenge
Stephen Wille Padnos
2004-08-13 13:14:26 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: tool changer logic- mathematical challenge
Jeff Jones
2004-08-13 14:05:10 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: tool changer logic- mathematical challenge
Jeff Jones
2004-08-13 14:20:07 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: tool changer logic- mathematical challenge
Lance Hopper
2004-08-13 14:21:09 UTC
Re: tool changer logic- mathematical challenge
Lance Hopper
2004-08-13 14:36:19 UTC
Re: tool changer logic- mathematical challenge
Stephen Wille Padnos
2004-08-13 15:03:38 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: tool changer logic- mathematical challenge
Jeff Jones
2004-08-13 15:23:28 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: tool changer logic- mathematical challenge
Graham Stabler
2004-08-13 16:22:26 UTC
Re: tool changer logic- mathematical challenge
Larry Wright
2004-08-13 17:42:57 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: tool changer logic- mathematical challenge
Lance Hopper
2004-08-14 08:27:37 UTC
Re: tool changer logic- mathematical challenge
Graham Stabler
2004-08-14 15:52:27 UTC
Re: tool changer logic- mathematical challenge
Tom Hubin
2004-08-15 16:13:08 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: tool changer logic- mathematical challenge
Stan Aarhus
2004-08-15 16:28:26 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: tool changer logic- mathematical challenge