Suggestions for safety features

[ger21]

Door interlock HAS to allow certain functions or you would never be able to setup a job. So no it is NOT estop. I would assume that open routers would use a safety light curtain ??

Yeah, I guess routers are a bit different.

[A_Camera]

You cannot make things as important as safety features accessible to anyone that way. Today's operators are VERY cleaver and most are computer savvy. ONCE they learn a new trick, that trick will be spread across the WEB to all their friends in DAYS. Making anything like that ineffective.

Solution: Employ only reliable people who you can trust and make sure they understand the rules of the game. Cracking company computers or braking company safety policy and IT rules is a very good reason for immediate firing. Make sure that only adults with adult minds can get near a machine, make sure that they understand the rules and that it is not a computer game they are playing, make sure that they know what they are employed for. Cracking computers and tempering with software which you don't have the IPR for is illegal, I am pretty sure that this is the case in USA also, but definitely in Europe.

Learn how to use Windows accounts, access rights and user principles, use Windows 7 or Windows 10 and you have better password protection than anything that can be built into UCCNC. Password protection should be at user level, not application level.

UCCNC is a cheap application, let's keep it that way. By adding features which are needed/wished for by only a handful of people CNC Drive might win the respect of those few but lose the respect of masses. In other words, CNC Drive must make a decision, develop an expensive software which will target customers who are ready to pay thousands of dollars for such software, or keep the price low and target the masses, mainly the DIY type who is ready to help with development and debugging BUT will not pay thousands of dollars. I would guess that the later is a better business for CNC Drive. UCCNC will quickly vanish from the mass market if it is made expensive and complicated, full of features most people are NOT interested in and which easily can be solved through external hardware or built in Windows function/features.

[cncdrive]

Terry, yes, I understand the point about crack-ability of the password and yes, that's possible with removing the constructor macro or renaming it.

And what I'm afraid of when it comes implementing this kind of features as core features are:

1.) They may be really machine specific, like the door closed switch, so if we implement things like that then we should be really careful how we will do it to not disturb users with this function if their machine does not have this feature. Ofcourse the door switch was just an example and routers mostly do not have a door switch, not even a door.

2.) The password protection could cause problems also in my opinion, because if we will make it not crackable at all with compiling it inside the software and storing the password encrypted and hidden then what will happen if the user loose the password. I see people e-mailing us to get advice about how to crack the password when they lost it.

[cncdrive]

Josef,

Yes, I agree with you on this one, a CNC is not a CNC-game, and the operator is responsible what he/she is doing with the machine.
Ofcourse there must be safety features built in, but if an operator cracks the software then it is their responsibility if an accident happens because of this.

And this reminds me of the typical 2 hands start switch system story, which is a safety feature in hydraulic press machines for example.
It requires the user to press and keep pressed 2 switches together within some milliseconds of time interval and if the 2 switches are pressed together then the machine will start the pressing process.
And the function is to protect the user from his/her hands being inside the machine when the pressing happens.
I've heard a case that the operator ladies tricked this system with pushing the 2 switches down together using a stick and ofcourse it was just a question of time for an accident to happen when one lady lost 2 fingers.
Now the question is who's responsibility is the accident ... it was ofcourse the operator's fault since they on purpose tricked out the safety system.

[A_Camera]

Josef,

Yes, I agree with you on this one, a CNC is not a CNC-game, and the operator is responsible what he/she is doing with the machine.
Ofcourse there must be safety features built in, but if an operator cracks the software then it is their responsibility if an accident happens because of this.

And this reminds me of the typical 2 hands start switch system story, which is a safety feature in hydraulic press machines for example.
It requires the user to press and keep pressed 2 switches together within some milliseconds of time interval and if the 2 switches are pressed together then the machine will start the pressing process.
And the function is to protect the user from his/her hands being inside the machine when the pressing happens.
I've heard a case that the operator ladies tricked this system with pushing the 2 switches down together using a stick and ofcourse it was just a question of time for an accident to happen when one lady lost 2 fingers.
Now the question is who's responsibility is the accident ... it was ofcourse the operator's fault since they on purpose tricked out the safety system.

I know what you mean...When I was young I worked with some metal sheet (sheet = VERY large and heavy steel sheet) bending machines as an electrician in South Africa. It actually had three switches, one for one foot also, and the machine was not doing anything if not all three were pressed within a time frame and in a certain order, foot pedal last. Guess if someone figured out a way of fooling the machine... no, not me, I still have all my fingers, arms feet and everything... but when something happened the operator did not sleep at home that night, that's for sure. So, people who don't take safety measures seriously should not be let in an environment where safety is important.

