UC100 error lost connection

[cncdrive]

The issue with your theory is that a large machine with lots of noise will not work reliably with USB cable connection, no matter what cable you use, because the issue is that USB is ground referenced and a cable has resistance and inductance (impedance) and this impedance limits the current flow and so the voltage change rate between the 2 sides of the cable.
Things can be made better with shorter and thicker cable, but it will be never a perfect solution for a heavily noisy environment.
We always recommend to use ethernet if the machine is large and if the environment is noisy.
We recommend the UC100 for hobby home use on small machines.

By the way the UC100 runs on USB 1.1 and not on 2.0, so it does not even have to comply USB 2.0.
Ofcourse it works on 2.0, because it is backwards compatible to 1.1 and it also works on 3.0 because that is backwards compatible with 2.0.
So, it's like when you install Windows 10 on a computer and you put Virtual PC on it and you install Windows 7 on it and you put a Virtual PC on it and you put a Windows XP on it and finally using Windows XP.

[Kevin Johnson]

The issue with your theory is that a large machine with lots of noise will not work reliably with USB cable connection, no matter what cable you use, because the issue is that USB is ground referenced and a cable has resistance and inductance (impedance) and this impedance limits the current flow and so the voltage change rate between the 2 sides of the cable. ...

I know empirically, from five years of production use, that the first USB cable that you supplied does work reliably. I re-used the first cable again today to again reliably run the router with no connection errors. I am certainly not claiming that it will work reliably in any and all industrial environments.

By the same token, I know that the second cable you supplied does not work reliably in the exact same environment. What I am saying is that there are obvious quality differences between the two cables. Since they are probably the same cost or very nearly so it would be a good idea to let your supplier know that one is superior and preferred.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If anyone reading this cares, the CE area that deals with this topic (in regards to EMI) is: DIRECTIVE 89/336/EEC. You can download a 61 page document that goes into detail.

[Robertspark]

DIRECTIVE 89/336/EEC has been repealed and replaced with Directive 2004/108/EC

I am not sure if cables are required to carry a CE marking

3. This Directive shall not apply to equipment the inherent nature of the physical characteristics of which is such that:

(a)

it is incapable of generating or contributing to electromagnetic emissions which exceed a level allowing radio and telecommunication equipment and other equipment to operate as intended; and

(b)

it will operate without unacceptable degradation in the presence of the electromagnetic disturbance normally consequent upon its intended use.

As they are
incapable of generating or contributing to electromagnetic emissions which exceed a level allowing radio and telecommunication equipment and other equipment to operate as intended

[Robertspark]

The directive mainly deals with "apperatus", cables are likely to be exempt in that they are benign

(15)
It should be possible to place apparatus on the market or put it into service only if the manufacturers concerned have established that such apparatus has been designed and manufactured in conformity with the requirements of this Directive. Apparatus placed on the market should bear the ‘CE’ marking attesting to compliance with this Directive. Although conformity assessment should be the responsibility of the manufacturer, without any need to involve an independent conformity assessment body, manufacturers should be free to use the services of such a body.

A cable is a cable..... Some are singles, some are stranded, braided, foil, screened, etc etc...
CE for cables is likely to be different in conveying compliance (such as LSOH / LSZH etc....)


An example is SY cable
SY Cable - Farnell
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sourc ... 18GfTRS-M6

It complies with
EC directive : This cable confirms to ECD 73 / 23 / EEC (low voltage directive)
And will therefore carry a CE mark..... But it may not be for what you think it's for..... Give it only relates to ECD 73 / 23 / EEC

Which is a bit of a loose standard
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content ... %3Al21015b


SUMMARY

The aim of this Directive is to ensure that electrical equipment cannot be placed on the market if, when installed and maintained, it endangers the safety of persons, domestic animals or property.

It will carry CE but don't presume it complies with electromagnetic CE requirements

[Robertspark]

Another example with CE explained

CY cable
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sourc ... HLj970c5LG

[Kevin Johnson]

Update: Just to be thorough, this morning I switched back to the second suspect cable and received a connection error shortly after milling the first hole.

Note: After reading the USB information I looked for the USB Logo on the second cable and it is present on both ends. USB requires certification to be able to use the USB logo on products. So, applying the philosophical principle of charity (interpreting information in the best possible light) this would indicate that my particular cable is simply off-spec but not intentionally. A less charitable interpretation is the cable manufacturer was all-in in spoofing compliance with the USB standard.

[cncdrive]

Or maybe the cable suffered mechanical damage or had somekind of unnoticable manufacturing error?!

[Robertspark]

I think there is too much variance in the market for a usb cable..... Let's face it we have a semi mission critical application where data needs to travel regularly up and down the cable with little outside impact.

For 99.9% of the USB cables out there this is not a requirement and the user would know nothing of the data packets had CRC errors and needed to be resent even if the CRC errors backed up and the data was queued .... Bit different with CNC.....

Hence the advice with usb (or one of them) is simply to try another cable.

I don't think there is anything underhand it's just the way it is.... For $10 it's hardly worth worrying about but I'm sure we all appreciate it is an annoyance given it probably cost you more that $10 in scrapped material and investigative and washing machine repair tactics (washing machine tactic = replace / check everything until fault is cleared).

I was wondering if the problem is isolation or filtering that is the fix.

Say had you installed one of these usb isolation devices would it improve / remove the issue
https://www.poscope.com/product/pousbiso/

[Kevin Johnson]

Or maybe the cable suffered mechanical damage or had somekind of unnoticable manufacturing error?!

It looks beautiful and undamaged. I took it with me to the shop where I bought the replacement and he tested it with some sort of box with multiple plugs -- I guess to see that the ground was working and the wires were unbroken. I think it could be some kind of manufacturing error -- it would be a good topic for an electrical engineering student's paper.

[Kevin Johnson]

.... For $10 it's hardly worth worrying about but I'm sure we all appreciate it is an annoyance given it probably cost you more that $10 in scrapped material and investigative and washing machine repair tactics (washing machine tactic = replace / check everything until fault is cleared).
...

Laugh! Every time it had a connection error I had to scrap a nice piece of Teflon worth more than $10.00. The cable looked so nice that I replaced the computers and power supplies several times before suspecting it. If I had gone with the test at the shop I would still be fiddling with it.