[jurban]

I saw this product on eBay and started thinking about building my own AVHC for my Torchmate 2X2: Proffessional CNC Plasma THC Controller

The vendor says that the software needs to be able to accept THC Up/Down input from the device.

I've re-purposed the router Z-Axis to hold my plasma torch, so I do have automated control, just not a standard torch height controller.

I'm unsure how I'd be able to use the above product to build a custom AVHC.

Any ideas? Is this impossible? Do I have to build a separate height controller for the z-axis stepper?

For $200 and some thought and effort, it looks like a pretty good value.

--Joe

[PromaElektronik]

Hi, I'm producer this THC Controller.
What software can you use ?
For example: Mach 2/3 accept the THC UP/Down signals.
This THC Controller easy to connect same as home swith etc. You haven't use plugin for mach.
The device input you connect for output your plasma torch directly without divider etc. This works with any plasma torch.

User’s guide

*sorry for my english

[jurban]

Thanks, but the challenge for me is to connect into the existing controller and have the software interpret the THC up/down commands as z-axis input given my current configuration. The standard Torchmate AHVC has a separated controller box that takes the up/down signal. I'd like to send the signal from your product to the main controller and have the software execute +/- Z-axis commands.
Joe

[PromaElektronik]

ok, i'm sorry... I badly understood before. You haven't control (step/dir) the Z axis in your software through the port LPT.. You can't the Mach ?

[jimcolt]

This unit looks like it would work well as part of a stand alone THC system for plasma cutting. You would still have to design some sort of an initial height system (to find the plate surface), then a retract mechanism (to retract to pierce height), then a circuit to index down to the physical cut height after the arc has fired.....then this unit would need to switch on to control height during steady state cutting. Then at the end of the cut a circuit to retract the torch to avoid collisions with tipped up parts.

This device is simply a filtered isolated arc voltage feedback circuit.....with output relay contacts to raise and lower a torch to the desired voltage/height setting. Needs a lot of other engineering and design to make it work as the Torchmate AVHC does!


Jim Colt Hypertherm

I saw this product on eBay and started thinking about building my own AVHC for my Torchmate 2X2: Proffessional CNC Plasma THC Controller

The vendor says that the software needs to be able to accept THC Up/Down input from the device.

I've re-purposed the router Z-Axis to hold my plasma torch, so I do have automated control, just not a standard torch height controller.

I'm unsure how I'd be able to use the above product to build a custom AVHC.

Any ideas? Is this impossible? Do I have to build a separate height controller for the z-axis stepper?

For $200 and some thought and effort, it looks like a pretty good value.

--Joe

[Torchhead]

Thanks, but the challenge for me is to connect into the existing controller and have the software interpret the THC up/down commands as z-axis input given my current configuration. The standard Torchmate AHVC has a separated controller box that takes the up/down signal. I'd like to send the signal from your product to the main controller and have the software execute +/- Z-axis commands.
Joe

Sorry, won't work. Torchmate controller is a Flashcut and uses USB to a pulse card. That creates a level of latency (delay). Imagine a really bad echo on a phone line. The feedback is not realtime. By the time the UP or DOWN gets back to the control software and it reacts, the actual machine is somewhere else. With tose contorls The AVHC has to be a totally separate control (Stand Alone) and do all of the THC functions locally. The Software (toolpath) knows nothing about it.

Either you are going to have to build a "smart" (stand alone) THC like Jim describes, buy the TM AVHC, or consider replacing your controls with something that will work with MACH3. Then you get the THC logic for free and simple external THC's will work. You still have to address the IHS and some other sticky issues that don't show up until you are cutting.

TOM caudle
www.Candcnc.com

[datac]

Sorry, won't work. Torchmate controller is a Flashcut and uses USB to a pulse card. That creates a level of latency (delay). Imagine a really bad echo on a phone line. The feedback is not realtime.

Is it possible that "wont work" might be stretching reality a little ? The level of "latency" your going to find with Flashcut's input lines can be adjusted to as little as .06 msec.

To be sure, indeed one needs to sit with the calculator to see what that might mean at various feed-rates, but ultimately, what may or may not "work" for a person has a bit more to do with exactly WHAT they are needing to cut. In other words, if your trying to cut across wavy old pole barn steel at 5000ipm, you might be able to argue that a particular programs "latency" might hamper your efforts. But thats certainly not what "most" people in this group are trying to do.

