[waltpermenter]

You're missing the point. Its the controllers job to limit performance, at ALL TIMES. Even if something is wrong in the g-code, its the controllers job to stop it from being an issue. Done.

No you're missing the point son, the controller wouldn't catch a piece of code that follows the rules but
simply has a letter, number or decimal point where it shouldn't be. my suggestion to check his code is logical.
If you don't like it who cares. done and done.

[ChrisAttebery]

No progress last night. I got some product back from the anodizing shop and had to get 15 orders ready to ship. I want to cut the treadmill motor base plate tonight. We'll see if I have the time. This mount will also need taller side plates, so I'll have to cut those too. I bought some parts to get the KBMM-225 hooked up though, so maybe I can get it running on the bench tonight while the base plate is on the mill.

[ChrisAttebery]

BTW: Here's the section of code where the rapid was causing the error. Line 8370 is the culprit. It looks fine to me, but you be the judge:

N8300 G00 X5.0291 Y1.2734 Z0.1250
N8310 Z0.0300
N8320 G01 Z-0.145 F12
N8330 G03 X5.0675 Y1.2350 Z-0.1450 I0.0384 J0.0000 F16.0
N8340 X5.0675 Y1.2350 I0.0000 J0.2650
N8350 X5.1059 Y1.2734 I0.0000 J0.0384
N8360 G00 Z0.1250
N8370 X3.5791
N8380 Z0.0300


Chris

[rlockwood]

BTW: Here's the section of code where the rapid was causing the error. Line 8370 is the culprit. It looks fine to me, but you be the judge:

N8300 G00 X5.0291 Y1.2734 Z0.1250
N8310 Z0.0300
N8320 G01 Z-0.145 F12
N8330 G03 X5.0675 Y1.2350 Z-0.1450 I0.0384 J0.0000 F16.0
N8340 X5.0675 Y1.2350 I0.0000 J0.2650
N8350 X5.1059 Y1.2734 I0.0000 J0.0384
N8360 G00 Z0.1250
N8370 X3.5791
N8380 Z0.0300


Chris

Oh yeah. Single axis rapid moves? 2" long? What is cambam thinking?

Probably will want to track down the actual issue..

[SCzEngrgGroup]

Chris,

Shift your fixture offsets, to put your fixture 0,0 at a different location in the machine travels, then execute the same code. See if the failure occurs consistently at the same point in the code, or at the same point in the machine travels. If it doesn't repeat at the same point in the code, then you have a mechanical problem, or possibly, though FAR less likely, and electrical problem. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that G-code - it's about as basic as it could be. For sure it's not a Mach3 problem.

Can you narrow it down to just a few lines of code that reliably exhibits the error? That will make testing go much faster.

Regards,
Ray L.

[waltpermenter]

BTW: Here's the section of code where the rapid was causing the error. Line 8370 is the culprit. It looks fine to me, but you be the judge:

N8300 G00 X5.0291 Y1.2734 Z0.1250
N8310 Z0.0300
N8320 G01 Z-0.145 F12
N8330 G03 X5.0675 Y1.2350 Z-0.1450 I0.0384 J0.0000 F16.0
N8340 X5.0675 Y1.2350 I0.0000 J0.2650
N8350 X5.1059 Y1.2734 I0.0000 J0.0384
N8360 G00 Z0.1250
N8370 X3.5791
N8380 Z0.0300


Chris

that looks fine now that we see it so i'd do my 2nd suggestion, edit the code like this
N8370 G01 X3.5791 F60
N8380 G00 Z0.0300
this will slow it down at the offending rapid in case there is a pinch point at that place on the table,
you could shift the origin to the left and try it at another spot on the table. point being that you don't cripple your whole machine just because of this one anomaly. your 120 rapid speed is still well below what the fastest fellow can run reliably on the same machine.

[ChrisAttebery]

Ray/Walt,

I did try moving the offset, ran the program an inch above the work and it did repeat the same problem. So it seems that it wasn't the machine's fault.

Walt,

I could edit that one line of code and it would cure the problem with that program, but what if it pops up again in another program? I'd also have to make the edit every time I regenereated the G code, which has been quite a bit since I'm still new to the CNC end of things. For now going from 120IPM to 90IPM isn't going to waste as much time as trying to chase down bugs in the system will.

