Homebrew PCBs

http://www.webjb.org/pub/img/05133/000_0964.JPG 

it is bottle heater, 300W, made of England, T can be 
adjusted.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

A few people seem to be saying they are going to build something along 
the cnc lines etc, what about a concerted group effort, organize 
ourselves etc and build a one-off machine thats been well thought out 
with the knowledge of us all.


1) Its a cooperative build, everyone has a right to their opinion, 
disputes settled by a quick straw ballot/vote etc no point arguing over 
an item for weeks slowing us all down.

2) It may be best to do this in separate groups for the hardware part of 
the build to geographic availability of parts. (country not county!)

2a) software etc knows no bounds, so that should be same world over with 
maybe the development of language packs.


3) Maybe shift it to another group to avoid clogging up the pcb/toner 
threads with stepper motor resistance / drive current threads etc
(group created at cncpcb-homebrew@yahoogroups.com can soon be deleted if 
not needed)


4) if you disagree with all this and think its best to build alone, tell 
me to shut up!



just a thought.
cncpcb-homebrew@yahoogroups.com

I like it.

Robert
:)



-----Message d'origine-----
De : Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com] De
la part de Lez
Envoyé : mai 31 2005 13:11
À : Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
Objet : [Homebrew_PCBs] home brew cnc drill etc



A few people seem to be saying they are going to build something along 
the cnc lines etc, what about a concerted group effort, organize 
ourselves etc and build a one-off machine thats been well thought out 
with the knowledge of us all.


1) Its a cooperative build, everyone has a right to their opinion, 
disputes settled by a quick straw ballot/vote etc no point arguing over 
an item for weeks slowing us all down.

2) It may be best to do this in separate groups for the hardware part of 
the build to geographic availability of parts. (country not county!)

2a) software etc knows no bounds, so that should be same world over with 
maybe the development of language packs.


3) Maybe shift it to another group to avoid clogging up the pcb/toner 
threads with stepper motor resistance / drive current threads etc (group
created at cncpcb-homebrew@yahoogroups.com can soon be deleted if 
not needed)


4) if you disagree with all this and think its best to build alone, tell 
me to shut up!



just a thought.
cncpcb-homebrew@yahoogroups.com



Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Bookmarks and files:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs 
Yahoo! Groups Links

Sounds like a great idea!

When do we start!

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Lez <lez.briddon@n...> wrote:
> 
> A few people seem to be saying they are going to build something 
along 
> the cnc lines etc, what about a concerted group effort, organize 
> ourselves etc and build a one-off machine thats been well thought 
out 
> with the knowledge of us all.
> 
> 
> 1) Its a cooperative build, everyone has a right to their opinion, 
> disputes settled by a quick straw ballot/vote etc no point arguing 
over 
> an item for weeks slowing us all down.
> 
> 2) It may be best to do this in separate groups for the hardware 
part of 
> the build to geographic availability of parts. (country not county!)
> 
> 2a) software etc knows no bounds, so that should be same world over 
with 
> maybe the development of language packs.
> 
> 
> 3) Maybe shift it to another group to avoid clogging up the 
pcb/toner 
> threads with stepper motor resistance / drive current threads etc
> (group created at cncpcb-homebrew@yahoogroups.com can soon be 
deleted if 
> not needed)
> 
> 
> 4) if you disagree with all this and think its best to build alone, 
tell 

> me to shut up!
> 
> 
> 
> just a thought.
> cncpcb-homebrew@yahoogroups.com

A search on yahoo groups shows one group already doing similar things:

CNC-PCB_Design

Dunno how active they are, but it is free to join.

Ed

>
> A few people seem to be saying they are going to build something along
> the cnc lines etc, what about a concerted group effort, organize
> ourselves etc and build a one-off machine thats been well thought out
> with the knowledge of us all.
>
>
> 1) Its a cooperative build, everyone has a right to their opinion,
> disputes settled by a quick straw ballot/vote etc no point arguing over
> an item for weeks slowing us all down.
>
> 2) It may be best to do this in separate groups for the hardware part of
> the build to geographic availability of parts. (country not county!)
>
> 2a) software etc knows no bounds, so that should be same world over with
> maybe the development of language packs.
>
>
> 3) Maybe shift it to another group to avoid clogging up the pcb/toner
> threads with stepper motor resistance / drive current threads etc
> (group created at cncpcb-homebrew@yahoogroups.com can soon be deleted if
> not needed)
>
>
> 4) if you disagree with all this and think its best to build alone, tell
> me to shut up!
>
>
>
> just a thought.
> cncpcb-homebrew@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Bookmarks and files:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Lez wrote:

> A few people seem to be saying they are going to build something along 
> the cnc lines etc, what about a concerted group effort, organize 
> ourselves etc and build a one-off machine thats been well thought out 
> with the knowledge of us all.
> 
> 
> 1) Its a cooperative build, everyone has a right to their opinion, 
> disputes settled by a quick straw ballot/vote etc no point arguing over 
> an item for weeks slowing us all down.
> 

   First off, votes don't count much if you haven't actually done both of what 
ever is in question.  The group can easily be tremendously wrong on a vote, 
simply because one way seems better than another from looking at it, if you 
don't actually construct both.

   Hardly needed anyway, nothing to stop anyone from departing from instructions 
if they want to do it a different way.  Two or three different ways isn't too 
many either.

   Can't imagine anything coming close to as fast as what I've got for being put 
together.  You could easily use printer rails etc if you like in place of them, 
but you'll have to spend more time getting them aligned.  Once I give basic 
dimensions on mine and how to put together there won't be need for much else, if 
you want to make it different it'll still be a good basic guide.  I could easily 
put together 10 of my mechanics in a day, maybe just an afternoon.  I doubt many 
others could do that.  At only $75 or so for the hardware, it's a great thing to 
start with, then do more if you decide you need it.

> 2) It may be best to do this in separate groups for the hardware part of 
> the build to geographic availability of parts. (country not county!)

   Most of it is relevant enough I doubt too many would complain much, since 
drilling is the hardest part left of making your own good boards.




   The real thing is for me to decide to donate my board layout and code.  Both 
are superior.  I understand how to do binary math properly, which very few 
people really do.  Perfect binary division, so it always ends up on the correct 
step whether it's one or a few billion steps, and through all three dimensions. 
  Really I totally abstracted the line drawing algorithm, it's not tied to which 
distance is longer like most are given, so is a loop and generalized for all 
dimensions.  In other words you can add more dimensions by simply adding another 
variable set in the loop.  It can move through 20 dimensions all at once and 
arrive at the correct point in all at the same time without error.  Heck most 
people lack so much understanding of the math they say you have to use floating 
point (which means 'someone else's work', that you have no idea if it's truly 
accurate).  You never, ever, ever have to use floating point to do math, it can 
all be done straight in binary if you know what you're doing.  Anyone tells you 
different then know for sure they may be a good programmer but they're quite 
lacking in binary math skills, even if they don't think so.  The proof is in my 
working code.  The main code for three dimensions is only a screen or two in 
assembly, which means it's about as tight as it could possibly get.

   Since the board design will be out the instant I sell one, I may just put it 
out anyway.  Like the machine itself it's boiled down without the crap other 
people swear you have to have because they don't understand how to make it work 
without unnecessary parts.  Gates blow if you don't really understand what 
you're doing driving a motor with high side N channel MOSFETs, look on the net 
at how many designs have crazy amounts of gate protection diodes that aren't 
necessary at all if you under stand it correctly, and drive it right and don't 
make it fail.

   Plus it's flexible and intelligent, you just give it the endpoints and tell 
it to go, not some crazy twiddling every line or telling it every point along 
the way, and with controller based timing.  Of course that can be put in too, so 
you can use other CAM programs that are out there for the interface.  All the 
higher math is done on the PC side in my code, so it's easy to adjust how the 
user interface works.  It works the way I'd want it to work.  Only needs a 
little more user interfacing code and a few extras, I just left it at basic 
input statements since I knew exactly what I was making it do.