I'll admit that I'm not an expert in this area,.... But, I have personally built, run and also serviced a few plasma machines with Flashcut as the control, albeit all without a controller connected THC. I am just finishing up the build of another plasma specific machine for myself that will be FC controlled and this will indeed give me the opportunity to research this first hand. Certainly the latest releases of FC have addressed the needs for monitoring inputs for specific purposes such as this. I'll know more as a few months go by.

The device on ebay does look interesting for the money, and if you have the ability to use the output from it, it just might be a real break thru for the type of plasma machine builders in forums such as this. I might have to buy one just to check it out.

[Torchhead]

Sounds like you know more about FC than I do. I'm just a burned out old EE with 35+ years design experience. Only 6 years designing Torch Height Controls (albeit for MACH and EMC).

When you get it to work you will have a ready market....probably to Flashcut since they have been trying to do it for several years.

I anxiously await the results. My LCTHC would work great with it.

TOMcaudle
www.candcnc.com

[datac]

"since they have been trying to do it for several years".

Huh ? With all due respect, I feel I have been somewhat close to the development road map of FC and have yet to find ANYTHING they "try to do" not come to fruition. You almost make it sound like it is something they have solely focused on for years and can not accomplish it, and that's simply not the case at all !

I don't plan to bring anything to market regards THC for FC, but, I do plan to explore the use of such an item as the OP questioned with FC. Your statement has me curious as to what "miracle" section of programming is missing in FC to accomplish this, and also why it might be toughted as something they could not accomplish ?

I probably wouldn't have said anything in this thread except for the fact that the same old, same old "not real time" topic was brought up to attempt to make FC look like some slow, old, disconnected antique, which it is far from being. So, let's try to be fair about this.

THC and Flashcut.... H'mmmm.

Flashcut does have "runtime jogging" (jogging an axis manually while code is running), and that functionality seems to be an important part of this equation along with inputs that are always listening for input data. Those two items alone seem to be the main requirement here.... the ability to move an axis, not defined by running code, but rather via external data. True, the term "latency" has a place in this discussion, but would really only apply if Flashcut truly was the old 'rotary dial telephone' you make it out to be (or were you shooting for two tin cans and string ? LOL !).


When it comes to FC and where they are at this time, people should understand that they have made darn sure that their dev platforms have been rock stable FIRST, so that some of those basic things actually work rather than have a forum full of people wondering why they don't as advertised. There are reasons for the lack of discussion in the FC forums. Its an excellent development that doesn't require a lot of hunting for answers on how to accomplish something. Its just plain intuitive, and the manual is truly a work of art for anyone learning about CNC. I think its admirable that FC developers put things in reverse for a while to rethink and rebuild their groundwork from scratch when they saw the end of parallel and serial port on the horizon. Solidifying USB operation was a crucial move to make, given the status of that port today.

Its also quite admirable that they understood that any new development couldn't leave earlier users in the cold. Even the very newest software releases can still be used with their very early signal generators with only some very advanced functions disabled. Their painstaking effort provides a solid platform for future development. If they are "missing something" at this point, its going to be a cakewalk to insert it (comparatively) if you ask me.

Again, I highly doubt that it can be said that they have worked laboriously on "integrated THC" to any level...... not yet. There were far too many other things to finalize, and after all, there were others readily providing stand alone solutions for those who wanted to use FC for plasma/torch ops.

So, for now, a device as the one on ebay and the newer versions of Flashcut for THC control ? I dont think its been toyed with much yet.

[najnielkp]

looking at the schematic of connections seems to me it would work.has the arc on relay , thc up, thc down. would be aggravating to have to set up at the plasma cutter. a remote display would be better. for a few dollars more you could get the lcthc from candcnc. it has the remote console and antidive.been using it for 6 months now and for the money is excellent.

[Torchhead]

So what you are suggesting is that FC which supplies hundreds of units to Torchmate has never considered trying to integrate in a THC? That has the smell of a conspiracy! IT would suggest TM does not want a cheap THC solution and FC has agreed to NOT provide one so both of them can exploit their customers?

