Motion Controllers: Mixing Servos & Stepper Motors - Page 2


Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 100

Thread: Motion Controllers: Mixing Servos & Stepper Motors

  1. #21
    Member samco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1753
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: Motion Controllers: Mixing Servos & Stepper Motors

    linuxcnc will do rigid tapping/threading with a vfd and encoder... Mesa hardware is very good - linuxcnc is stable.

    On the linuxcnc forum - there are a few that have setup machines that switch between rotoray axis and spindle.

    sam



  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4252
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: Motion Controllers: Mixing Servos & Stepper Motors

    Hum ...
    ESS, Baldor DC servo motor for spindle, Index line encoder, SMPS driver - I trust it down to about 100 RPM. Below that it seems a bit wobbly.
    Granted, that is a DC motor, not a VFD, and that has only an open loop control. The index pulse is used for threading, which works very well. I have never tried the motor with a servo driver like a Gecko 320.

    Hum again - but the XYZ axes are also DC servo motors with 512 line encoder FB and Gecko 320 drives. I am not sure that I could get them up to 6,000 RPM though - maybe 4000 RPM. Not a lot of torque at high RPM.

    Ah - Mach3 does not support positioning on the spindle. Maybe that is why I never bothered?

    OK, thinking about all this. Thank you.

    Cheers
    Roger



  3. #23
    Registered
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    37
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: Motion Controllers: Mixing Servos & Stepper Motors

    Quote Originally Posted by Stigoe View Post
    Just to throw yet another motion controller out there, have you looked at Dynomotion KFLOP with the corresponding Kanalog? It is only USB, not Ethernet, but still very stable. This can control both step/dir and analog (with Kanalog) and up to 8 axes. You can use both Mach3 and their own program, KmotionCNC.

    Sent from my SM-P905 using Tapatalk
    Yeah, I checked those out, and actually had them on my posted list, but removed them for the USB part (trying my best to at least compare apples & apples for now). It does seem impressive as far as the USB side (Galil has some good options here as well), but is also a bit expensive (about 500$ for the two cards, though the software is free)

    That actually brings me to the next area of consideration, which is the programming and code-reading side. I want to be able to generate G-code from my CAD models, and run that from the laptop;
    -Baldor MintNC seems uniquely capable and terrible in this area. The basic-derived language seems very powerful, but the software for it to read G-Code costs three grand & there are no known G-code translators. Since I as yet don't even speak G-code, the last thing I want is *another* programming language to learn (let alone a proprietary one with no outside utility)
    -Galil DMC appears more 'antiquated' (non-conversational, but still sufficiently capable for my needs) but has far better support; whether or not it ends up supported by Mach4 in the end, it sounds proven for both LinuxCNC and Mach3 builds (and translators are available for both). I'd have to become proficient enough in DMC to know my way around & debug things, but most of the heavy lifting as far as G-code translation has already been dealt with
    -Kmotion is closer to a turn-key solution since it appears they have taken pains to be compatible with Mach3 & G-code in addition to their proprietary software. I haven't done enough investigation to see how Kmotion stacks up against the other options as far as features/interpolation/compensation/etc so I can't say if it is competitive.
    -Mesa/LinuxCNC looks like something that's rather advanced for me, but is probably capable of doing what I need; figuring out which cards & software I need, and how much all those items add up to, is simply beyond my abilities at this time, though. I can tell that it's not a big deal for someone doing their second CNC build, though.

    When software is considered, Galil seems to be the clear winner among the 'industry' options, mostly because Baldor is so rarified in its customer base. I sure don't want to end up trying to learn MintNC and debugging the machine with no resources besides the Baldor programming manual to fall back on, let alone creating a code translator from a command language that's actually useful.

    TCB



  4. #24
    Registered
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    37
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: Motion Controllers: Mixing Servos & Stepper Motors

    Quote Originally Posted by samco View Post
    linuxcnc will do rigid tapping/threading with a vfd and encoder... Mesa hardware is very good - linuxcnc is stable.

