[InsaneEPP]

I was browsing the HSS area and there was some discussion that a faster controller is needed for high(er) feed rates. This makes sense to me, but it also makes sense that if Mach2 can output the steps per second needed to run at a certain feed rate, it won't be a problem. Am I missing something?? The machines they are talking about in the HSS area use hardware controllers instead of a pc and Mach2. Is it that the old controllers are slower? Somebody please enlighten me!! Why wouldn't Mach2 be able to run a machine capable of HSS?

Andreas

[Kmed]

I am not familiar with mach 2 but generally in can be summed up just like a computer. You can play games on a 486, but when you try to run too much information through them they slow down. SO when I post HS machine code, it is generally thousands of little lines, sometimes 1000 in one inch, so what you get is if the block processing time of a machine is say 75 per second. You can assume the following 1000(lines)/75 (lines per second)=13.33... (time to cut one inch). This would be regardless of the programmed feed rate.

[InsaneEPP]

Thanks Kmed. That makes sense. Anyone know what the capabilities of Mach2 are as far as block processing time? I know it depends on the PC you have, but anyone have a rough idea? Thanks!

Andreas

[ger21]

I've never heard of block processing time being a bottleneck in Mach2. The only limitations I've seen are 45khz pulse rate. Per axis, I believe. Say your using 10x microstepping, this gives you 4500 Full steps per second. On a 200 step stepper, that will give you about 22.5 revolutions per second. If you need to go faster, Gecko should be releasing soon their G2002/G2003 which Mach2 can control, and can output 200,000+ steps/second.