Here is your chance to show me that my statement "it can't be done" is dead wrong. I will publicly eat crow.

Tell you what. I will send you a FREE LCTHC and you can keep it if you can show it works (as a usable THC) with FC. I would suggest you do some reading on servo design and control loops. Then more reading on USB and how it works.

The intimation is not that FC is somehow sub-standard because they use USB. The same limitations exist for all USB or any serial half-duplex communications scheme. They do a fine job at providing a PC based motion control for normal 3 or 4 axis control.

Let me know where to ship the LCTHC.

TOMcaudle
www,candcnc.com

[datac]

And as the say, the 'hits just keep on coming! "

>>> So what you are suggesting is that FC which supplies hundreds of units to Torchmate has never considered trying to integrate in a THC? That has the smell of a conspiracy! IT would suggest TM does not want a cheap THC solution and FC has agreed to NOT provide one so both of them can exploit their customers?<<<

I've never once suggested that at all. I have pointed out that FC developers went into 'reverse mode' for a period of time in order to iron out future roadblocks to enhanced development. Much of that was indeed for the pursuit of flawless USB operation. That's certainly not unheard of (redev from the bottom up), nor indicative of stating they can not accomplish something they set to accomplish.

With the version 4 release literally just making its way into users hands, I'm not sure how the thought of "they can not do it" under the guise of "trying for several years" can even remotely turn into a conspiracy of any sort. Obviously the relationship between FC and Torchmate is theirs to decide.... I know it has probably already been a 10+ year relationship at this point because I recall purchasing gantry parts from them before they used FC, and also relating to them that I used FC on the machine I built at the time with great success. Torchmate may have very good reasons for doing what they do. For one, it might be their uncle John provides their current stand alone THC and don't want him to go hungry, or perhaps they just like the operation and intuitive motion control offered by FC like the many thousands who use it for other machine control.

>>> Here is your chance to show me that my statement "it can't be done" is dead wrong. I will publicly eat crow. Tell you what. I will send you a FREE LCTHC and you can keep it if you can show it works (as a usable THC) with FC. I would suggest you do some reading on servo design and control loops. Then more reading on USB and how it works. <<<

Hey, if you have some inner connection with the development of FC and the knowledge of some nail in the coffin for them when it comes to THC now or in the near future, I have no reason to make anyone "eat crow". For all I know, you already have bench tested FC V4 or even more recent beta releases of their developments and have the upper hand !

I just did not see any indication, nor any references to what they are "missing" other than the initial comment that just made it sound that FC would be "too slow" because of overall "latency", and that of perhaps they are incapable of accomplishing it. Didn't really seem fair to me.

Version 4 certainly doesn't leave me with my eyes shut as to what they are capable of, nor make their development path sound the way its been made to sound.

The device questioned by the OP may not work. Perhaps neither will your "LCTHC", at least currently, even with V4. Again, I'm quite sure that it has not been explored in very much depth by users yet. I am pretty confident (even without all the assigned reading) that "latency" is not exactly the main issue here.

Perhaps the real secret is that Torchmate has determined that in the end game, a stand alone solution is just best regardless of the control brand, especially if they can have a control solution that is reliable or even available in years to come.

>>> The intimation is not that FC is somehow sub-standard because they use USB. The same limitations exist for all USB or any serial half-duplex communications scheme. <<<

What is the limitation then to the disappearing parallel port scheme ? Based on the developments in this entire market across the board over the last 20 years, I bet such limitations will be overcome. Recall, "you cant do CNC with windows" was a mantra held onto for some years after it was already being done (understand that "cnc in windows" was just that to the end user... they really did not care about the nuts and bolts... just that they could get it done in windows)

>>> Let me know where to ship the LCTHC. <<<<

Ah ! Wouldn't it be great to take you up on this offer and find a way to make it work ! I'm pretty sure I can come up with $249 when and if it looks like you have the hardware I desire, and frankly, I would certainly buy it from you. I have not attempted to take away anything you do or have done in this market. I've only enticed further discussion beyond "it wont work" with the advent of newer software releases, and the mild hints that FC can't accomplish this, if they wanted to. Thats all......

[jimcolt]

There is a lot of background technology that sets different plasma torch height control systems apart in terms of their ability to:

1. Accurately sense the surface of the plate with varying conditions such as; thin, flexible sheets; dirty rusty painted or submerged materials, etc, for determining a zero (plate surface) point.