    On the linuxcnc forum - there are a few that have setup machines that switch between rotoray axis and spindle.

    sam
    I'll be sure to read up on the Linux options over the next couple days, since its users do seem to be quite happy with it. It just seems to be the favorite of 'experts' (i.e. people who know what they're doing) and rather advanced compared to the more common go-to's around here, but it seems that's what I must become in order to utilize this articulated spindle functionality, no matter what solution I end up with. Oh well, mo' control, mo' problems...

    "Ah - Mach3 does not support positioning on the spindle. Maybe that is why I never bothered?"
    Hmm, that's good to learn early on; so to use Mach3 for this machine I really would have to set the spindle up as a full-on axis? And since Mach only outputs pulses at a fixed ratio (set before running code) that means it really wouldn't be suited for this task at all. In that case, I'll cross "Mach3 compatibility" off my list of desired features. Sounds like Mach4 or something more flexible like LinuxCNC is the better call.

    TCB



  5. #25
    Member ger21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Shelby Township
    Posts
    35538
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: Motion Controllers: Mixing Servos & Stepper Motors

    Galil DMC appears more 'antiquated' (non-conversational, but still sufficiently capable for my needs) but has far better support; whether or not it ends up supported by Mach4 in the end,
    It's supported in Mach4 right now.
    Galil Plugin - Newfangled Solutions

    Gerry

    UCCNC 2017 Screenset
    [URL]http://www.thecncwoodworker.com/2017.html[/URL]

    Mach3 2010 Screenset
    [URL]http://www.thecncwoodworker.com/2010.html[/URL]

    JointCAM - CNC Dovetails & Box Joints
    [URL]http://www.g-forcecnc.com/jointcam.html[/URL]

    (Note: The opinions expressed in this post are my own and are not necessarily those of CNCzone and its management)


  6. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4252
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: Motion Controllers: Mixing Servos & Stepper Motors

    I am not sure whether LinuxCNC can support positioning on the spindle either - just don't know.

    There is a major differnce between a spindle and an axis. You can set a spindle running at 1000 RPM and leave it there. You can't do this with an axis.
    Mach3 does allow for Step/Dir signals for the spindle control, but afaik only for speed, NOT for positioning. Mach3 can synch to the Index pulse for threading, but that is internal.

    G-code etc: Mach3 and LinuxCNC (and UCCNC) implement the NIST g-code Standard. I don't think the others mentioned do. One would need to check in some detail - unless someone knows?

    Cheers
    Roger

    Baldor Mint: psuedo-Basic, unique to Baldor. A dead end. Remember 'industry standards' in the PC world.
    Galil DMC: control language for their hardware, unique, and varies between models. Dead end.
    Fanuc: close to NIST g-code but with custom extensions. Caution: what runs on one Fanuc controller may not run on a different Fanuc controller. Obviously not standardised.
    There are various other custom languages as well - all unique to the vendor and locking you into one brand and possibly one model.
    .

    Last edited by RCaffin; 07-18-2017 at 09:26 PM.


  7. #27
    Community Moderator Jim Dawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    5717
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: Motion Controllers: Mixing Servos & Stepper Motors

    Quote Originally Posted by ger21 View Post
    It's supported in Mach4 right now.
    Galil Plugin - Newfangled Solutions
    Gerry, I read on the Mach4 site that the Mach4 plugin was going to require some special firmware onboard the Galil controller. Do you know if this is still the case?



  8. #28
    Registered
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    37
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: Motion Controllers: Mixing Servos & Stepper Motors

    At any rate, it looks like the Galil Mach4 driver only works for their more recent (and much more expensive) controllers. If LinuxCNC allows me to more closely do all necessary programming tasks with plain G-code that is a huge advantage over the others. For sure I'll look into analog servo-spindle feasibility using that system in the coming days.

    all unique to the vendor and locking you into one brand and possibly one model.
    Yeah, I noticed that too, and from working in professional CAD for a living, I am very familiar with the rent-seeking behavior of industrial tech conglomerates . At least these various control softwares seem to offer some tangible function benefits over each other, versus merely renaming/relocating all the command functions every two years so they can sell training classes. I'm guessing the business model of guys like Baldor is developing custom turn-key black box automation solutions for customers that intend to simply operate the equipment (not develop or maintain it) for a few years until it depreciates and is written off & replaced? That would explain all the surplus motors/drives and near-total lack of formal technical support.



