开云体育

Ron Ginger wrote:

5)Subroutines and gcode.
It would seem logical that the storage format of CPNCs files should be

gcode. So it could be used as a form of code generator. Many of its
higher level objects are much like gcode subroutines- in my program
you
enter just a couple dimensions fotr a bolt cirlce, and it gets
expanded
by the program just like a gcode subroutine.

This may die off here on the list, but I'm going to do it, and Im
going
to do it the 'open source' way.

If you aren't familiar with what I've already put in the public domain,
you should
look at : which is my
page
of programs that write G-code. You answer a few questions, and these
little
c programs (supplied as source) write the g-code for boring circular
holes or
pockets, milling out a rectangular pocket or trepanning out a
rectangular hole,
drilling (and also peck-drilling) a circular array of holes (bolt
circle).
There is also a program for thread milling with a single-row thread
mill.
(These can do any thread pitch with one tool.)

I have a few more that I need to clean up and add to the list. I use
these
more than my Bobcad/CAM software, because I don't have to fight it to
get it to do things in a milling machine-oriented way. These programs
are
pretty well optimized for efficient movements of the tool. They pretty
much
all do climb milling profiles.

If someone wanted to recode them in Tk/Tcl for use with the TkEMC user
interface of EMC, I'd be glad to help explain any quirky bits of the
code.

Jon

ron
do you think that ah-ha would be better choice for your
program? their level 2 program with card is about half the price of flashcut
which can make a lot of difference as most are scrounging parts
to build cnc stuff
plus ah-ha might be willing to work with you

whatever you do I think it is great just my 2 cents
mike

Looks like Ive stirred up some interest.

1) What is Conversational Programming?

Its a system that lets you do the cad and cam in a simple interactive
way. In my program you simply select buttons for certain objects, like
lines or circles, or holes, then fill in the blanks on a screen with the
needed dimensions. The system figures out how to move the motors to run
the part. Everything is in one program. Look at
for some screen shots.

2) The BOX
I would not expect FlashCut to change anything- let them sell their
package exactly as now. CPNC would be just another add-on program a user
could run. This gives most flexibility- for complicated parts use a CAM
package and run the FlashCut driver program, for simple work just run
CPNC with the FlashCut hardware. Now if FLashCut wanted to offer a
hardware only system that would be even nicer, but I would be willing to
buy their whole package. I do have some use for g-code. Remember, I dont
claim CPNC 'saves' the whole world, just part of it.

3) INDEXER.LPT
There is no free lunch. Indexer.lpt does NOT make windows into a real
time system. It does drive motors, but you cannot abort a move once
started, and you cannot get back position info to update a screen while
a move is occuring. When windows runs on your system it alone holds the
control. Remember, Gates wants to rule the world!

4) Development Environment. I just found vtcl. Its a gui development
tool that works just like VB, but does tcl. tcl runs on windows, unix
even Macs. If we do this right the single tcl package can run on any of
these, and use the flashcut drivers on windows and macs and use EMC on
Linux. And we should be able to switch it to any other box of hardware
(like Roland Ferstands controller, or Ahha or the PicServo), or even to
drive INDEXER.LPT for those so inclined, by simply writing one driver
module.

5)Subroutines and gcode.
It would seem logical that the storage format of CPNCs files should be
gcode. So it could be used as a form of code generator. Many of its
higher level objects are much like gcode subroutines- in my program you
enter just a couple dimensions fotr a bolt cirlce, and it gets expanded
by the program just like a gcode subroutine.

This may die off here on the list, but I'm going to do it, and Im going
to do it the 'open source' way. Ill see if I can get a page started
under the linuxcnc.org site.

ron

Hi Ron

I was going to suggest tcl - but you beat me to it....

With tcl, it should be possible to interface to emc running under Linux - and
if it gets ported to windoze and Mac's, there won't be much call for Flashcut.

Just a thought....

Regards, Paul.

Does anybody know how much of the $11,000 of an Accurite is paid in royalty
to Hurco for their conversational controller patent?