Alan

On Tue, 31 May 2005 19:41:03 +0200, Ed Okerson <ed@...> wrote:

> A search on yahoo groups shows one group already doing similar things:
> CNC-PCB_Design
> Dunno how active they are, but it is free to join.
> Ed


You'll find many familiar names there.


As for the group build effort, good idea, but not very interesting for me.
I simply have to do my own thing, 'cause, what i think is best, i think is  
best, needn't be best, but it think it is. ;-)

Interesting discussions coming up while one is knocked out by a faulty HD  
for 2 days, i am in the process of building a driller myself, but right  
now i have to cope with the data-loss so it will have to be on hold.


ST

On Tue, 31 May 2005 18:11:24 +0200, microsoftwarecontrol  
<microsoftwarecontrol@...> wrote:

> ttp://www.webjb.org/pub/img/05133/000_0964.JPG
> it is bottle heater, 300W, made of England, T can be
> adjusted.


good idea, i'd have used some additional lining 'cause i'm not sure it is  
supposed to hold up to ferric cloride (maybe a thick plastic bag?).

Bit small 'tho.


ST

Alan King wrote:
>    First off, votes don't count much if you haven't actually done both of what 
> ever is in question.  The group can easily be tremendously wrong on a vote, 
> simply because one way seems better than another from looking at it, if you 
> don't actually construct both.

True, but thats the look of the draw, hopefully someone will have tried 
or had experience etc.

>    Hardly needed anyway, nothing to stop anyone from departing from instructions 
> if they want to do it a different way.  Two or three different ways isn't too 
> many either.

No but if one person doing it is own way has a problem, he's on his own, 
even with the help of others they cant really /see/ his problem except 
by his description, to quote etc a picture is worth a thousand words, 
and if your building the same thing then holding it in your hands has 
got to be worth a thousand pictures, and if more than one person is 
holding it, more chance of seeing the problems solution.


>    Can't imagine anything coming close to as fast as what I've got for being put 
> together.  You could easily use printer rails etc if you like in place of them, 
> but you'll have to spend more time getting them aligned.  Once I give basic 
> dimensions on mine and how to put together there won't be need for much else, if 
> you want to make it different it'll still be a good basic guide.  I could easily 

So you've come this far on your own, hell even completed it etc, your 
design may well be worth adopting I'm _not_ saying a johnny come lately 
group of us banding together _will_ come up with anything better.


> put together 10 of my mechanics in a day, maybe just an afternoon.  I doubt many 
> others could do that.  At only $75 or so for the hardware, it's a great thing to 
> start with, then do more if you decide you need it.

But can everyone buy that hardware?


>    The real thing is for me to decide to donate my board layout and code.  Both 
> are superior.

mmmmmmm, trumpet, own and blowing.....

You /dont/ know that its superior to something that may get built and 
has not even been roughly designed etc, would be nice to see it mind, 
I'm not saying yours is poor just that you cant really claim it to be 
the best in the world unless its compared to the rest in the world.


>  I understand how to do binary math properly, which very few 
> people really do.  Perfect binary division, so it always ends up on the correct 
> step whether it's one or a few billion steps, and through all three dimensions. 

Ha top man , I have nightmares about people and high level languages,

> dimensions.  In other words you can add more dimensions by simply adding another 
> variable set in the loop.  It can move through 20 dimensions all at once and 

Lol, ok so I am conversant with the first 4 dimensions but I am lost 
after Time

> all be done straight in binary if you know what you're doing.  Anyone tells you 
> different then know for sure they may be a good programmer but they're quite 
> lacking in binary math skills, even if they don't think so.

True.


> the way, and with controller based timing.  Of course that can be put in too, so 
> you can use other CAM programs that are out there for the interface.  All the 
> higher math is done on the PC side in my code, so it's easy to adjust how the 
> user interface works.  It works the way I'd want it to work.  Only needs a 
> little more user interfacing code and a few extras, I just left it at basic 
> input statements since I knew exactly what I was making it do.
> 

Sounds like you've looked into this well, will be nice to see.




Lez.

Hi Ed,

I've been a member of that group for over a year now. The topic of a 
pcb driller has been brought up, but has pretty much ignored and 
looked down at. Their main focus is the CNC Milling of pcb's. This 
requires a sturdier beefier design  and more expensive design.

The best advise you'll see from that group is buy one of 
Crankorgan's plans and build it.

I'm still amember of that group,hoping to glean a few gems if info 
from it. But The group hass accomplished more in the last few days 
than the other group has in the last year!

So I vote to keep this topic here and I've already started building 
mine.

Myc




--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Ed Okerson" <ed@o...> wrote:
> A search on yahoo groups shows one group already doing similar 
things:
> 
> CNC-PCB_Design
> 
> Dunno how active they are, but it is free to join.
> 
> Ed
> 
> >
> > A few people seem to be saying they are going to build something 
along
> > the cnc lines etc, what about a concerted group effort, organize
> > ourselves etc and build a one-off machine thats been well 
thought out
> > with the knowledge of us all.
> >
> >
> > 1) Its a cooperative build, everyone has a right to their 
opinion,
> > disputes settled by a quick straw ballot/vote etc no point 
arguing over
> > an item for weeks slowing us all down.
> >
> > 2) It may be best to do this in separate groups for the hardware 
part of
> > the build to geographic availability of parts. (country not 
county!)
> >
> > 2a) software etc knows no bounds, so that should be same world 
over with
> > maybe the development of language packs.
> >
> >
> > 3) Maybe shift it to another group to avoid clogging up the 
pcb/toner
> > threads with stepper motor resistance / drive current threads etc
> > (group created at cncpcb-homebrew@yahoogroups.com can soon be 
deleted if
> > not needed)
> >
> >
> > 4) if you disagree with all this and think its best to build 
alone, tell
> > me to shut up!
> >
> >
> >
> > just a thought.
> > cncpcb-homebrew@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Bookmarks and 
files:

> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

I was thinking that eventually, walking robots may have the ability to 
do c&c with their hands.  I want to make a c&c that can grind glass to 
make a low cost ultrathin 24" reflector telescope.

Ted

-- 
Ted Huntington        
Programmer Analyst  
Langson Library       
University of California, Irvine
PO Box 19557
Irvine, CA 92623-9557

Phone Bus Off 949 824 8926
Phone MRC     949 824 1674
emesg: thunting@...
webpage:  http://business.lib.uci.edu/webpages/ted.htm
"Stop violence, teach science."

On Tue, 31 May 2005 22:36:44 +0200, Ted Huntington <thunting@...>  
wrote:

> I was thinking that eventually, walking robots may have the ability to
> do c&c with their hands.  I want to make a c&c that can grind glass to
> make a low cost ultrathin 24" reflector telescope.
>
> Ted
>

I have tried THREE times to ATTACH some photos relevant to this point, but  I 
clearly don't have a CLUE how to do it.
 
One member who's name I stupidly did not jot down asked me to send the pics  
to him, and he would help.  I did.  He musta gone on vacation!
 
I would GLADLY follow protocol to send these photos relevant to this  SUBJECT 
if I only knew WHAT to do.  
 
Jan Rowland


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 23:07:28 +0200, <JanRwl@...> wrote:

> I have tried THREE times to ATTACH some photos relevant to this point,  
> but  I
> clearly don't have a CLUE how to do it.
> One member who's name I stupidly did not jot down asked me to send the  
> pics
> to him, and he would help.  I did.  He musta gone on vacation!
> I would GLADLY follow protocol to send these photos relevant to this   
> SUBJECT
> if I only knew WHAT to do.
> Jan Rowland


You CAN NOT attach files to the group, upload them in the files section.
The address can be found on the bottom of each mail.

Be happy, at least you can still post! i had to create a gmail account  
because my posts from my usual address don't show up any more!

ST

LOL  I'm here Jan.  I've just been busy a bit, and a new issue arose.  I
vote we create a new group, we do what we want, no ego problems from another
group that has a different perspective and outlook on the subject (like
milling vs drilling).

