[mactec54]

Double-clicking the Start button accidentally is something that can (and does) happen. It can be an operator error, it can be a mouse malfunction, but it is always unintended. There is no reasonable scenario for the operator to intentionally skip the spindle spool-up. So the controller should now allow that to happen.

Remember good old cars with 5-speed manual transmission? They had a blocking mechanism that prevented you from accidentally shifting from "5" to "R".

If you wrote some simple code using Mach3 Brains', then you could do what you need with ease, using a mouse to start a machine is a bad idea, thousands do it, nothing beats a physical Button for machine control.

I surprised that with your electronic skills you don't have a Cycle Start Botton I would not, operate a machine without Cycle Start and Cycle Stop Button

Your Gear box used a simple ball plunger, some are mechanical some are electrically controlled plungers, this has nothing to do with your computer electronics and using a mouse.

[CitizenOfDreams]

I surprised that with your electronic skills you don't have a Cycle Start Botton

I have a very basic LPT port setup, it simply does not have any spare inputs for physical buttons (other than the E-Stop). If or when I upgrade to a better controller, it will have real buttons, real MPG and all the nice stuff.

Your Gear box used a simple ball plunger, some are mechanical some are electrically controlled plungers, this has nothing to do with your computer electronics and using a mouse.

My point is, a well designed machine should not obey obviosly erroneous commands - like shifting to "R" at 100 MPH, or plunging the tool into the part at 100 RPM.

[Al_The_Man]

Although I have loaded Mach to test some things, I have not really used it so I don't know if it is capable of simulating all the G,M,S,T codes the same way a system where the motion is controlled with a motion controller and a separate one for all the machine 'PLC' type codes.
Similar to standard industrial CNC systems.
But the advantage of handing over the general (M)achine instructions to PLC type control is, it is left to the CNC motion controller to act on all the motion positioning, servo's etc, if a Machine code is encountered it is a separate controller or process(sor). And the system will wait until the general machine controller completes its task and then issues a FIN(ish) signal to motion controller that the action has completed.

For example, this is how I have used the Up-to-speed mentioned in post #5, when the program encounters a M or S instruction, for example, The 'PLC' is advised that the S instruction is issued, and waits for the VFD Up-to-Speed output relay to activate, it then sends a FIN(ish) signal back to the motion controller to continue with the motion program.
Tool changing and other such operations work using the same method.

.

[mactec54]

I have a very basic LPT port setup, it simply does not have any spare inputs for physical buttons (other than the E-Stop). If or when I upgrade to a better controller, it will have real buttons, real MPG and all the nice stuff.



My point is, a well designed machine should not obey obviosly erroneous commands - like shifting to "R" at 100 MPH, or plunging the tool into the part at 100 RPM.

Yes, but you can also do what you want with the Mach3 Brains, a 1 line 3 block piece of code will stop it from doing what it is doing nothing else needed, like inputs for buttons, just watch some of the Mach3 Brains videos

This is a starter Video on how too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYqP5-uOzkU&t=603s