Re: Encoder resolution

--- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com, "Polaraligned"
<polaraligned@o...> wrote:

> --- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com, Les Newell <lesnewell@h...>

wrote:

> > Hi Scott,
> >
> > It is due to the two different designs. The Gecko uses an 8 bit

counter

> > chip giving +/-128. Increasing this adds a lot to the complexity

of the

> > circuit. Rutex uses a microcontroller so big numbers make no

difference

> > to the hardware.
> >
> > Les
>
>
> Got ya. Does anyone know if the Rutex lock range is adjustable?
> And where do you want to be anyway if some people have trouble
> with the Gecko lock range being too small. Then they put a
> lower resolution encoder and have a lesser quality finish.
> What is ideal for a Bridgeport?
>
> Scott

Isn't lock range the amount of allowable error? So the wider the
lock range the more error (following error) the unit will tolerate so
at any given location it could be up to the lock range distance from
actual? Yes, it will catch up as long as the axis is moving in a set
direction but what happens if direction is rapidly changing? It
sounds as it the mechanics of the machine are the primary factor.
Either the motors are not strong enough to accelerate the load as
fast as the program calls for or there is two much friction/inertia.
I don't see where widening the lock range will provide better
positional accuracy as the tool even though it will lower faults on
rapids. It's somewhat akin to losening up the steering on your
sports car. I have a somewhat unique machine in that I run Gecko's
AND a Rutex on different axis. It never faults on either axis using
the correct velocity and acceleration numbers unless the gantry hits
something.