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]
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
----- Original Message -----
From: Darrell <dgehlsen@...>
To: <CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@...>
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