2. Ability to quickly retract to proper pierce height before firing the torch.

3. Ability to index down to proper cut height after the pierce is complete...while still on the lead in kerf.

4. Ability to be switched to arc voltage feedback control after x and y motion accelerates to proper speed.

5. Ability to freeze in x-y slowdown situations (holes, fine features, sharp corners, etc.)

6. Ability to sense kerf crossings and end of cut slowdowns to prevent torch diving.

7. Ability to auto compensate for electrode wear (arc voltage increase) over the life of a set of consumables)

8. Ability to be automated (all settings for different power and different materials automated.....so THC is almost transparent to operator)

9. Collision avoidance (THC knows when to retract between cuts...and when it is not necessary to save time).

And there are a couple of dozen more features along these lines that have been engineered into THC systems over the 40 years that they have been in use with mechanized plasma cutters.

The original poster was referring to a neat little arc voltage feedback device that was found on Ebay. It appears to have the makings of a Plasma torch height control system.....but would need additional hardware and control features engineered and tested into it in order to achieve the basic function of a torch height control...that is necesary to allow a machine operator to walk away from a cnc plasma while it is cutting multiple parts.

Over the years there have been two basic types of THC systems used with plasma, Standalone THC's which will electrically interface to almost any plasma/cnc machine, and Integrated THC systems that operate pretty much as an additional axis of the CNC machine...using arc voltage feedback as its position sensor.

My company (Hypertherm) produced one of the first plasma THC systems back in the early 1970's.....and with the cnc machine technology available at that time...it was a standalone THC. With the introduction of PC based motion control systems as well as advanced CAM softwares as well as advanced post processing software....it became a "no-brainer" to integrate the Z axis into the same software that controls all of the functions of the cnc machine...and so the "Integrated THC system was developed.

And.....I am not promoting the Hypertherm THC systems here...rather I am using them as an example. Hypertherm today offers both standalone THC systems as well as integrated THC systems. I would dare to guess that Hypertherm probably sells more THC's than most anyone in the industry....but they are all sold to the high end (read high priced) industrial markets. The ratio of standalone THC's vs Integrated THC's are close to 50/50.....and I would dare say that there are over 300,000 plasma THC's operating on industrial machines worldwide.

In reality, it should be far less costly to build an integrated THC, assuming that you also have the ability to write software code to control all of the funcionality as listed above.

The standalone THC systems generally have discrete electrical interfaces that can connect to Input/output functionality of both the plasma and the cnc control....so the standalone THC kind of interfaces in between these two (plasma/cnc) systems and takes over some of the control.

There is really no need to argue which is better....on some machines the integrated THC's work best....and on some machines the standalone THC's work best. There is, and I suspect always will be a market for both!

Tom's (CandCNC.com) THC systems are integrated and designed to work out of the box with Mach type software. You do have to add the z -axis mechanics (torch lifter, motor, and switch to deternmine plate surface location)....so that adds a bit to the cost....however it is a fully engineered systems for a very good price.

The THC controller that the original poster mentions is simply the arc voltage feedback circuitry (voltage divider, filters snubbers, simple up/down relay outputs, and a simple higher/lower human interface panel. Still to be engineered and built is a way to sense surface of the plate, and all of the features necessary that I listed above, as well as the z axis lifter assembly. I suspect this unit could be adapted for use as either an integrated THC or a standalone THC....but by the time the engineering and designing was done....it would likely cost similar to the other solutions that were already designed and available. A good project for a do it yourselfer that did not have to account for their time as part of the cost! This, if it works, looks like a real time saver (the arc voltage feedback circuitry is somewhat difficult to make work in the real world...just ask anyone who has been involved with THC systems!) in regards to designing a full function THC.

Existing THC systems?

The Torchmate THC is a standalone....it works OK (I have one), and it is the lowest cost full function THC that I know of(has the z axis lifter,everything you need to bolt onto and wire up to an existing cnc/plasma)....it sells for around $2700. Dynatorch has one for about the same price, although I am not as familiar. Hypertherm has two standalone THC systems, the SensorPHC, complete for about $5500.....and the ArcGlide which sells for over $12,000 (yes, just the height control system). I'm sure there are quite a few more on the market for standalone THC....the point I make is that they are not as simple to design and engineer as one might think. I would love to see a complete standalone THC for entry level or hobbyist type machines that would sell (complete) for under $1500....many have tried!