The most important reason why we should start our own is SPACE!.  We're
going to clutter the Files section of this group with material of another
topic; that's not fair to those that couldn't care less about drilling
stations.  They joined for PCB material, and I think we should not pollute
their 'space' more than we have already with these threads.

That's why I haven't uploaded the pics Jan.

That being said, I'll start up another group right now, since interest is
obviously there.  We can call it CNC drilling or something like that, since
that is what we are mainly interested in at this point.  If we do decide to
take the next step and upgrade our machines to full CNC capabillity, then
we'll cross that bridge when we get there.

Give me a little while, I just got home.  I'll post back when I have
something started.  I'd like to follow the same format as what is done here,
so if I screw up a group setting, please slap me upside the head and let me
know what I did wrong.

Robert
:)



-----Message d'origine-----
De : Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com] De
la part de JanRwl@...
Envoyé : mai 31 2005 17:07
À : Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
Objet : [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: home brew cnc drill etc


I have tried THREE times to ATTACH some photos relevant to this point, but
I 
clearly don't have a CLUE how to do it.
 
One member who's name I stupidly did not jot down asked me to send the pics

to him, and he would help.  I did.  He musta gone on vacation!
 
I would GLADLY follow protocol to send these photos relevant to this
SUBJECT 
if I only knew WHAT to do.  
 
Jan Rowland




Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Bookmarks and files:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs 
Yahoo! Groups Links

In a message dated 5/31/2005 4:33:20 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
robert.hedan@... writes:

Give me  a little while, I just got home.  I'll post back when I have
something  started. 


I'm in no rush.  I will "share", but I'm not any kind of  "starter/sponsor" 
of any of  this.        Jan  Rowland


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_CNC_drilling/

The group is up!

Robert
:)





Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Bookmarks and files:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs 
Yahoo! Groups Links

There are already 2 good groups for it,
this one and cnc_pcb, why do you need another one?

I don't see why the same people must go to another group only to discuss  
the same topics.

PCB drilling is on topic here. Steve doesn't mention it on the page but he  
has said so in the past.
It is also very much on topic on cnc_pcb.
you have the people on these groups already that know stuff (been there  
done that like knowing).
One can make a case for the separate CNC group, but for another one i  
dunno. Then we end up with toner transfer group and photosensitive group  
and ...

I'd urge to keep things together. We really don't need a new group for  
each new thread.


ST

Oh, and upload these files please!


On Tue, 31 May 2005 23:30:35 +0200, Robert Hedan  
<robert.hedan@...> wrote:

> LOL  I'm here Jan.  I've just been busy a bit, and a new issue arose.  I
> vote we create a new group, we do what we want, no ego problems from  
> another
> group that has a different perspective and outlook on the subject (like
> milling vs drilling).
> The most important reason why we should start our own is SPACE!.  We're
> going to clutter the Files section of this group with material of another
> topic; that's not fair to those that couldn't care less about drilling
> stations.  They joined for PCB material, and I think we should not  
> pollute
> their 'space' more than we have already with these threads.
> That's why I haven't uploaded the pics Jan.
> That being said, I'll start up another group right now, since interest is
> obviously there.  We can call it CNC drilling or something like that,  
> since
> that is what we are mainly interested in at this point.  If we do decide  
> to
> take the next step and upgrade our machines to full CNC capabillity, then
> we'll cross that bridge when we get there.
> Give me a little while, I just got home.  I'll post back when I have
> something started.  I'd like to follow the same format as what is done  
> here,
> so if I screw up a group setting, please slap me upside the head and let  
> me
> know what I did wrong.
> Robert
>

Files uploaded, kind of...  LOL

Stefan, I have no problem keeping the subject here.  My main concern is
space.  We're already at 90% capacity in the Files section, and we are just
starting drilling station material.

I will go wherever the group wants to go.  If people start posting on the
new group, then I'll post pics of my mangled fingers and crooked machine on
the new group.

Myc has given his opinion on the other group and I tend to think we'll get
more accomplished ourselves.  This group has several people that are
actively interested in fabricating a station.  I just bought 6 new bearings
on my way home (ack, $9CAD each, oh well).

I'm not strong on the group-machine idea.  Geography is a major problem with
a planet-wide group.  I'm part of the Seattle Robotics Group, but I doubt
I'll ever be able to join them in any activity.  That doesn't stop me from
picking up valuable information here and there though.

All I'm looking for is a group that'll share ideas, schematics, plans,
software (PC and PIC based), anything, relating with a CNC drilling station.
I say CNC because I personally will use the drilling file generated by QCAD.
I can only assume everyone else will do the same thing.  If not, they can
always inform us on alternatives (like that cardinal-point-system thing).

Robert
:)



-----Message d'origine-----
De : Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com] De
la part de Stefan Trethan
Envoyé : mai 31 2005 17:45
À : Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
Objet : Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] CNC drilling group


There are already 2 good groups for it,
this one and cnc_pcb, why do you need another one?

I don't see why the same people must go to another group only to discuss  
the same topics.

PCB drilling is on topic here. Steve doesn't mention it on the page but he  
has said so in the past.
It is also very much on topic on cnc_pcb.
you have the people on these groups already that know stuff (been there  
done that like knowing).
One can make a case for the separate CNC group, but for another one i  
dunno. Then we end up with toner transfer group and photosensitive group  
and ...

I'd urge to keep things together. We really don't need a new group for  
each new thread.


ST

Oh, and upload these files please!





Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Bookmarks and files:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs 
Yahoo! Groups Links

Stephan,

Robert's point is well taken. As of now, 90% of this groups photos 
file size is filled. That only leaves a couple of meg left.

Unless Yahoo is planning on expanding all the groups storage, then 
we will hit the limit soon.

Myc



--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Stefan Trethan" 
<stefan_trethan@g...> wrote:
> There are already 2 good groups for it,
> this one and cnc_pcb, why do you need another one?
> 
> I don't see why the same people must go to another group only to 
discuss  
> the same topics.
> 
> PCB drilling is on topic here. Steve doesn't mention it on the 
page but he  
> has said so in the past.
> It is also very much on topic on cnc_pcb.
> you have the people on these groups already that know stuff (been 
there  
> done that like knowing).
> One can make a case for the separate CNC group, but for another 
one i  
> dunno. Then we end up with toner transfer group and photosensitive 
group  
> and ...
> 
> I'd urge to keep things together. We really don't need a new group 
for  
> each new thread.
> 
> 
> ST
> 
> Oh, and upload these files please!
> 
> 
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 23:30:35 +0200, Robert Hedan  
> <robert.hedan@v...> wrote:
> 
> > LOL  I'm here Jan.  I've just been busy a bit, and a new issue 
arose.  I
> > vote we create a new group, we do what we want, no ego problems 
from  
> > another
> > group that has a different perspective and outlook on the 
subject (like
> > milling vs drilling).
> > The most important reason why we should start our own is 
SPACE!.  We're
> > going to clutter the Files section of this group with material 
of another
> > topic; that's not fair to those that couldn't care less about 
drilling
> > stations.  They joined for PCB material, and I think we should 
not  
> > pollute
> > their 'space' more than we have already with these threads.
> > That's why I haven't uploaded the pics Jan.
> > That being said, I'll start up another group right now, since 
interest is
> > obviously there.  We can call it CNC drilling or something like 
that,  
> > since
> > that is what we are mainly interested in at this point.  If we 
do decide  
> > to
> > take the next step and upgrade our machines to full CNC 
capabillity, then
> > we'll cross that bridge when we get there.
> > Give me a little while, I just got home.  I'll post back when I 
have
> > something started.  I'd like to follow the same format as what 
is done  
> > here,
> > so if I screw up a group setting, please slap me upside the head 
and let  

> > me
> > know what I did wrong.
> > Robert
> >

>> http://www.webjb.org/pub/img/05133/000_0964.JPG
>> it is bottle heater, 300W, made of England, T can be adjusted.


