Re: Nema 42 3100 oz/in motors will not move

Hi Keith,

My initial response to your situation is that the problem exists in
the step source. However, it is possible that your step source
is "outrunning" the ability of your motor/Gecko/power supply
combination, which would be especially notable on acceleration. I'm
not familiar with the Camsoft stuff, but can you adjust the velocity
and acceleration of the controller to test whether or not high
acceleration is throwing the motor into a frenzy? In addition, I
would recommend contacting Marris at Gecko for his input, he would be
unbiased in this situation and is very knowledgeable, and in all
likelihood has seen this one before.

You can post questions on:
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/geckodrive
or call him directly at the number on the Geckodrive web site.

Good Luck!
Eric





--- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Clark" <mail@t...>
wrote:

> I now have Nema 42 3100 oz/in motors in my Bridgeport retrofit. I
> have tired everything I can figure out to get them to work with the
> current software from CamSoft. I am being told that the Gecko
> drives and the stepper motors are proper by the motor manufacturer
> Anaheim Automation. This is because I can make the motors move the
> x axis at 120 ipm using their step pulse generator. All these
> comparisons are being done with the same Gecko drives, powersupply
> etc. (However, the step pulse generator has a potentiometer that
> gradually increases the step pulse rate rather that ramp it up by
> accellerating the step pulse rate.)
>
> The motion control board/software company, CamSoft, says it is not
> their board or software that is the problem and that the motors are
> underpowered. They feel the torque falls off and causes them to
> stall at 20 ipm when using their stepper board and software. I

know

> the motors are capable of much higher rpms as described in the

above

> paragraph.
>
> Can anyone explain this paradox? Got any ideas?
>
> My next option is to send the motors back and get some in the 1000
> oz/in range to see if they work better. Just trying to get some

idea

> if you guys agree.
>
> thanks
> Keith Clark