Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Conversational Programming and NAMES- very long!

Interesting...

When I talked to Matt Shaver about his Bridgeport conversion he said he was
able to get 60 ipm if I remember correctly. Makes you wonder why he managed
3X the speed you are getting??

Tim
[Denver, CO]

----- Original Message -----
From: Darrell <dgehlsen@...>
To: <CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@egroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Conversational Programming and NAMES- very
long!


> Tim,
> I am running an AMD K6 II 400 and only require 2000 steps per inch. I am
> running freqmod Feb 29 I believe. When I tried it on my Bridgeport,
movement
> started getting ratty at 15 IPM and maxed out at 20 IPM. Looking at the
> pulse train with a scope, pulse jitter (timing between steps) got worse up
> to 20 IPM and then smoothed out to near perfect at 30 IPM and then started
> going bad again. At 20 IPM the pulse train was varying by as much as 3/4s
of
> the signal width. I talked to Fred Proctor and he agreed that timing in
EMC
> was the problem.
> Using micro stepping and small motors would probably let you move much
> faster but with 1100 oz in motors and full stepping on the Bridgeport it
> requires a clean signal. I am used to getting 120 IPM.
> I have used the Microkinetics 8010 drivers with good success and I think
the
> problems that users have been having on this group is directly related to
> the poor step signal timing.
> Darrell