>good idea, i'd have used some additional lining 'cause i'm not sure it
is  
>supposed to hold up to ferric cloride (maybe a thick plastic bag?).

>Bit small 'tho.

Might be 300W but how high does the thermostat go? These baby bottle
warmers 
are just that, 'warmers'. Might require some tinkering with the
thermostat or 
whatever to get correct temperature, depending on what you are using of
course.

I have been using ammonium persulphate which requires the 60 to 70
degress 
celcius range. I havent used ferric chloride in a long time.

I ended up buying a bubble tank from the local Tandy store (about
AU$20). 
Connected an old fish tank air pump I had lying around. I found a
container 
that it would stand in so that I could pour hot water around the inner
bubble 
tank. Once it reached correct temp range I start etching and just top up
the 
hot water to keep it correct. I found a 'candy making' thermometer that
I use 
to monitor temperature (about AU$6). All in all a pretty cheap exercise.

Cheers,

Andy S.
http://www.remixreality.com

Good idea!,

I use something similar. I found an electric candle warmer at a 
carft store. who would have guessed? It holds a 4 in diameter candle 
jar and bring the temp up to 120F. I added an aquarium pump and i'm 
in business. The candle warmer cost about $3.

Works for me! All of my boards are done on the free EAGLE pcb 
package, which limits them to 3" x 4 " 

Myc


--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "microsoftwarecontrol" 
<microsoftwarecontrol@y...> wrote:

> http://www.webjb.org/pub/img/05133/000_0964.JPG 
> 
> it is bottle heater, 300W, made of England, T can be 
> adjusted.
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 00:17:42 +0200, mycroft2152 <mycroft2152@...>  
wrote:

> Stephan,
> Robert's point is well taken. As of now, 90% of this groups photos
> file size is filled. That only leaves a couple of meg left.
> Unless Yahoo is planning on expanding all the groups storage, then
> we will hit the limit soon.
> Myc


That does not necessarily mean the discussion needs to be taken away.
There sure is space to be found somewhere.

What 'bout cnc_pcb? there is plenty of space.
I remember when it was created there was a similar discussion. Still i  
find here some good ideas that don't pop up there. Another group is going  
to make that worse. It was made for the very purpose you know, fear this  
list might be clogged up with too many details.

ST

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 00:17:42 +0200, mycroft2152 <mycroft2152@...>
wrote:

> Stephan,
> Robert's point is well taken. As of now, 90% of this groups photos
> file size is filled. That only leaves a couple of meg left.
> Unless Yahoo is planning on expanding all the groups storage, then
> we will hit the limit soon.
> Myc


That does not necessarily mean the discussion needs to be taken away.
There sure is space to be found somewhere.

What 'bout cnc_pcb? there is plenty of space.
I remember when it was created there was a similar discussion. Still i
find here some good ideas that don't pop up there. Another group is going
to make that worse. It was made for the very purpose you know, fear this
list might be clogged up with too many details.

ST

When pictures are uploaded, Yahoo keeps the full size version and only
presents a down-sized version in the photos area.

The photo owner and the moderator have the option of removing the high-res
version of the image. Since they're the only ones who can view the high-res
version, this makes sense. This gives back space to the photo area.

Hmmm. I just looked and it appears that only 7Mb of 30Mb is being used for
photos, but most of the 20Mb for the files area is being used.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com 
> [mailto:Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mycroft2152
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 3:18 PM
> To: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: CNC drilling group
> 
> 
> Stephan,
> 
> Robert's point is well taken. As of now, 90% of this groups photos 
> file size is filled. That only leaves a couple of meg left.
> 
> Unless Yahoo is planning on expanding all the groups storage, then 
> we will hit the limit soon.
> 
> Myc

Lez wrote:

> 
> Alan King wrote:
> 
>>   First off, votes don't count much if you haven't actually done both of what 
>>ever is in question.  The group can easily be tremendously wrong on a vote, 
>>simply because one way seems better than another from looking at it, if you 
>>don't actually construct both.
> 
> 
> True, but thats the look of the draw, hopefully someone will have tried 
> or had experience etc.
> 

   Yep, but it gets very difficult to judge who's vote should count where.  Do 
they really have enough experience with both to judge properly or did they just 
not understand one of the methods well enough to try it correctly?  The results 
may be uesful, may not be, it ends up very ambiguous..

> 
>>   Hardly needed anyway, nothing to stop anyone from departing from instructions 
>>if they want to do it a different way.  Two or three different ways isn't too 
>>many either.
> 
> 
> No but if one person doing it is own way has a problem, he's on his own, 
> even with the help of others they cant really /see/ his problem except 
> by his description, to quote etc a picture is worth a thousand words, 
> and if your building the same thing then holding it in your hands has 
> got to be worth a thousand pictures, and if more than one person is 
> holding it, more chance of seeing the problems solution.
> 

   Lol I didn't have any problems..  I already understood the rails from other 
uses, and once I hit the idea of angle iron to do the 90 degrees part along the 
whole rail it was a breeze.

> 
> 
>>   Can't imagine anything coming close to as fast as what I've got for being put 
>>together.  You could easily use printer rails etc if you like in place of them, 
>>but you'll have to spend more time getting them aligned.  Once I give basic 
>>dimensions on mine and how to put together there won't be need for much else, if 
>>you want to make it different it'll still be a good basic guide.  I could easily 
> 
> 
> So you've come this far on your own, hell even completed it etc, your 
> design may well be worth adopting I'm _not_ saying a johnny come lately 
> group of us banding together _will_ come up with anything better.
> 

   And I'm not saying that a better one couldn't be built, just that mine is 
very straight forward and simple to construct.  Anyone inexperienced would 
probably be better off with it as a $75 training exercise, and then make a 
better one if they need it, than to start building a different design from 
scratch.  The rails and angles take some of the alignment work out of it for a 
first try.

> 
> 
>>put together 10 of my mechanics in a day, maybe just an afternoon.  I doubt many 
>>others could do that.  At only $75 or so for the hardware, it's a great thing to 
>>start with, then do more if you decide you need it.
> 
> 
> But can everyone buy that hardware?
> 

   All hardware was straight from Lowes and Ace Hardware, so if you're in the US 
the answer is yes.  It's all standard cheap parts from other uses, that was the 
main thrust of my design criteria.

> 
> 
>>   The real thing is for me to decide to donate my board layout and code.  Both 
>>are superior.
> 
> 
> mmmmmmm, trumpet, own and blowing.....
> 
> You /dont/ know that its superior to something that may get built and 
> has not even been roughly designed etc, would be nice to see it mind, 
> I'm not saying yours is poor just that you cant really claim it to be 
> the best in the world unless its compared to the rest in the world.
> 

   When you see it you will understand.  Up to 5 phase with 10 MOSFETs with only 
2 layers and wide traces in a very compact design, 3 complete motor driver sets 
in less than half of a free Eagle board.  Micro side can easily be rearranged to 
handle different controllers etc.  I enjoy the topology and layout as much as 
anything, haven't seen a common 220 FET layout anywhere near as versatile on the 
net.  4, 5 or 6 wire motors are all a breeze with it, bipolar, unipolar, or 5 
phase.  I've already compared it to pretty much everything on the net several 
times, latest thorough search on CNC was last year.  Only found a few in the 
same league.  Mine needs further development since it's capable of chopping 
operation etc, but for where it's at now it's as good as anything I've seen, and 
I'm very good with Google so I doubt I missed much of anything to see.

   For line drawing, do an experiment.  Divide a number by 10.  Or 100.  Etc. 
It is simply shifting the decimal point, one of the first math things learned in 
school.  And it's provably perfect.  Divide something by 1000, and add it 1000 
times, and you will always get exactly the starting number, because the division 
by the power gave a perfect answer, with no error.

