Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Encoder resolution

Polaraligned 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?
>

Apparently it is adjustable on the newer drives. It may be adjustable on
all of them with the right setup/tuning software.

>And where do you want to be anyway if some people have trouble
>with the Gecko lock range being too small.
>

It is pretty unlikely the Gecko range of +/- 128 counts is too small, unless
you are intentionally allowing the software to outrun the velocity
capability of
the motor/drive/power supply combination, which is a really bad idea.

> Then they put a
>lower resolution encoder and have a lesser quality finish.
>What is ideal for a Bridgeport?
>
>

Probably an encoder resolution of somewhere between .0005" and .000025"
is a good bet. 128 counts of .000025" is .0032" and 128 * .064". If
you are
exceeding the smaller range, you are just commanding more acceleration or
velocity than the drive can deliver. Slow the computer down, or give the
drive more power. If you are exceeding .064" following error, it is pretty
hopeless! That is a LOT of error!

Jon