The CandCNC THC systems are integrated, are low cost, and used with the Mach3 software have many of the same features that some of the very high priced industrial systems have. These systems however cannot not be used on all CNC machines as the software is the key to integrating and operating these types of systems. As an example...a large Esab cnc cutting machine with 2 600 amp industrial torches....does not use Mach 3 as the CNC operating software....so it likely (correct me if I'm wrong!) will not use a Mach3 based THC, rather, it would use either standalone THC's or an axis based (integrated) THC for both height controls. I also have one of these THC's....and while it is so new that I have not built a machine around it yet...I can see that it has all of the features needed to feel safe walking away from the machine while it is cutting many parts!

Hopefully this clarifies the difference between the device mentioned by the original poster....and the existing THC systems that are currently available!

Jim Colt Hypertherm

[cjdavis618]

I also have the 2x2 system as described above and hesitate to upgrade to the 4x4 becasue I feel the need for the THC will be greater negating the benefits.

With that said, I think maybe there is still an inexpensive way to interface the Torchmate tables with the THC that Tom offers. My Flashcut box that came from Tormach has both USB and Parallel ports for input and output. I have the pinouts and with some reworking of a Parallel cable pinout, it should be possible to have Mach3 control the Flashcut system. There are enough inputs on the flashcut in order to interface with the THC Tom offers based on initial research. I am certainly willing to put the time in on that.

I think maybe the process to make this work was clouded when trying to stick with USB and Flashcut software, when instead, we make a custom cable, interface LHTHC with Mach3 to the FC controller, and then we still come out $2000 cheaper than the AVHC that Torchmate sells. I don't mind being a test case as I would like to make this work and have been thinking about it for some time.

Tom, if I can get the flash cut controller to interface with Mach3 and control the table, Can you help me setup the interface with the plasma in Mach? I have a Powermax1000. That is the part that eludes me. I think there is a chance that we can make a marketable kit that will interface, and control that flashcut at a much reduced expense.

[jimcolt]

Joe,

If you could pull that off it would be great....but don't forget that part of the price of the Torchmate AVHC height control's cost is in the z axis slide that comes with it. When you start figuring out the manufacturing costs of a fairly robust slide (theirs is) like that...then you start understanding some of the costs involved.....and these companies do have to make a profit as well as be able to support the product after the sale....it all cost money. As I have said many times...if you can build a low cost full featured THC system (needs the z axis mechanics as well) for less than the lowest cost unit already on the market....you will sell quite a few. Many have said they were going to achieve this....all have disapeared into the woodwork!


Jim Colt

[jurban]

Everyone - Thanks!
As I suspected, my original, simple question unearthed an incredible complexity of issues, categories, challenges and history that I didn't anticipate - but was fearful was actually the case. I've got a much deeper respect for the challenges associated with a DIY THC.

First off, I just want to clarify that it seems that nobody is supporting trying to integrate into the Torchmate controller software (mine is version 3.0.19). I assume that this is not a recommended component of the eventual system. MACH3 seems to be the only one everyone is considering as the controlling software. True? I don't want to derail the conversation, but I've avoided transitioning over to MACH3 for my 2x2 to minimize the variables in my shop. (I do have MACH3 running another custom-made CNC mill).

I'm very interested in managing an opensource THC project. I've already hacked my Harbor Freight plasma cutter to enable trigger control. I've also designed a holder for that torch that I can add to the project. As you can see, I've taken a low-cost approach to enter this market - and it's working pretty well so far.

Regarding Jim Colt's list of criteria - it looks as though that's a decent criteria list for the ultimate THC. As a DIY guy (my real job is in a sterile office :-), I'd only be interested in addressing a subset of those criteria for a DIY system. But, if that roadmap can be designed to extend to the ultimate criteria list, there is little risk in covering the basics.