   Instead of dividing by the number of steps of the direction with the most 
steps, you divide by the next higher binary power.  The division is all shifts, 
therefore provably perfect.  Add the result that same power number of times, and 
you will get the exact same number you started with.  Say you need 9,357,463 
steps on X, 623 steps on Y, and 11751 steps on Z.  Divide by the 16 million 
binary power that is next above the 8 mil, and go through the loop 16 million 
times.  All steps will happen exactly where they're supposed to in relation to 
each other, and you will have taken exactly that number of steps on each axis at 
the end.  Even high precision floating point has some error, and most stepping 
code adds one somewhere if needed to fix it.  This doesn't, the calculations are 
simply perfect.  No comparing needed here either, it is fundamental math 
properties, the expressed answer is perfect if you divide by a base power.  Add 
that perfect fraction any number of times and the result will always be perfect 
for how many times you've added it.

   The next higher power can be up to 2 times the number of actual steps needed. 
  Go through the loop adding the fractional part, and if no step then go through 
again immediately, since you don't need to wait for the motor if you didn't take 
a physical step.  You will never skip the loop twice in a row, the divisor never 
needs to be more than twice as big as the actual number of the axis with the 
most steps, the next power of two.  Since you've divided by a number higher than 
the greatest number of steps, all single pass add results are fractional or 
exactly one if it was exactly the two binary powers.  They will only overflow 
into the ones column, never counting by more than one and jumping over a step. 
The fractional adds are full adds, the higher parts only have to be incremented 
by one and carried up, no real add needed.  You can really divide by a far 
higher binary power and be ok, but then you spend a lot of time doing add loop 
passes that don't result in steps.

   Beats the heck out of the normal algorithm that everyone uses, which takes 
the largest distance and divides directly by them, using silly numbers like 7 
and 11 and any other not so easy number instead of binary powers.   That's the 
main excuse everyone uses to swear you need floating point for precision, 
instead it is a lack of understanding and binary math skills.  Seperate things 
out properly and every problem is simple to solve, and it's actually more 
precise than the errors from imperfect fractional results with floating point. 
My routine always lands on the last step without fail, no need for tests and 
correction.


   Only seen the general idea independently in a single C code snippet at the 
bottom of a long page on drawing algorithms, when looking to see if anyone else 
was using it after I thought to do it.  Never ever seen it in assembly for a 
microcontroller, despite it being 100 times better than floating point for 
assembly and totally eliminating any need for the floating point.  That's vs 
tons and tons of 'use floating point' micro examples on the net.  I'd say mine 
is a couple orders of magnitude better than anything I've seen previously in 
assembly.  I did post the main code to the SRS list last year when people were 
swearing you had to use floating point, so may be being used somewhere else now.

   Funny thing is I hate work and math.  I learned early on that if you spend 5% 
more time understanding the root concept and breaking it down further than most 
people bother, you can eliminate about 95% of any actual work by making the 
whole solving process more simple.  Haven't run into a single thing that wasn't 
fairly easy to solve with binary math, and almost never requires anything more 
than adds and subtracts and shift multiplies or divides, and a good 
understanding of where you're going with the problem.  Hating the work parts of 
math so much has made me far better than most at binary math, in order to almost 
completely avoid any working at it.  After the initial time investment, it's all 
simple to me now.



   So may sound like tooting my own horn, but the fact is I've researched it 
quite a bit and don't see much to equal it from a common sense standpoint, 
without spending a good deal more money or effort.  At least for the parts I've 
spent some design time on.  Certain aspects need more work and improvement would 
be easy, but it worked well enough as it was for what I needed that I simply 
didn't work on the extra features yet.  I was looking to possibly build and sell 
these, so I had a very strong bend towards maximum functionality with minimum 
cost and work in building and no oddball parts.

   Still might even do it eventually, I have most of the parts on hand to make 
20 or 30.  And at a cost where I could do ok at $250 for mechanics, motors, 
controller and power supply all included.

Alan

>    Funny thing is I hate work and math.  I learned early on that if you spend 5% 
> more time understanding the root concept and breaking it down further than most 
> people bother, you can eliminate about 95% of any actual work by making the 
> whole solving process more simple. 

True, I can see that point, although the examples of using binary powers 
etc was a little above my head, most of the programming I have to do is 
alot more simpler, condition reactions to control and simple item 
counting, but it sounds good and I would like to see a worked example.


>    So may sound like tooting my own horn, but the fact is I've researched it 
> quite a bit and don't see much to equal it from a common sense standpoint, 
> without spending a good deal more money or effort.  At least for the parts I've 

Well thats nice to hear, but

>    Still might even do it eventually, I have most of the parts on hand to make 
> 20 or 30.  And at a cost where I could do ok at $250 for mechanics, motors, 
> controller and power supply all included.

thats the but, you designed and built a prototype to eventually sell, go 
for it, would not want to stop you etc, but the original post was for a 
group of lie minded individuals to get together and build something 
together at cheap cost and be a learning process, which just copying a 
design isnt.

The journey can be as enjoyable as the destination, if this was not the 
case, people would not buy jigsaws/model aircraft etc..........

quote from my original post some hours before........

(group created at cncpcb-homebrew@yahoogroups.com can soon be deleted if
not needed)


Robert Hedan wrote:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_CNC_drilling/
> 
> The group is up!
> 
> Robert
> :)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Bookmarks and files:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Bookmarks and files:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 

-- 

Lez.

www.devonkingtravel.co.uk

lez@...




-------------------- Terms and conditions of email ------------

This email is for the named recipient only and/or group
designation to which it was sent.

Any unauthorised viewing/reading/saving/forwarding is deemed a
breach of privacy under the data protection act 1994 and as
such could render you liable to prosecution.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Jan,

As it has been stated several times already.  Attachments are simply not
allowed to messages in Yahoo Groups.  If you have photos to show, they
must be uploaded to the photo area by going to

http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs/lst

and clicking on the "Add Photo" link at the top of the page.

Ed

> I have tried THREE times to ATTACH some photos relevant to this point, but
>  I
> clearly don't have a CLUE how to do it.
>
> One member who's name I stupidly did not jot down asked me to send the
> pics
> to him, and he would help.  I did.  He musta gone on vacation!
>
> I would GLADLY follow protocol to send these photos relevant to this
> SUBJECT
> if I only knew WHAT to do.
>
> Jan Rowland
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Bookmarks and files:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

pcb hole drilling CNC, is what I concluded as input too much
than ouput/earning.

I use hand, good lumination and drilling with a piece of wood as 
backing. I feel it fast and eccurate. 

If I really need such a CNC, I prefer to buy a small CNC milling machine.
I can do lots of other machining job.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stefan Trethan" <stefan_trethan@...>
To: <Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: CNC drilling group


> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 00:17:42 +0200, mycroft2152 <mycroft2152@...>
> wrote:
> 
> > Stephan,
> > Robert's point is well taken. As of now, 90% of this groups photos
> > file size is filled. That only leaves a couple of meg left.
> > Unless Yahoo is planning on expanding all the groups storage, then
> > we will hit the limit soon.
> > Myc
> 
> 
> That does not necessarily mean the discussion needs to be taken away.
> There sure is space to be found somewhere.
> 
> What 'bout cnc_pcb? there is plenty of space.
> I remember when it was created there was a similar discussion. Still i
> find here some good ideas that don't pop up there. Another group is going
> to make that worse. It was made for the very purpose you know, fear this
> list might be clogged up with too many details.
> 
> ST
> 
> 
> 
> Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Bookmarks and files:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

http://home.nc.rr.com/alan69/CNC/drive3k.brd
http://home.nc.rr.com/alan69/CNC/drive3k.sch

   Ok, here is a walkthrough for the schematic, pull it up in Eagle.

   First, turn on the tplace layer and take a look at the components.  Three 
complete 10 MOSFET drivers, 10 gate resistors are vertical at the left of the 
FETs, they're all pulled high so the upper ends are simply tied together and to 
the gate drive voltage or a resistor network.  At the right is two pin power, 6 
pin motor, and motor phase pull up resistor pack (to not blow gates without 
using a bunch of diodes, more on that later).  Also note the simple 7406 OC 
drivers for the gates.  With 12V gate supply it can run 7V motors with logic 
level FETs.  The FETs are arranged so 2 heatsink strips for 2 or 4 phase or one 
additional strip for 5 phase can give some heatsinking for all the FETs. 
Requires isolation tape and nylon screws and nuts since tabs are connected to 
drains, but easy enough.  Usually don't need heatsinking for <3 amp motors, 
these are 12 amp FETs for BUZ104SLs.  It's an all N channel driver too.