BTW: I really appreciate everyone's input. I am still new to CNC and was never a great manual machinist. I am coming up to speed and have a drawer full of broken tools to prove it.


Chris

[ChrisAttebery]

So, speaking of broken tools...

Last night I was cutting the profile of the new treadmill motor mount from a 3" x 1/2" bar of 6061. I was using my trusty 3/8" 3F Best Carbide aluminum end mill cutting at 4000RPM, 36IPM and .050" DOC. I made it to the last .050" where I had SheetCam add some tabs.

Some observations:
1. 3F end mills don't like to plunge very well, especially with just an air blast for cooling. They tend to load up so I was plunging outside of the material. I was not using any ramp feed since I was plunging outside the material.
2. When you add tabs you are going to plunge.
3. Make sure that the plunge rate is acceptable over the material. With this end mil I've been able to ramp at around 6IPM. This time I was using 12IPM.
4. When you hear the machine start to load up hit the stop button immediately, don't wait to see if the end mill will clear itself.
5. When you decide to replace the end mill with another, make sure you do a tool change in Mach3 so that the tool offset is updated.

Needless to say I managed to stall the machine and break the end mill. I also managed to break a 2F HSS end mill because I forgot about #5.

A couple more observations:
1. Just because you can cut at a certain speed while cutting at a certain depth does not mean you can keep cutting at that depth when the slot is 10X that depth. I could hear the motor loading down as the cuts got deeper.
2. The G0704 motor seems to have about 1/3 of the rated power at top speed (roughly 1/4 HP). I came to these numbers using the MAPAL Milling Calculator available online.
3. Keep a good stock of end mills on hand so you don't have to buy expensive carbide tools on short notice.


Chris

[DRock]

Ray/Walt,

I did try moving the offset, ran the program an inch above the work and it did repeat the same problem. So it seems that it wasn't the machine's fault.

Walt,

I could edit that one line of code and it would cure the problem with that program, but what if it pops up again in another program? I'd also have to make the edit every time I regenereated the G code, which has been quite a bit since I'm still new to the CNC end of things. For now going from 120IPM to 90IPM isn't going to waste as much time as trying to chase down bugs in the system will.

BTW: I really appreciate everyone's input. I am still new to CNC and was never a great manual machinist. I am coming up to speed and have a drawer full of broken tools to prove it.


Chris

When you say above do you mean at a Z-Axis height 1" above your part surface?

Unless I am confused I believe they are saying to run the program at a different X,Y location on the table to see if it is something mechanical at a certain point in the travel. If you usually run the program at 0,0 in the middle of your table then set it up to run at say...6,3 and see if the problem persists.

[ChrisAttebery]

Yes, I moved the X and and Y to put the job on a different part of the table. I also raised the Z offset 1" to let the machine cut air. During this test I still had the same problem in the same spot in the code.

When you say above do you mean at a Z-Axis height 1" above your part surface?

Unless I am confused I believe they are saying to run the program at a different X,Y location on the table to see if it is something mechanical at a certain point in the travel. If you usually run the program at 0,0 in the middle of your table then set it up to run at say...6,3 and see if the problem persists.

[SCzEngrgGroup]

What version of Mach3 are you using? v043.066 and 067 (current builds) have some pretty egregious bugs, and should NOT be used. Are you using PP or a motion controller? If so, which one? What stepper drivers are you using? What BOB?

If you take just a few lines up to, and including, the line that is failing, does the problem still occur? If not, how many more lines do you have to add to cause it to fail again?

Regards,
Ray L.

[ChrisAttebery]

I finished the base plate for the treadmill motor tonight. I'm pretty happy with the way it came out.

Next up is a taller set of side plates. Because the base plate sits flush with the bottom of the motor they need to be .75" taller than Hoss' original design.

[amyers]

I finished the base plate for the treadmill motor tonight. I'm pretty happy with the way it came out.

Next up is a taller set of side plates. Because the base plate sits flush with the bottom of the motor they need to be .75" taller than Hoss' original design.

why didn't you use one of the 2 treadmill motor mounts in hoss plans they look like they work with the original side plates
at least in my set of plans.

[Mystichrome]

why didn't you use one of the 2 treadmill motor mounts in hoss plans they look like they work with the original side plates
at least in my set of plans.