  9. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4252
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: Motion Controllers: Mixing Servos & Stepper Motors

    To be fair, I think some of these guys were forced to develop their own control languages, before the NIST Standard became widespread. Now they are not game to make all their older models obsolete. I can understand that too.

    Cheers
    Roger



  10. #30
    Member ger21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Shelby Township
    Posts
    35538
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: Motion Controllers: Mixing Servos & Stepper Motors

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Dawson View Post
    Gerry, I read on the Mach4 site that the Mach4 plugin was going to require some special firmware onboard the Galil controller. Do you know if this is still the case?
    There's no mention of it in the manual, although I only scanned through it briefly. I wouldn't think so, though.
    http://www.machsupport.com/wp-conten...alilPlugIn.pdf

    Gerry

    UCCNC 2017 Screenset
    [URL]http://www.thecncwoodworker.com/2017.html[/URL]

    Mach3 2010 Screenset
    [URL]http://www.thecncwoodworker.com/2010.html[/URL]

    JointCAM - CNC Dovetails & Box Joints
    [URL]http://www.g-forcecnc.com/jointcam.html[/URL]

    (Note: The opinions expressed in this post are my own and are not necessarily those of CNCzone and its management)


  11. #31
    Registered
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    37
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: Motion Controllers: Mixing Servos & Stepper Motors

    Quote Originally Posted by ger21 View Post
    There's no mention of it in the manual, although I only scanned through it briefly. I wouldn't think so, though.
    http://www.machsupport.com/wp-conten...alilPlugIn.pdf
    I think he may be referring to the comments about ethernet controllers needing some special treatment/port control. I did see that apart from the 'Accelera' series (40x0) controllers, the driver only does linear interpolation, which I'm guessing means less than stellar performance in a few ways.

    "To be fair, I think some of these guys were forced to develop their own control languages, before the NIST Standard became widespread. Now they are not game to make all their older models obsolete. I can understand that too."
    That's likely true, and yet, I work with Siemens products daily, so...I'm a bit jaded when it comes to my perception of these guys' motives

    So, I guess everybody using these high-end controllers in industry has to invest a bunch of time/money developing a custom post-processor that takes the CAM tool paths from the design software & translates it to the motion controller, complete with all the settings relevant to the machine it's to run on? I'm trying to understand all the software "organs" than comprise these setups.

    BALDOR FMH2A06TR-EN23 AC SERVO DRIVE W/ GALIL DMC-1415 MOTION CONTROL
    Check this out: it certainly suggests that *someone* figured out how to get a Galil DMC-1415 to work a Baldor microflex servo driver...



  12. #32
    Community Moderator Jim Dawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    5717
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: Motion Controllers: Mixing Servos & Stepper Motors

    Quote Originally Posted by barnbwt View Post
    I think he may be referring to the comments about ethernet controllers needing some special treatment/port control.
    What I read may have been on one of the Mach forums. One of the Mach4 programmers said they were working with Galil to get special firmware. But from reading the plugin manual that Gerry (Thank you) linked to, there is no mention of it. I suppose that the programming team worked around what ever issue they were having.

    I did see that apart from the 'Accelera' series (40x0) controllers, the driver only does linear interpolation, which I'm guessing means less than stellar performance in a few ways.
    Linear interpolation is not a bad thing if handled correctly. You can cut a perfect circle with only G1 commands (straight line segments), it just takes a lot of them. In fact, linear interpolation is the only way in a Galil controller to have coordinated motion with more than 2 axes strictly onboard the controller. (Think a helix lead-in into a pocket) It is possible to use ''contouring mode'' to generate any multi axis motion path, but it takes all of the control away from the Galil card and requires the the PC program become the motion controller. Why you would want to do that I have no idea, it turns a very intelligent motion controller into a high priced breakout board. This is the way the Mach3 plugin works, I don't know anything about the Mach4 functionality.