   Turn off the tplace, notice that the traces are decently wide.  Gate traces I 
made a bit narrower, so it's easier to follow, still wide enough that etch is 
not critical.  Drive traces could really be made a bit larger even, with only a 
few places remaining narrower for clearances.

   Hit Show and show the outer power pin.  This is ground, all three are tied 
together.  Lower FETs are low side, upper are high side.  Now start at the 
bottom motor connector pin, and work up.  Two vertical FETs are the phase drive, 
phase 1-5 from the inner FETs and that bottom pin to the outer FETs at the 5th 
pin up.  Note that phase 5 is tied to power.  Most motors are not 5 phase, so 
for normal use the outer FETs aren't stuffed.  The unused drive connection is 
tied to power, giving two power pins and 4 phase pins for a 6 wire motor, 
stuffing only the bottom 4 FETs for a 5 or 6 wire unipolar motor.  Also stuff 
the upper 4 and only use the 4 phase drive pins for 4 wire bipolar motors, use 
only 3 for 3 phase motors.  Cut the jumper from phase 5 to power, stuff the 
phase 5 FETs, and use the 5 pins to drive 5 phase motors.

   Show the middle driver + power.  Note the 5th phase when unused for 5 phase 
also takes power to the lower FET pin by way of the driver trace.  A short 
jumper from there to the bottom driver power will supply it.  A short jumper 
from middle + to the same upper driver FET pin will take power to the top 
driver.  Two jumpers and power only has to be supplied to the middle driver pins 
to run all.  Or keep seperate and have different voltage motors etc.  I should 
put another pin there to facilitate the jumper to the upper driver.

   Turn off the top layer.  Start at the bottom motor pin again and show.  Note 
that 1-3 have their entire drive trace on the bottom.  Only 4 and 5 have the 
connecting trace on top.  Phase 5 power jumper to cut if needed is also on the 
bottom.  Upper FETs power goes straight through the middle.  Lower FETs ground 
alternates.  Easy to follow almost the entire layout from the bottom to know 
what pin you're on, and troubleshooting the driver operation from the bottom.

   Turn the top layer back on.  Gates are paired, inner two are phase 3, then 2, 
1, 4, 5.  Not continuous but still easy to follow.

   Of course the drive pin numbers are relatively meaningless, you usually label 
motor pins 1 and 2 power, then phase 1 2 3 4 or 1 3 2 4 etc for a 6 pin motor. 
That is all logical remapping so it's easy.  This numbering is simply for layout 
and keeping phase 5 at the motor connector, leaving it out gives more room 
around the motor and power connectors when only using a normal lower phase 
motor.  I have some 36W per phase 5 phase motors to drive, and plenty of smaller 
5 phase motors as well.


   Now for why you need the resistors on the drive pins to power.  Turn on phase 
1 bottom side gate so pin 1 is low.  Motor coil connects through to pin 2, and 
this references phase 2 high side source to ground.  High side source at 0V 
through the motor.  Now hit that high side gate to supply the coil with power. 
12V on gate.  Source now connected to drain and rises to +V, say 7 Volts.  GS 
capacitance is relatively high, so gate stays at 12V above S for a bit.  19V 
total above ground.  Switch this too fast, and turn on the low side pulling 
source to ground, and you have your gate at 19V with a 20V absolute max. 
Inductance in the motor and switching means you end up blowing gates.

   Instead reference both sides of the coils to +V through a weak pullup.  Motor 
floats at +V of 7V.  Turn on the high side gates first to 12V.  Source never 
rises since it was already lightly referenced to drive voltage.  Nothing you do 
turning on the low side is ever likely to push the low side gate down all the 
way to -20V relative to the source to cause a similar failure through the bottom 
side.

   You don't need diodes from each gate to +V and ground like many people do, at 
least not for just 12V gate drive and 5V or 7V motors.  You just need to work 
out what the failure mode is and drive in a way that won't cause failures.

   That's pretty much all of the driver design considerations needed.  Missing 
about half of the parts most drivers have, yet still operates fine.  Had reverse 
diodes in an earlier version, took them out since there didn't seem to be much 
need with the motors and power levels I was running.  Easy enough to spread 
things a bit and put them in if you feel like it.

   Rest of the board was an in progress relayout of another version, but this 
had the fully advanced driver layout.


   I'm all open to someone doing it better, bring it on.  With 2000 of the FETs 
on hand at $.05 each, I could run 200 5 phase motors at not much over $.50 per 
driver.  Most people are limited to what some chip will let them do at best, and 
the high costs that go along with it.  This will run just about anything worth 
running for next to nothing.

Alan

In a message dated 5/31/2005 8:45:51 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
ed@... writes:

As it  has been stated several times already.


Yes, yes.  All is good.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Well, after reading that, I realize why I had joined the geckodrive Yahoo
group as well.  I don't know anywhere near enough about switching to make my
own drivers.  I can program a PIC, but then there's still the matter of
getting the signal to the motors in a safe manner.  But the Gecko system is
waaaaay out of my budget for the time being.  I had my eye on Xylotex for a
cheaper alternative, but I never went ahead.

I for one would be more than happy to buy my drives from you as long as they
are not too expensive.  I have 3 unipolar SP57B 24V steppers from COPAL
Electronics, obsolete, can't find specs on Google.  I'd love to be able to
recycle those on my machine if possible, especially 'cause they cost me only
$5 each.

All I'd need would be the assembled PCB driver boards, since you appear to
have quite a lot of inventory on hand.  :)  I can take care of fabricating a
box.  I guess I'd start with 3 axis, and get that working first.  All I'd
need to know is exactly what input the drivers expect, and I should be able
to feed it something, somehow, someday, from a PIC.

Let me know if you are interested.

Robert
:)


-----Message d'origine-----
De : Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com] De
la part de Alan King
Envoyé : mai 31 2005 23:27
À : Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
Objet : Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: CNC drilling group


http://home.nc.rr.com/alan69/CNC/drive3k.brd
http://home.nc.rr.com/alan69/CNC/drive3k.sch

   Ok, here is a walkthrough for the schematic, pull it up in Eagle.

(...big chunk of 'stuff' here...)

Alan




Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Bookmarks and files:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs 
Yahoo! Groups Links

>There are already 2 good groups for it,
>this one and cnc_pcb, why do you need another one?

I kinda agree with this.
One question though. Has anyone compiled a FAQ from 
this forum. I don’t know if this type of thing still 
goes on but years ago the decent newsgroups used to 
compile all the ideas etc into a reference file.

As someone else mentioned there isnt only one way to 
do this type of thing, but if there were a dynamic 
reference to all the ideas on various stages of whatever 
one does, it would provide a good quick reference and 
prevent rediscussing things over and over again. 

Food for thought.

Cheers

Andy S.
http://www.remixreality.com

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 12:06:34 +0200, Andrew <swinn05@...> wrote:

>
> I kinda agree with this.
> One question though. Has anyone compiled a FAQ from
> this forum. I don?t know if this type of thing still
> goes on but years ago the decent newsgroups used to
> compile all the ideas etc into a reference file.
> As someone else mentioned there isnt only one way to
> do this type of thing, but if there were a dynamic
> reference to all the ideas on various stages of whatever
> one does, it would provide a good quick reference and
> prevent rediscussing things over and over again.
> Food for thought.
> Cheers
> Andy S.
> http://www.remixreality.com


There is no list faq, no. there are several individual howtos in the links  
and files.

I do not think it is easy to compile a FAQ, because there are too many  
disagreements.
Who would decide what is the correct way to do things?

Most of the discussion is not fixed facts, that work this way and no  
other, mostly we discuss new ideas and experimental stuff.
Putting that in a faq is kind of useless.