What are the basics for an entry-level, DIY THC? In my opinion:

2. Ability to quickly retract to proper pierce height before firing the torch.

4. Ability to be switched to arc voltage feedback control after x and y motion accelerates to proper speed.

(optional) 7. Ability to auto compensate for electrode wear (arc voltage increase) over the life of a set of consumables)

As a novice user, I'm mostly interested in getting better cuts out of my system. I'll stare at it for the whole cut if I need to. I'm not doing production, just prototypes. So, raw flame quality and location are the dominant drivers of the fundamental criteria. Automation and a refined flame quality are less critical.

I believe an integrated THC is the proper path to take for this project roadmap. It allows for more software-control flexibility to accomplish more of the future criteria.

I'm sure that THC vendors will not be particularly interested in an opensource THC project. But, there is a market for DIY and low-end shops that can't justify the cost of a QA'ed system with a warranty. Selling components into that project is still a market. And, with more engineers participating and exploring possibilities, the R&D could be better optimized over time.

So, do you think it is possible to start a project to develop an opensource THC hw/sw system that is integrated into MACH3 or with a generic API?

--Joe

[cjdavis618]

My primary concern is seeing if the electronics can be interfaced first. The secondary task is to setup the Torch hieght mechanics. When I puchased the 2x2, I also added the router head attachment that was stepper controlled. It already has the sturdy build to allow some initial testing depening on how the DHTC from Tom manages raising and lowering fo the head. I do have machining capabilities as well for prototype, etc.

I certainly understand the costs and the lack of progress towards that end, but I also see many sucessful implementations of the CandCNC controller on these boards. So I think the main issue is interfacing with the Flashcut controller, and then taking the next step toward the Z Assembly.

I do feel however that the AVHC that Torchmate sells is not priced well for the entry market. I know there is large engineering costs, support costs, etc that go along with that, but it is a product designed for production tables and not in the price point (In my opinion) of the market the 2x2 and 2x4 is geared for. The 4x4 makes it somewhat closer, but still not what I feel is affordable for hobbyists. I think there can be another solution out there for this particular issue.

I do agree about Mach3 vs Flashcut. The Flashcut software is simple to use in comparison, but Mach3 can be much more powerful and has a huge following and support base.

[Torchhead]

Everyone -
I'm very interested in managing an opensource THC project. I've already hacked my Harbor Freight plasma cutter to enable trigger control. I've also designed a holder for that torch that I can add to the project. As you can see, I've taken a low-cost approach to enter this market - and it's working pretty well so far.

Regarding Jim Colt's list of criteria - it looks as though that's a decent criteria list for the ultimate THC. As a DIY guy (my real job is in a sterile office :-), I'd only be interested in addressing a subset of those criteria for a DIY system. But, if that roadmap can be designed to extend to the ultimate criteria list, there is little risk in covering the basics.

What are the basics for an entry-level, DIY THC? In my opinion:

2. Ability to quickly retract to proper pierce height before firing the torch.

4. Ability to be switched to arc voltage feedback control after x and y motion accelerates to proper speed.

(optional) 7. Ability to auto compensate for electrode wear (arc voltage increase) over the life of a set of consumables)

As a novice user, I'm mostly interested in getting better cuts out of my system. I'll stare at it for the whole cut if I need to. I'm not doing production, just prototypes. So, raw flame quality and location are the dominant drivers of the fundamental criteria. Automation and a refined flame quality are less critical.

I believe an integrated THC is the proper path to take for this project roadmap. It allows for more software-control flexibility to accomplish more of the future criteria.

I'm sure that THC vendors will not be particularly interested in an opensource THC project. But, there is a market for DIY and low-end shops that can't justify the cost of a QA'ed system with a warranty. Selling components into that project is still a market. And, with more engineers participating and exploring possibilities, the R&D could be better optimized over time.

So, do you think it is possible to start a project to develop an opensource THC hw/sw system that is integrated into MACH3 or with a generic API?

--Joe

I has been done, I has been (deeply) discussed (see the thread "$100 THC" in the Zone). There are simple ways to do basic THC (we pioneered it with what became the THC300), It was analog and it worked with MACH (and is still being sold). That was 2003. There are FREE schematics to build your own

The devil is in the details. Every model we introduce over the years adds features that are not just luxuries but help the automation process and cut the cost of consumables.