    "To be fair, I think some of these guys were forced to develop their own control languages, before the NIST Standard became widespread. Now they are not game to make all their older models obsolete. I can understand that too."
    That's likely true, and yet, I work with Siemens products daily, so...I'm a bit jaded when it comes to my perception of these guys' motives

    So, I guess everybody using these high-end controllers in industry has to invest a bunch of time/money developing a custom post-processor that takes the CAM tool paths from the design software & translates it to the motion controller, complete with all the settings relevant to the machine it's to run on? I'm trying to understand all the software "organs" than comprise these setups.
    G-code hasn't changed much in the last 40 (50?) years, since the paper tape days. But each CNC control manufacturer has their own ideas about how those G-code commands should be formated and interpreted to run the machine. This has required all of CAM programs have machine specific post processors available to be able format the G-code properly for the machine. There is absolutely no reason why there couldn't be a standard format that would run on all machines, or conversely, any G-code formating could be made to run on any CNC controller. From a programming perspective it's just a matter of parsing the data and extracting what is needed.

    Galil DMC code is designed to be easily programmable for any motion control application, even missile tracking and targeting systems (see position tracking [PT] mode). The good news is that you can write DMC code in any text editor, no expensive development software required. If you are going to use a Galil controller with Mach3/4 no programming is required at all, Mach handles everything. Not sure about LinuxCNC.

    BALDOR FMH2A06TR-EN23 AC SERVO DRIVE W/ GALIL DMC-1415 MOTION CONTROL
    Check this out: it certainly suggests that *someone* figured out how to get a Galil DMC-1415 to work a Baldor microflex servo driver...
    Should be pretty easy. I have run Rexroth, Lenze, SEW-Eurodrive, Servo Dynamics, Allen Bradley, Parker, and Automation Direct drives on Galil controllers. Pretty much wire it up, tune the motors and go. I have some Parker drives & motors on the shelf that are either going on my lathe or surface grinder, not sure which one I'm going to do first.



  13. #33
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4252
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: Motion Controllers: Mixing Servos & Stepper Motors

    Linear interpolation is not a bad thing if handled correctly. You can cut a perfect circle with only G1 commands (straight line segments), it just takes a lot of them.
    When you get right down to the very lowest level of digital machine control, 'linear motion' is ALL you have. When the clock ticks, you output a pulse on the such of the X, Y and Z lines as appropriate. That moves the control point in a straight line. This applies to every digital machine controller in the world.

    So what about G2 and G3? The situation is exactly as described: when the clock ticks ... The controller does the maths internally so you don't have to. In the early days of CNC, it would cost you several thousand dollars extra to add G2 and G3 capabilities to your CNC, via some extra circuit boards. Later on it still cost you just as much, but all the technician did was to use a password to authorise the embedded controller to handle the extra commands. Seeing this did get some customers rather riled up. Then Mach3 and LinuxCNC came along, used the PC as the controller, and now you get everything in the base price.

    What about older analog systems with resolver-type feedback? You have two choices here: try for a totally analog control loop, or convert into a digital control loop. The analog loop would struggle to reach 0.1% accuracy, and it is not 'computer numerical control'. It might be OK for radar control of a gun in WW II.

    But each CNC control manufacturer has their own ideas about how those G-code commands should be formated and interpreted to run the machine.
    OK, I am being argumentative here. But basically, this is not correct.
    Formatting details ... trivial. Not fussed.
    Interpretation details: no, the mfr does NOT get to make all his own definitions here IF he wants to claim NIST Standard compatibility. He MUST conform to the basics as laid out in the Standard. To be sure, if he wants to throw in a whole lot of extra g-codes or m-codes, he can - at the risk of making non-portable programs. Fanuc do this. Once upon a time you could get away with that (maybe) if you were big enough, but today I think not. The attraction of being able to change vendors while keeping the same programs is becoming financially compelling.
    Mind you, the 'extra' g-codes and m-codes were rarely all that much use. So you have a special g-code to do a round pocket ... so?