It is true the same topics come up again and again, but it think this is  
how it is meant to be. It is always different tho, kind of like comparing  
notes.

If you have a good idea of making a useful FAQ, i'm all ears. What could  
be useful is a basic "tree-like" guide that shows a beginner all the  
possibilities with short descriptions and links to other guides. Often,  
beginners do not know what possibilities are out there.

ST

For what it's worth...

I have plenty of CNC experience - both industrial and hobbiest, been 
working with industrial CNC machines since the 70s and worked as an 
Engineer for a machine tool company for 6 years and wrote plenty of 
software to help people with their CNC machines.

My hobbiest CNC machine is a CNC router that is going through a lot 
of changes and tests.  The purpose of the machine is too make parts, 
but it is also doing double duty as a test bed for a whole host of 
ideas and concepts.

The machine has 38" x 22" x 6" (X Y Z) travels
Driven by 160 Oz-in stepper motors & .2" pitch ball screws
Stepper driver is a HobbyCNC chopper driver
Software is MACH3 from www.ArtofCNC.CA


I have used four different spindles on the machine so far.
1) Porter cable trim router
2) DeWalt, 1 1/2 HP variable speed router
3) Bosch, 1 1/2 HP Variable speed router with quick change adapter
4) At present, Shop made spindle, driven by a DC treadmill motor 
which is driven by a www.beel.ca motor control and is controlled 
completely through software.  This spindle also incorporates a quick 
change collet system.


While I certainly don't have electronics experience, I can offer 
advice based on practical experiences with CNC should the group like 
to have my advice.

I do plan on getting into circuit board milling and drilling so that 
I can learn that process, so there is an active interest on my part 
as well.  

Prior to starting the build or even mechanical design of the machine 
there are a couple of things you should consider first as they will 
control a lot of the designs deeper into the machine.

1) Controlling software - I highly recommend MACH2 software from 
www.artofcnc.ca - great product, very large amount of features and 
overall, just a very capable CNC control software package - I have 
yet to find anything close to being as good. Price $150.00 
registered, free to try and use (with very minimal restrictions).


2) Spindle.  I believe that drilling the circuit board material is 
pretty abrasive on tooling (fiber glass usually is).  From the 
little electonics experience I have so far, it also appears as 
though there are some pretty small diamter holes that need 
drilling.  Small drills will require high-spindle speeds AND a 
spindle with minimal run-out - cheap rotary grinders may not be the 
best solution, but probably would work.

For milling, I am not sure of what people do in this regard on 
circuit boards.  There are two approaches that I have seen...

A) - flat bottom endmill cutter, and mill away all (or most of) the 
copper from the circuit board, similar to what a chemical etch would 
do.

B) - 'V' bottom endmill cutter which is used to mill a "V-Groove" 
around each of the traces, thus only cutting away enough material to 
isolate each trace.

Method A might a require a slightly more rigid spindle than method 
B, but I don't think it will matter much either way.

3) Overall cost of the machine.  If making it cheap is the primary 
concern, then everyone must accept the pitfalls of a "Cheap" 
machine.  My personal preference is to go with a more robust design 
that may cost a tad more, but atleast the machine can do what we 
want it to do.

4) Travels of the 3 axis of motion, X Y & Z.  Z is the up and down 
(drilling motion) axis.  X is left to right, and Y is in and out.  
What size circuit boards would you all expect to mill and/or drill 
with the machine?



Chris

Andrew wrote:

>>There are already 2 good groups for it,
>>this one and cnc_pcb, why do you need another one?
> 
> 
> I kinda agree with this.
> One question though. Has anyone compiled a FAQ from 
> this forum. I don\ufffdt know if this type of thing still 
> goes on but years ago the decent newsgroups used to 
> compile all the ideas etc into a reference file.
> 


   First they're not quite as close as you may think.  My own design goal was a 
cheap, simple, and accurate driller.  While it may not be too short from a CNC, 
there are certainly things that I'd do a little different if I wanted too much 
CNC out of it..

   Second, most of the people that ever worry about it are somehow thinking that 
having this somewhere else means they'll get lots of great messages that tell 
them exactly everything they want to know.  The real alternative is that you'd 
simply get almost zero messages, this is the beginning of summer.  If you want 
no messages just skip reading the group for a while lol.

   Of course this practical idea never satisfies the few who feel compelled to 
read every word of every message, in case they miss some tiny billion dollar 
diamond nugget of info.  But despite more than a few people worrying about it on 
other lists, I've never actually heard of anyone finding such a thing in a 
message and unlocking the secrets of the universe..

   Just skip reading some threads, it's easy.

Alan

Robert Hedan wrote:

> Well, after reading that, I realize why I had joined the geckodrive Yahoo
> group as well.  I don't know anywhere near enough about switching to make my
> own drivers.  I can program a PIC, but then there's still the matter of
> getting the signal to the motors in a safe manner.  But the Gecko system is
> waaaaay out of my budget for the time being.  I had my eye on Xylotex for a
> cheaper alternative, but I never went ahead.
> 
> I for one would be more than happy to buy my drives from you as long as they
> are not too expensive.  I have 3 unipolar SP57B 24V steppers from COPAL
> Electronics, obsolete, can't find specs on Google.  I'd love to be able to
> recycle those on my machine if possible, especially 'cause they cost me only
> $5 each.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7517401926&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1

   Note that while you may already have motors, considering the deals that are 
out there it can simply make more sense to get something like that.  Even if 
they're out, there is always someone else coming along.

   Still 24V and unipolar is fairly easy.  May need reverse diodes with 24V and 
spikes, but they're easy enough to add.  Any time I was running something like 
that I'd planned to just solder the diodes to the transistor pins right on the 
bottom of the board..



> All I'd need would be the assembled PCB driver boards, since you appear to
> have quite a lot of inventory on hand.  :)  I can take care of fabricating a
> box.  I guess I'd start with 3 axis, and get that working first.  All I'd
> need to know is exactly what input the drivers expect, and I should be able
> to feed it something, somehow, someday, from a PIC.
> 
> Let me know if you are interested.
> 
> Robert
> :)
> 

   Well right now it takes my own command format, that sends direct coordinates 
on the parallel port.  Was also planning to change that part to the serial port. 
  But I did plan to have a mode to read the parallel port pins and take steps 
from that, so it'd be able to work with most any CNC program that runs the port 
pins.  It's easy enough to make the machine act dumb and just step when it sees 
a pin change.

   Needs a little other work and design.  I have some nice little 5 and 12 V 
switching supplies I got for $1, but this can power up with the FETs on since 
the 7406 is normally high output.  That makes the switcher not come up for the 
logic if the motors are supplied from the same 5V supply.  Takes some switching 
on/off to get it up and running with these supplies.  Wasn't too big a deal, but 
it needs to have the gate supply off until the logic is up and has turned off 
all the 7406s etc.  Easy to do just haven't done it.  Works fine with a seperate 
supply, just shorts it for a tiny bit until the logic is up, or turn on motor 
supply after the logic.  The in progress version of the board was going to have 
that and several other changes, mainly to a surface mount PIC though for some 
more elbow room for additions.  The original is a 40 pin DIP 877.

Alan

Robert Hedan wrote:
> All I'd need would be the assembled PCB driver boards, since you appear to
> have quite a lot of inventory on hand.  :)  I can take care of fabricating a
> box.  I guess I'd start with 3 axis, and get that working first.  All I'd
> need to know is exactly what input the drivers expect, and I should be able
> to feed it something, somehow, someday, from a PIC.
> 


   I am going to get 10 panels made up from the custompcb place shortly.  Since 
I don't really need 120 of my other board I'm going to mix and match, doing like 
4 or 6 of the small and 1 of the large per panel, and put some of my other 
things in the extra area.  Was thinking of finishing off the next version of 
that and stick it in real fast, that'd get me 10 made up for little effort, so 
may be willing to do something shortly.  Gotta hurry though it takes 2 weeks or 
more to get back the double sided boards..

