Highly Modified Taig with R8 Spindle/PDB and DMM 750W Servo

[dezsoe]

Hi Terry,

The length and diameter are still writeable. The slot#, description, type and material type fields are those what you cannot write at the moment. (There are plans to make them writable, because the next version of the probe screen will manage tools, but I can't tell when it will be ready.)

[cncdrive]

Terry,

I think the readers might missunderstand this. The tooltable can be written. The extended tooltable data is what can't be written.

[ThreeDJ16]

Terry,

I think the readers might missunderstand this. The tooltable can be written. The extended tooltable data is what can't be written.

Thanks, that is how I understand it as I'm writing to the tooltable now without an issue. Would be great to see the slot number added to the tool table instead of only on the extended tool table.

[ThreeDJ16]

Ok, I've decided to take the advice offered here and start with a single arm. Just seems way smarter not to rip off the training wheels and jump onto a street racing bike from the start.

I do have one mechanical question for those who are using a mechanical arm changer. What are you using for the rotary motion? Our plan was to use a 180 degree rotary actuator for the rotary and a standard cylinder for the up/down with the arm and pivot bar attached to a linear rail. But I'm curious what everyone else uses. One problem I have with the 180 degree rotary actuator is there is no 90 degree stop to pull the arm up between the spindle and the changer. I've been contemplating using a magnetic switch at the 90 degree mark to close off the two ports when tripped, but not sure how accurate it will be. I could use a seperate solenoid for this op and make this movement slower so it has a chance to balance our just right. Thought about spring returns to 90 degrees when no air is applied and my buddy wanted to use a hard middle stop with a solenoid and leave air applied (which I'm not fond of doing).

So what have you'll done in this area, as I remember seeing some pretty complex changers from a few of you guys (and I must say they are very cool).

Thanks,
Jasen

[Vmax549]

(;-) When yous guys start having to actually create AND support ATC applications you will better understand what I was trying to explain.

What you call a tool table is just a page full of dros. And even the number range is not consistant . 99% of all controllers USE the table format for a tool table. It is MUCH easier to deal with. Why else would most controllers use it ???

Also I did say that IF you forget about teh tool table and write to teh 2 DROS it would be simpler but you still cannot substitute slot# for tool #. And this is referring to applying teh H and D words correctly .

The last ATC I worked on for UCCNC was a 12 tool remote mounted carrousel with a robotic arm. It can use tools 1-12 in auto mode or tools 13-96 in manual mode or any combination of tool# in semi auto mode. There are 4 modes of use

Tools 1-12 are located on the carrousel. Tools 13-96 have to be manually installed or removed.

tool# 1-12 to 1-12 in auto mode
tool# 1-12 to tool 13-96 in semi auto mode
tool# 13-96 to 1-12 in semi auto mode
tool# 13-96 to 13-96 in manual mode

Currently it requires about 1 K lines of code to support it AND it still needs several hundred more lines of safety code added .

I have done most types of ATCs that are out there testing them in UCCNC.

Time will tell, (;-) TP

[Vmax549]

Your buddy has the best idea using a solenoid and pin as a hard stop. I used a similar function in the last ATC I did. NOT for rotary motion but to park teh arm out of the way mid stroke.

Or you can use a stepper/servo to rotate the arm that way you can control the rotation and stop points precisely.

(;-) TP

[ThreeDJ16]

Your buddy has the best idea using a solenoid and pin as a hard stop. I used a similar function in the last ATC I did. NOT for rotary motion but to park teh arm out of the way mid stroke.

Or you can use a stepper/servo to rotate the arm that way you can control the rotation and stop points precisely.

(;-) TP

Thanks. I'm sure he's gonna be ecstatic to hear that. So you don't think a torsion centering spring could hold it at 90 degrees and just use air to push it at 0 and 180 degrees and just passively use a spring for the return point? The arm would be unloaded at this point and not heavy. Trying to eliminate as many active components as possible.

[Vmax549]

Anything is possible (;-) But the one thing you do want to happen is it return to the exact same position each time and be firmly held there. Also you will want a switch to indicate is is at mid stroke and secure before you restart teh Program run.

BUT IF you are just building a 1 arm ATC why worry about a mid path stop. Just park the arm back over the carousel side.

What type tool holders are you planning to use iso20/30 or BT/CT30 .

What type tool fingers are you planning to use ? Spring loaded or open/close positive clamp

(;-) TP

[ThreeDJ16]

Anything is possible (;-) But the one thing you do want to happen is it return to the exact same position each time and be firmly held there. Also you will want a switch to indicate is is at mid stroke and secure before you restart teh Program run.

BUT IF you are just building a 1 arm ATC why worry about a mid path stop. Just park the arm back over the carousel side.

What type tool holders are you planning to use iso20/30 or BT/CT30 .

What type tool fingers are you planning to use ? Spring loaded or open/close positive clamp

(;-) TP

Well, I got my buddy who's doing the mechanical side to agree to the single arm provided there is a possible upgrade path to a dual arm if it becomes feasible (slots directly in main tool table, me learning a lot more, etc...).

We will have magnetic switches on the rotary actuator that gives us 0 and 180 degree, so 90 will be both switches off giving a positive indication. The spring I'm looking at is what you'd see in an industrial door lock (except heavier). It's one spring, with a bow tie at the top to screw into the shaft of the actuator, spring rolls around the shaft and two legs that go into holes on the actuator. So it would a pretty strong positive pressure holding it at 90 and only air forces it to 0 and 180. My buddies concern is the spring bouncing, but I can't see that happening with a light aluminum arm and unloaded when returning to the 90 position. The original plan is to do the one arm and probably park it under the ferris wheel, but need the ability to do the 90 degree thing in order to have an upgrade path.

We are using TTS tooling and it will be fingers on the arm (for the ATC rings) and spring loaded clamp holders (for the TTS 3/4" shaft) on the ferris wheel. My hopes are to only use up 1 axis for the stepper drive on the ferris wheel and not use up a second for the arm. A plunger will tip the tool cup on the change over 90 degree and the arm swings in place to grab it. So already up to 4 active components (stepper on ferris wheel, maybe put an AMT102 encoder on it for more accuracy, a solenoid to tip the cup and two solenoids for the rotary actuator. The encoder would give me tool at position for an input and tip the tool cup. Not sure if an additional switch it needed there or not. Then the arm rotary portion has two magnetic switches and the up/down cylinder we'll probably opt for one also with magnetic switches. A lot easier to buy them made in versus adding. Unless I'm not counting correct, 1 analog in, 4 maybe 5 digital in and 4 outputs. Been a long day, so I'm sure that I've missed something.

Whew...that was a mouthful...LOL. I don't have the renderings yet or I'd put up a pic of the design, but it's still in a bit of flux working out the smaller details. Which I need to solve before deciding the programming path.....slow but sure.

Thanks,
Jasen

[ger21]

Well, I got my buddy who's doing the mechanical side to agree to the single arm provided there is a possible upgrade path to a dual arm if it becomes feasible (slots directly in main tool table

There's no difference between adding your own slot # DRO's, vs ones that CNC Drive **might** eventually add, so there's no reason to wait for them, imo.

If and when they get implemented, it as simple as swapping the field numbers to the new ones.