Re: Gearhead motors ? future drives ?

Is there a way to make the change in software? For instance when a
rapid is called for, can a 10X pulse be sent, but when actually
machining, use something somewhat less. Many tasks that used to have
to be done by hardware are now being done by software. However as in
this case, hardware has to be available for the software to
communicate. I am not familiar enough with hardware disign or the
products that are out there to follow this through. Any comments?
Randy


--- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com, "turbulatordude"
<dave_mucha@y...> wrote:

> --- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com, "vrsculptor"

<vrsculptor@h...>

> wrote:
> > Dave,
> > I don't disagree at all but there are always tradeoffs. If you

use

> > the 10X multiplier the G340 will fault if it the motor is off by
> > off by +/- 13 counts (10 X 13 = 130). Ask me how I know :) If you
> > derate the machine enough this doesn't matter. If you put on

lower

> > resolution encoders the +/- 1 count servo dance can have an

effect

> > on finish.
> >
> > I'm hoping that I can use Mariss' un-stop-able stepper drive

logic

> > to control the G320. The G100 should not care if it is a stepper

or

> > servo as long as it get encoder pulses.
> >
> > Roger
>
>
> Funny, I chose not to use the multiplier for pretty much the same

reason.

>
> A 2x multiplier would double the rapids and halve the (already super
> fine) resolution. 2 X 13 = 26 , then 240 IPM max speed.
>
> but, if you have 20,000 steps per inch, then the resolution would be
> 0.00005. cutting the resolution to 10,000 would double the speed

and

> cut the resolution to 0.0001 still some pretty high resolution.
>
> Possibly a gear change, or possibly an encoder change, or both.
>
> But, I do agree that some of the limits are artifical and

advancements

> in technology will make things easier.
>
> Dave