I know when I used hoss's plans for the treadmill motor, I had to cut down the shaft on my treadmill motor to get it to fit the side plates in the plans. Otherwise I think .75" sounds right for how much taller the side plates would need to be. Maybe he's trying to avoid cutting the shaft?

[amyers]

maybe, i saw where hoss cut off the threaded part of the shaft, seems an easier way to make it work.

[ChrisAttebery]

For some reason the pictures I try to upload via Tapatalk never show up. I've attached a picture of the treadmill motor base plate.

The reason I need taller side plates is that on my motor the bearing sits in an extended portion of the housing that is smaller than the rest of the motor. This extended section is roughly 3/4" long and isn't square so I can't clamp on to it.

I did consider using Hoss' designs, but I sold my lathe so I can't make the one using the section of 3.25" ID tubing. I also didn't relish the thought of putting a 1/4" slot through a 1.5" piece of aluminum which is what I would have needed to get this motor at the right height offset.

Using the 2.25" tall side plates leaves about .060" between the motor housing and the pulley and about 3/16" between the pulley and the head casting. The spindle pulley is also about 3/16" above the casting.


Chris

[ChrisAttebery]

Hi Ray,

I missed your comment last night. Actually, I am using v043.066. It is the latest locked down version. I didn't realize that there were problems with it. I'm using Mach Standard Mill and CVI recommends using 3.043.066. I'm using a PP, C35 BOB, KL-5056D drivers and 570in/oz steppers.

I have not revisited the issue since I lowered the rapid speed. If I get a chance this weekend I will try setting it back up to 120ipm and see if I can get it to repeat the problem. It's going to be low priority though, because I want to get the motor mount completed, motor controller hooked up and possibly start working on a new enclosure. On top of that I'll be spending time with the family, going to my kids sporting events, and taking a hike on Sunday. It's not like I'm overbooking my weekend, right?


Chris

What version of Mach3 are you using? v043.066 and 067 (current builds) have some pretty egregious bugs, and should NOT be used. Are you using PP or a motion controller? If so, which one? What stepper drivers are you using? What BOB?

If you take just a few lines up to, and including, the line that is failing, does the problem still occur? If not, how many more lines do you have to add to cause it to fail again?

Regards,
Ray L.

[amyers]

For some reason the pictures I try to upload via Tapatalk never show up. I've attached a picture of the treadmill motor base plate.

The reason I need taller side plates is that on my motor the bearing sits in an extended portion of the housing that is smaller than the rest of the motor. This extended section is roughly 3/4" long and isn't square so I can't clamp on to it.

I did consider using Hoss' designs, but I sold my lathe so I can't make the one using the section of 3.25" ID tubing. I also didn't relish the thought of putting a 1/4" slot through a 1.5" piece of aluminum which is what I would have needed to get this motor at the right height offset.

Using the 2.25" tall side plates leaves about .060" between the motor housing and the pulley and about 3/16" between the pulley and the head casting. The spindle pulley is also about 3/16" above the casting.


Chris

oh i see, i have a little lathe so it should be no big deal for me.

[ChrisAttebery]

I have had a couple different lathes over the last 15 years. The last one I had was a 12x36 belt drive lathe and never liked the 1200rpm top speed. I also didn't like the 36" long bed taking up valuable space in my garage. 99% of the parts I make are less than 6" and a made of aluminum. It just wasn't a good fit. I decided I wanted a G0602 or possibly a Hardinge type lathe. So I decided to sell the lathe at the same time I sold the RF30 and use the money to cover the cost of converting the G0704. I'll probably pick up another lathe someday, but it is a really low priority right now.

[ChrisAttebery]

I got the treamill motor mount completed Friday night. Yesterday I got the KBMM wired up, albeit temporarily. I removed the stock motor and speed control box this morning and installed the treadmill motor. I tuned up the controller and ran the motor for a few minutes at 50%, 75% and then 100%. This afternoon I thought I would try running a test cut with the motor at 100%. It didn't sound quite right and the brushes started arcing so I shut it down and let it cool off. Afterward I tested it at 50% and 75% and it seems fine, so I think the brushes just need to be broke in.

I'm going to pick up the new enclosure tomorrow and try to get all of the electronics installed this week.