[jurban]

Thanks Jim.
I've approached my purchase of the Torchmate 2x2 as a flexible, extensible system for prototype development. So, I purchased the router attachment/z-axis stepper because I intended to also use that as well for non-plasma operations. It was an additional $700. But, now that I have that in place, I assumed I was already in a mechanical position to use it for a THC. If an affordable THC option could leverage this z-axis, users might consider buying that option and have the ability to use the router.

I understand the need for running a business and making a profit, but that argument is not going to stop people from innovating around the limitations to accomplish an acceptable level of value from a product/service. This is the innovators dilemma. It can't be ignored by any company. They could resist it and even cause a delay in its rollout if they control a critical portion of the technology stack. But, they could also join in early and have a substantial ownership of the future market.

It's all about each component of value. There will always be plenty of customers that value a brand, with a good reputation, and a support operation that can turn around an issue quickly. But, for the DIY crowd, we're scrappy and tolerant and with time on our hands, and with a level of curiosity that will explore solutions to problems without a profit motive. I think vendors need to assess that market as addressable with a subset of their offerings - or watch as other fill the gap with their solutions. I think participating in a DIY THC opensource project would be a useful exercise for any component vendor.

--Joe

[jimcolt]

I may work for a major supplier (that builds height controls for plasma), Hypertherm....but you should see my home shop! There are two operating cnc plasma machines and a third, do it yourself (From Tom at CandCNC) machine in the works. Trust me.....my company has been engineering and building THC's for close to 40 years.....we currently have 3 THC's in our product lineup, they start at $5,500 and go as high as $15,000 (yes....for the THC!) One of these THC's is a standalon and will work on almost any plasma machine, one can be standalone or integrated (depending on the needs of the application) and the third is fully integrated into our industrial CNC control. The list of criteria that I posted earlier is pretty much what I like to see as a minimum set of needs to make my plasma torch perform to its best ability. Our high end THC's have all of that and many more features that are designed in for : Ease of use, collision avoidance, reducing cycle time between cuts, easy consumable parts changeout, diagnostics, ethernet close coupled communication with plasma and cnc.....and more. These are high production industrial systems designed to run 3 shifts, 365 days.

That being said....I have proposed on more than one occasion to our design teams....that we should use our expertise to build a low cost...standalone THC (and this means that it is not tied to any particular software/controller type, and will work on almost any plasma/table combination with discrete wiring). Our team always reviews this.....is impressed with the potential market numbers (potential units), but always shoots the project down because the entry level/hobbyist/DIY market is not interested in paying much for a peripheral product like a height control. If buyers are only willing to spend $1000 to $1500 max for a complete, working (lifter, torch mount, electronics, human interface) THC...our team knows there is not enough left over to meet margin goals. Simple as that!

I personally like the THC systems that Tom at CandCNC has to offer...he has done a great job bringing the majority of necessary features out, and keeping the price reasonable for do it yourselfers. There are tens of thousands of entry level systems running in the field right now without any means of arc voltage feedback...there certainly is a need for a universal system...but I'm not convinced that a Mach or Flashcut driven system would be as compatible as a true standalone system for most of these applications.

Jim

Thanks Jim.
I've approached my purchase of the Torchmate 2x2 as a flexible, extensible system for prototype development. So, I purchased the router attachment/z-axis stepper because I intended to also use that as well for non-plasma operations. It was an additional $700. But, now that I have that in place, I assumed I was already in a mechanical position to use it for a THC. If an affordable THC option could leverage this z-axis, users might consider buying that option and have the ability to use the router.

I understand the need for running a business and making a profit, but that argument is not going to stop people from innovating around the limitations to accomplish an acceptable level of value from a product/service. This is the innovators dilemma. It can't be ignored by any company. They could resist it and even cause a delay in its rollout if they control a critical portion of the technology stack. But, they could also join in early and have a substantial ownership of the future market.

It's all about each component of value. There will always be plenty of customers that value a brand, with a good reputation, and a support operation that can turn around an issue quickly. But, for the DIY crowd, we're scrappy and tolerant and with time on our hands, and with a level of curiosity that will explore solutions to problems without a profit motive. I think vendors need to assess that market as addressable with a subset of their offerings - or watch as other fill the gap with their solutions. I think participating in a DIY THC opensource project would be a useful exercise for any component vendor.

--Joe