4,477,754 Roch , et al. October 16, 1984 Interactive machining system


html/search-bool.html&r=17&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=pall&s1=Hurco&OS=Hurco&RS=Hurc
o

I heard at one time they nearly bankrupt K&T when they won their
infringement lawsuit. Of course this could just be an Urban Myth.


Best Regards,

Fred Smith
IMService

imserv@...
Phone: 248-486-3600 or 800-386-1670
Fax:248-486-3698

From: Fred Smith <imserv@...>
Does anybody know how much of the $11,000 of an Accurite is paid in royalty
to Hurco for their conversational controller patent?

4,477,754 Roch , et al. October 16, 1984 Interactive machining system

html/search-bool.html&r=17&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=pall&s1=Hurco&OS=Hurco&RS=Hurc

o

I heard at one time they nearly bankrupt K&T when they won their
infringement lawsuit. Of course this could just be an Urban Myth.

I read this post and the patent it references right before I went to sleep. I
just now awoke in a cold sweat after having the strangest dream:

My wife and kids were trying to keep the cops busy at the front door. I was
in the bathroom desperately trying to flush a huge K&T CNC mill down the
toilet. I kept pushing on it, but it just wouldn't go and I could hear the
cops coming down the hall...

Matt

From: Tim Barnard <tbarnard@...>
I understand each company that paid Hurco wrote a check for at least
$400,000 each. Then Haas goes and fights Hurco and wins ! They only paid
lawyer and court cost. About 1/3rd the cost.

Thank goodness! I thought I'd never be able to sleep again...

From:


"Major Patent Case Won

We recently won an important patent infringement case in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On October 2, 1998, the
Court entered a summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of our client,
Haas Automation, Inc., a leading manufacturer of CNC (computer numerically
controlled) machine tools. Ted Pianko and Art Hasan led the team of lawyers,
paralegals, and support staff that worked on securing this significant
victory for Haas.

The plaintiff in the case was IMS Technology, Inc., a Virginia "shell"
corporation created by its parent, machine tool manufacturer Hurco Companies,
Inc. Hurco formed IMS in Virginia in order to enforce one of its patents
against Haas and other CNC machine tool manufacturers, and to take advantage
of the fast-paced "rocket docket" of the Eastern District of Virginia federal
court.

The patent asserted against Haas has claims to an apparatus and method of
programming a CNC machine tool in a question-and-answer format, as well as an
apparatus for manually adjusting the speed at which a CNC machine tool
operates, known as a "feed rate override." A host of U.S. and foreign machine
tool makers had previously taken licenses to settle actual or threatened
litigation under the patent, paying in excess of $33 million to the
plaintiff. Haas was the only company in the machine tool industry to fight
rather than settle, despite facing a damage claim exceeding $270 million.

To even the odds in the litigation, Haas took the offensive and filed several
summary judgment motions against IMS, arguing that the patent was invalid,
unenforceable, and not infringed, and that the plaintiff's nine year delay in
filing suit should bar it from any recovery. On the eve of trial, the court
considered the noninfringement arguments and ruled in Haas's favor. Haas's
belief that complex technology could be successfully explained to a lay judge
or jury and its courageous determination to resist the improper assertions of
infringement despite the widespread capitulation of others was rewarded with
a hard-fought but satisfying win."

Also see:


"Centroid v. Hurco, et. al.; IMS v. Centroid, et. al.

This case, with a 53 page Complaint, was one of the few RICO-patent-unfair
competition cases that have been filed. Favorable settlement for our client
occurred soon after filing the Complaint."

Finally:


"Substantially all of our machine systems and computer control systems
are
manufactured to our specifications by contract manufacturing companies in
Taiwan
and Europe."

Matt

Matt

Thanks for the CPNC patent research and info.

Ray

-see this for details-

I understand each company that paid Hurco wrote a check for at least
$400,000 each. Then Haas goes and fights Hurco and wins ! They only paid
lawyer and court cost. About 1/3rd the cost.

TAB