[cncdrive]

Terry,

Safety standards are probably different in a few details in the EU and the USA, but I think the basics, the most important things are probably the same or at least both standards are to protect the workers.

One difference I know about is the thing what many US machine manufacturers doing is that VMCs often only slows the spindle down when the door is opened and this is not allowed in the EU, the spindle must be stopped in machines which has a full enclosure with safety door, because that suggests that the machine can't move when opened.
I know a few US made machine brands and models which do not stop the spindle only slowdown if the door is opened.
I don't know if this is allowed in the USA or if machine manufacturers just do not take this safety regulation seriously?

Another thing is that it is not allowed to make some safety functions like e-stop software dependent, the e-stop must directly influance if the machine can move or not, e.g. the e-stop releasing a relay with direct wiring.
I'm not sure about if the case is the same with the door switch or not, but will try to look it up, but I have a feeling that it does and if so then it must be an e-stop condition and not only certain things to not work when the door is opened. I know that then it is hard for the worker to setup the machine, but safety regulations are not to make workers' jobs easier.

Safety light curtains also a requirement here for routers which are not fully enclosed (I have never seen one personally which was fully enclosed) and that also must physically interrupt and prevent the machine from moving and again it has to do that without software or any controller electronics involved in the power removal process. The software can only "get information" about the curtain being activated, but it is not allowed that the software remove the power, the power must be switch directly outside any software and control electronics ... e.g. via a relay dropping directly connected to the curtain.

What I'm trying to describe is that we should be careful what safety features and how we implement them, because if we implement a feature in the wrong way, e.g. if we implement a safety door switch with a spindle slow down which does not comply the safety rules here in the EU is probably worse than if we do not have that implemented and leave it to be implemented on the machine manufacturer.
Since the function must be implemented without software control therefor I don't see the software developer liable in case the machine manufacturer does not implement that.
However if we add a function like that made in the wrong way or in a way which is at some places does not complies the safety standards that could give the impression to the machine manufacturer that this should be done that way and that it will be OK while it may be not. Ofcourse still the machine manufacturer is liable if they implement things or not in compilance with the local safety requirements/regulations, but I think it is our moral liability that we should implement safety features in a way which does not misslead machine manufacturers.

The password protection is another interesting topic. In the EU there is no such safety rule which requires a password protection. (However if talking about the UCCNC then Windows could be locked with password with the operator logging out and protecting their Windows account with a password.) Mostly how it is done in practice is a keylock protection which again follows the rule that hardware protection is better and safer for these kind of things than software protection. As passwords can be stolen, software can be hacked, but if there is a keylock which removes power and causes an e-stop condition then that must be physically hacked to use the machine without owning the key and that is a criminal act while figuring a password out may be not.

[A_Camera]

In this case the software was not cracked simply bypassed.

It doesn't matter if it needs a genius or simpleton to do it, it is still called cracking/hacking/manipulating the software, and that is illegal (= criminal activity) most probably even in the USA. In Sweden you can be sentenced to jail if you set aside, block or temper with ANY safety feature on a machine or a system which can cause injury.

Even local jurisdictions are NOW requiring full safety compliance

Like I said before, there is no such thing as "full safety compliance". Compliance with what? Which level? Safety, like every other standard, is numbered, and different levels meet different regulations. I KNOW that this is the case also in USA. Most often it is a combination of a LOT of different standards and no single part or component is fulfilling ALL the standards. That is simply not possible. Some of the standards concerning the type of machines we are talking about are covered in the following standards:

ANSI B11.8-2001
ANSI B11.11-2001
ANSI B11.23-2002
ANSI B11.24-2002

Ask "your" OEM representatives which standard they refer to, because really, once and for all, there is no such thing as "full safety compliance", unless you say which standard it should be fully compliant with.

Their Goal is to protect the workers.

The goal is not just to prevent personal injury, but also to protect machines, investments and other, even third party, interests. Preventing bodily harm is just ONE goal. That's why it is also important to only let qualified persons with a mature attitude be near a machine, and prevent the immature "smart" ones from touching it. The safety level can never be higher than the level of understanding, education and safety moral of the staff AND the management which supposed to use/own/operate those machines.

[cncdrive]

Summarising my opinion I think that we should provide the ability to implement some of these things with providing somekind of interface to let OEMs implement it if they need it, but in my opinion these should be not core features written into stone.

[ger21]

Sounds good to me.