    </soapbox>
    Cheers
    Roger



  14. #34
    Member ger21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Shelby Township
    Posts
    35538
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: Motion Controllers: Mixing Servos & Stepper Motors

    So, I guess everybody using these high-end controllers in industry has to invest a bunch of time/money developing a custom post-processor that takes the CAM tool paths from the design software & translates it to the motion controller, complete with all the settings relevant to the machine it's to run on? I'm trying to understand all the software "organs" than comprise these setups.
    It's not the post processor. The complicated part is the g-code interpreter that reads the g-code and sends commands to the control.

    When you get right down to the very lowest level of digital machine control, 'linear motion' is ALL you have. When the clock ticks, you output a pulse on the such of the X, Y and Z lines as appropriate. That moves the control point in a straight line. This applies to every digital machine controller in the world.
    Especially when you are using step/dir. Since the motors move one step at a time, every move is a straight line.

    Gerry

    UCCNC 2017 Screenset
    [URL]http://www.thecncwoodworker.com/2017.html[/URL]

    Mach3 2010 Screenset
    [URL]http://www.thecncwoodworker.com/2010.html[/URL]

    JointCAM - CNC Dovetails & Box Joints
    [URL]http://www.g-forcecnc.com/jointcam.html[/URL]

    (Note: The opinions expressed in this post are my own and are not necessarily those of CNCzone and its management)


  15. #35
    Registered
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    37
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ger21 View Post
    It's not the post processor. The complicated part is the g-code interpreter that reads the g-code and sends commands to the control.
    Ah, so the code isn't reformatted until it is sent to the controller in real time (or loaded into the controller memory)? So those are separate functions of software, which I suppose avoids the need for Galil-specific plugins in the CAD software generating the base toolpaths.



  16. #36
    Community Moderator Jim Dawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    5717
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: Motion Controllers: Mixing Servos & Stepper Motors

    Quote Originally Posted by RCaffin View Post
    Interpretation details: no, the mfr does NOT get to make all his own definitions here IF he wants to claim NIST Standard compatibility. He MUST conform to the basics as laid out in the Standard. To be sure, if he wants to throw in a whole lot of extra g-codes or m-codes, he can - at the risk of making non-portable programs.
    You and I are in complete agreement. Maybe a poor choice of words on my part. ''Translated'' for the machine controller might have been better, which is a function of the CNC user interface software. Yes, a G1 is a G1 is always a linear move. But you are correct, there is no reason that any G-code formatting can't run on any machine. It's just a matter of machine control builders being lazy in their programming or wanting to make it proprietary, thus shooting themselves in the foot IMHO.

    Quote Originally Posted by barnbwt View Post
    Ah, so the code isn't reformatted until it is sent to the controller in real time (or loaded into the controller memory)? So those are separate functions of software, which I suppose avoids the need for Galil-specific plugins in the CAD software generating the base toolpaths.
    That is correct. The CNC user program translates the G-code into something the Galil (or any other) controller can understand. If you sent the raw G-code to the Galil it would respond with a '':?''

    For instance, G1 X1.0 Y1.0 Z0.5 F10.0
    for a Galil controller is translated to (and I am making a few other assumptions here)
    VSS=4233;LI25400,25400,12700;BGS;LE
    Where 25400 is the number of encoder pulses / inch

    Other controllers would require a different translation. The good news is that the machine user never sees or has to be concerned about what is happening under the covers inside the ''black box''



  17. #37
    Member CS900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    670
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: Motion Controllers: Mixing Servos & Stepper Motors

    Quote Originally Posted by RCaffin View Post

    There is a major differnce between a spindle and an axis. You can set a spindle running at 1000 RPM and leave it there. You can't do this with an axis.
    Mach3 does allow for Step/Dir signals for the spindle control, but afaik only for speed, NOT for positioning. Mach3 can synch to the Index pulse for threading, but that is internal.

