Warco lathe conversion article (MEW 207/208)

I was interested, but somewhat bemused, to read the articles by John Pace on his Warco lathe conversion. The bemusement arises from the fact that he has introduced mechanical metric to Imperial conversion via the use of a 127-tooth wheel into the drive train in order to make the resolution per stepper motor step a convenient number in Imperial units. This seems to be necessitated by the fact that he is using Compucut software that appears to be limited to operating only in one set of units. This seems to be an awful lot of fuss and bother, especially as CNC controls that can understand G-code (for example, Mach 3, Desk CNC...) would be able to handle the conversion in software.

Am I missing something here?

Regards,

Tony

I read the article in # 208 not realising it was the second part. Went and read the first part in # 207 and it became obvious that what Tony says is correct.

Going back to the second part and the making of the gears, helical planetary ones it made me wonder if anyone would have the skill and equipment to make a stepper drive with no backlash using these gears.

In the authors case it made me wonder why he didn't change the screw and nut if he was so fixed on using imperial units ?

Not subscribing to that magazine, so I might be blowing hot air, but, maybe rather than toothed pulleys that some people use, he used a large gear that he had kicking around?

Agree with moving with the times; LinuxCNC is actually THE way to go forward. (ducking, as all the Mach3 users take offence!)

Another JohnS.

John,

No he made the gears, there is a photo showing it setup on the mill. One is a very thin ring gear and the main one is a 127 tooth helical and the helicals are handed, some RH, some LH just so the software can work in imperial.

I think about 7 gears in total, all having to work with no backlash but not much drag as he's chosen an old design of type 34 stepper that is nowhere near as powerful as the modern 23's

As regards LinuxCNC if feel that it is getting to be the way to go forward, note the " to go "

All it will take is for someone to take the reigns and come up with a workable GUI or screen set for the rest.

If Linux had had a decent screen set or easy way to design one at the outset then it's my firm belief that mach3 would not have the hold it has today.

I don't think I'm breaking any confidentiality agreements when I say I have seen the new Tormach lathe software which is based on LinuxCNC.

However they have gone about it the right way, sat down and discussed what is wanted, then employed a programmer to give them what they want. It looks really professional, clear and accurate graphics, nice colour scheme, grey on black and multiple tabbed screen , much like Mach with tools, offsets and ATC screens.

So yes I can see it being the way forward IF someone will take it to the next step.

Perhaps the fact that LinuxCNC (aka. emc2 ) comes with a selection of six different GUIs says something?

I have played with LinuxCNC a bit and it seems to be able to do everything that Mach3 does and more but yes, the GUIs, all six of them, let it down.

For actually using my little mill rather than playing I always use Mach3.

Russell.

I took a look at LinuxCNC and feel the same about it as I do 'Gimp'. Really good software let down by the stupid, stupid, stupid and un-necessary 'geekism's'. I am not interested in the software per se, just in the results, and the interface in LinuxCNC gets in the way of the results.

I am sure Mach3 can do more than I will ever need, and the fact it behaves in a manner not far off a normal Windows program made that (one) bit of the learning curve as easy as one would hope.

I wonder when Microsoft will come up with a Windows compatible version of Word (ie one that uses menus and system dialogue boxes that are shared by other programs and so are obvious how to use)? </rantmode>

Regards,

Richard.

With LinuxCNC, are you stuck with using the parallel port for I/O, or are there other options? I.e., is it possible to use it with a laptop/USB ports etc? There seem to be a fair number of non-parallel port options developing on MACH, if you are stuck with using a desktop/tower PC that would be a limitation.

Regards,

Tony

.

Wonderful news, John

... It's time that CNC software got domesticated

... Most of it, however functional it may be, looks hideous.

MichaelG.

Tony - I'm not an "inside guru" of LinuxCNC, just a happy user.

I use cards from Mesa electronics, which are "motion control" cards (Mesa 5i25 cards). I understand that there are some ethernet options. USB seems to not be in favour, simply because the USB device bus can have severe timing issues.

Right now, my machines use Gecko G540s, which are "parallel" port connected. The 5i25 has an option to drive 2 G540s if you want. My Sieg KX1 is driven from a G540 via a Mesa card, and it just flies on rapid moves - most of the time I have it running slower.

People are also using BeagleBone Black boards, which are very small and inexpensive of course, and other boards.

One issue is that many of the people working on LinuxCNC are very smart people, but they are not marketers; the software works very well, and the people are very helpful on the mailing lists and forums.

Another JohnS.

Michael and others:

What?? When I see screen shots taken of Mach3, I think "wow - that is so retro '70s" - so it is what you get used to, I guess.

(I do work on OSX and Android, not so much on Linux, so I am not used to the Windows look and feel - which to me is very foreign)

I think in the end it's the functionality, not the looks that matter, although looks not functionality sells things, doesn't it?

What a catch-22 situation...

Another JohnS.

Thanks John - I guess I will have to take a look once I'm done moving the workshop

Regards,

Tony

.

John,

Your: "retro '70s" is my "hideous" so I guess we must agree to differ.

Yes; functionality is of major importance; but functionality includes the ergonomics of the GUI.

MichaelG.

Yes but the nice thing about Mach is anyone can do a screen given the 2 or 3 designers out there.

LinuxCNC requires a competent programmer to alter the screen and I'm told it's not easy.

Here's by daily grind screen.

Everything is on that first screen.

MDI works.

Setting tool length offsets works [ unlike the main mach scree that says "Not implimented yet "

One button switch between imperial and metric.

Diameter compensation for the A axis.

Buttons nice and squared off for touch screen use, in fact you can see the edges of the touch screen. I buy ex one armed bandit screens for peanuts. No one wants them without a nice posh surround but think about the design of these ?

They are made to be hit with a pint beer pot and not break - sod the nice surround, here hold this

John,

Thanks for that ... I'm liking Mach better already.

Hadn't realised it was easy to customise the screen: I presumed it was stuck in "retro '70s".

MichaelG.

.

Your one armed bandit screen is a great idea.

All;

Thanks for the messages - it appears (obviously) that both Mach and LinuxCNC have strengths and weaknesses.

One thing that is constant is "change"; the computing market is going through a second revolutionary change right now, so we'll see what falls out of the chaos 5 years from now.

For us "CNC'ers", I expect that there will be revolutionary changes, too; lots of effort being placed in stepper control for 3D printers, local (to me) shops now selling CNC wood-carving routers, and a generation of youngsters weaned on Android, IOS, OSX and mobile.

Who would have thought at the time that IBM-360s would ever be replaced, and now we are seeing the abrupt decline of Microsoft and the desktop PC (*). How will our CNC world adapt??

Will be an interesting ride!

Another JohnS.

* Note - I'm not going to argue the decline of Microsoft and the PC; millions already have - the results are interesting. You can google the pundits, should you wish.