    Cheers
    Roger

    .
    I'm on a much lower understanding level than the rest of you gents, so take this with a grain of salt, but jumping back to this comment...

    can you not just assign 2 axis in mach3 that wire to a single stepper/servo control box? Assign (for example) pins 1 and 2 for the step and direction for a spindle application and 3 and 4 for your positioning application. Sure it chews up 2 extra pins on your break out board, but in the grand scheme of things that's not a huge deal.



  18. #38
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7063
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: Motion Controllers: Mixing Servos & Stepper Motors

    Quote Originally Posted by CS900 View Post
    I'm on a much lower understanding level than the rest of you gents, so take this with a grain of salt, but jumping back to this comment...

    can you not just assign 2 axis in mach3 that wire to a single stepper/servo control box? Assign (for example) pins 1 and 2 for the step and direction for a spindle application and 3 and 4 for your positioning application. Sure it chews up 2 extra pins on your break out board, but in the grand scheme of things that's not a huge deal.
    Yes, you can do exactly that, and they do NOT have to be assigned to separate pins. That is exactly what the Novakon Pulsar does to drive its servo spindle, using the Mach3 spindle to drive the spindle for normal milling, using the A axis as a rotary axis to enable rigid tapping.

    Regards,
    Ray L.



  19. #39
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4252
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: Motion Controllers: Mixing Servos & Stepper Motors

    Hi Ray

    Yes, you can assign 2 axes to one pair of pins (Step & Dir), but what happens then is not clear. The spindle code in Mach3 says stop turning,so that bit of the code tries to drive the pin LOW. But the A axis code says pulse HI and LOW, and tries to drive the same pin up and down. Who wins? It is not clear.
    I did try to do this recently, but it did not seem to work. That was overlapping the A and B axes rather than the A axis and the spindle.

    Now, if you want to put in a small external switch to select between the otherwise separate A pins and the spindle pins - that could be made to work. The 'switch' would have to be controlled by a Mach3 Output pin - fine. It would make for some seriously non-portable code of course. Is that what the Pulsar does?

    Cheers
    Roger



  20. #40
    Registered
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    37
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: Motion Controllers: Mixing Servos & Stepper Motors

    "It's just a matter of machine control builders being lazy in their programming or wanting to make it proprietary, thus shooting themselves in the foot IMHO."
    Probably is related to all the vertical integration in the industry at large (motor companies also make controllers, acquire companies that make an interface...all ABB needs to do at this point is buy a CAD company and they're complete from beginning to end)

    So, from my Linux research today, it seems like I'm likely looking at:
    -Mesa 7i92 motion controller board (ethernet connected to a machine running EMC/Mach/etc)
    -Mesa 7i76 stepper output board (5 axes of steppers gives me the growth potential to add a tool changer/etc at a later date)
    -Mesa 7i77 analog servo output board (kind of a waste to use a 6-axis card for this one motor, but I'd be able to upgrade the others at some point)
    -My Dell 2.6GHz i7 laptop with a Linux boot partition (am I locked into a particular distribution, or are most of the common ones good to go?)
    -Baldor 9A Microflex drive
    -Gecko or other ~36V/6A stepper drives (there are also some used 'brand name' options like Parker out there I'm looking into)

    I'm still in about $500 with the 'cheap' Mesa card system, but at least there's not a ton of software expense on top of that.

    Now, I'm guessing it's because people generally choose steppers OR servos, not both, but most references are of using two 76's or 77's, and not one of each; is there anything stopping me from running both these cards?

    TCB




Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


About CNCzone.com

    We are the largest and most active discussion forum for manufacturing industry. The site is 100% free to join and use, so join today!

Follow us on


Our Brands

Motion Controllers: Mixing Servos &amp; Stepper Motors

Motion Controllers: Mixing Servos &amp; Stepper Motors