Alan

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "mycroft2152" <mycroft2152@y...>
wrote:
> Stephan,
> 
> Robert's point is well taken. As of now, 90% of this groups photos 
> file size is filled. That only leaves a couple of meg left.
> 
> Unless Yahoo is planning on expanding all the groups storage, then 
> we will hit the limit soon.

Actually the "Photos" section was only 25% filled. And only because
people keep uploading large images, when it only shows everyone a
300x400 file (except the uploader and the listowner).

As for the Files section: One thing that would help is to crop. I see
some images that have miles of bench around the central image. I
understand posting a large image so that we can zoom in and see
closeups, but not all images benefit from this. A picture of a
panelized 4x5 set of boards should be cropped down to one board.

Deleting files that may have been posted only to illustrate a point
long lost in the archives will help, too.

If it really becomes a problem, we can do as the Amateur Video Editing
and AlpsDecal lists did, I can start a no-post list called
Homebrew_PCBs2 just to store files.

I'm off to do that right now.

Steve Greenfield

I just went through and deleted large versions of a bunch of Photos.
It is much easier for me if I don't have to do this! I am listowner or
moderator of almost 20 Yahoogroups right now, most not as busy as this
one, but still... have a heart!

There are quite a few images in the Files section that could be
smaller, and/or cropped. There are also some files that may or may not
need to be deleted, I can't tell for sure since their reasons for
upload are lost in the mists of the archives. Again, I could do it but
I just don't have enough hours in the day.

Steve Greenfield

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Hylands" <dhylands@b...>
wrote:
> When pictures are uploaded, Yahoo keeps the full size version and only
> presents a down-sized version in the photos area.
> 
> The photo owner and the moderator have the option of removing the
high-res
> version of the image. Since they're the only ones who can view the
high-res
> version, this makes sense. This gives back space to the photo area.
> 
> Hmmm. I just looked and it appears that only 7Mb of 30Mb is being
used for
> photos, but most of the 20Mb for the files area is being used.
>

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Alan King <alan@n...> wrote:
...
>    Yep, but it gets very difficult to judge who's vote should count
where.  Do 
> they really have enough experience with both to judge properly or
did they just 
> not understand one of the methods well enough to try it correctly? 
The results 
> may be uesful, may not be, it ends up very ambiguous..

Absolutely.

As for charges of tooting your own horn, I am certainly not confident
that -I- know everything so I'm looking forward to seeing what you make.

Steve Greenfield

> >
> > I kinda agree with this.
> > One question though. Has anyone compiled a FAQ from
> > this forum. I don?t know if this type of thing still
> > goes on but years ago the decent newsgroups used to
> > compile all the ideas etc into a reference file.
> > As someone else mentioned there isnt only one way to
> > do this type of thing, but if there were a dynamic
> > reference to all the ideas on various stages of whatever
> > one does, it would provide a good quick reference and
> > prevent rediscussing things over and over again.
> > Food for thought.
> > Cheers
> > Andy S.
> > http://www.remixreality.com
> 
> 
> There is no list faq, no. there are several individual howtos 
> in the links  
> and files.
> 
> I do not think it is easy to compile a FAQ, because there are 
> too many  
> disagreements.
> Who would decide what is the correct way to do things?
> 
> Most of the discussion is not fixed facts, that work this way and no  
> other, mostly we discuss new ideas and experimental stuff. 
> Putting that in a faq is kind of useless.
> 
> It is true the same topics come up again and again, but it 
> think this is  
> how it is meant to be. It is always different tho, kind of 
> like comparing  
> notes.
> 
> If you have a good idea of making a useful FAQ, i'm all ears. 
> What could  
> be useful is a basic "tree-like" guide that shows a beginner all the  
> possibilities with short descriptions and links to other 
> guides. Often,  
> beginners do not know what possibilities are out there.
> 
> ST


My thoughts on this as I wrote that was note a listing of 'one' way to 
do things, but a listing split up into various topics and information 
on all possible ways to achieve a particular outcome, and maybe some 
notes on success any further follow up etc.

I think it would take more that one person to maintain such a thing and 
maybe it would be possible to have a person compile information on a 
couple of topics and another take care of other ones. And of course
someone 
would need to put it all together. 

I am happy to offer some time to start putting something together. I was

thinking of constructing something like this for a personal reference
tool 
(from information here as well as elsewhere.)

Andy S.

Photo collections always seem to get incredibly cluttered with stuff 
that was of temporary value. 

You may want to consider creating a new folder for photos designated 
as 'pending deletion'. If someone requests it, a photo can be moved 
back to the regular sections. Otherwise, it could be deleted after 
some reasonable period of time. 


Regards, Bob

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <alienrelics@y...> 
wrote:
> I just went through and deleted large versions of a bunch of 
Photos.
> It is much easier for me if I don't have to do this! I am 
listowner or
> moderator of almost 20 Yahoogroups right now, most not as busy as 
this
> one, but still... have a heart!
> 
> There are quite a few images in the Files section that could be
> smaller, and/or cropped. There are also some files that may or may 
not
> need to be deleted, I can't tell for sure since their reasons for
> upload are lost in the mists of the archives. Again, I could do it 
but

> I just don't have enough hours in the day.
> 
> Steve Greenfield

Alan King wrote:

> Robert Hedan wrote:
> 
>>All I'd need would be the assembled PCB driver boards, since you appear to
> 
> that and stick it in real fast, that'd get me 10 made up for little effort, so 
> may be willing to do something shortly.  Gotta hurry though it takes 2 weeks or 
> more to get back the double sided boards..
> 


   You can pack a lot of crap into an 8 x 11 area with a little playing around. 
  I may get everything else I wanted in and two copies of the motor controller, 
for 20 total not just 10.

   Fit in 9 per panel of just the controller and that would be 90 total for 
$220/10 panels for double sided, only $2.50 per board.  Shave just 1/3" off the 
width and 1/4" off the length and you could do 12 per panel for under $2 per 
board.  Likely not easy to do in width with the 3 wide drivers, but taking off 
the outer gate traces and just using 2 jumpers for the rare times most need 5 
phase would probably make it work.

   Twenty of these will still let me keep 10 of my large and 50 of the small of 
the main board I want, with room left over for 10 PIC programmers and maybe a 
copy or two of just the MOSFET driver area, for easy driver tie in to other 
boards.  Sounds like a plan to me.

   May sell some off at cost to not be making money off them from Eagle.  Might 
up things a bit on the parts (consider it a parts storage fee lol, they've been 
around a while..).  They'll still be dirt cheap at 5 times what I paid, I hunt 
the bargains and get them for next to nothing.


   Also aiming for a TSOP pattern within a PLCC pattern for the PIC if possible, 
so either can be used.  May not work though, or take modifying the pads.  Ah, 
the patterns fit barely.  May not solder as easily if I have to modify the pads 
for clearance, but I'll make it work somehow.

   I love making my own boards for testing prototypes, but getting so many of 
several made boards back for only 2-3 weeks and only a few bucks each will beat 
the pants off of actually trying to make anything like these in quantity.

Alan

I'm interested.

Let me know what kind of money you want once you've got a detailed breakdown
of your parts and outsourcing.

I suppose PayPal would be an acceptable payment method?

I have my own DIP 16F877s on hand, as well as plenty thru-hole resistors and
capacitors.  I don't know if you're going all SMD to cut down on spacing,
but maybe you can offer a kit where we can add ordinary parts.  You could
include those design-specific parts like the MOSFETs and such, just an idea.

Robert
:)



-----Message d'origine-----
De : Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com] De
la part de Alan King
Envoyé : juin 2 2005 16:57
À : Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
Objet : Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Stepper motor drivers


Alan King wrote:


...

   Twenty of these will still let me keep 10 of my large and 50 of the small
of 
the main board I want, with room left over for 10 PIC programmers and maybe
a 
copy or two of just the MOSFET driver area, for easy driver tie in to other 
boards.  Sounds like a plan to me.

...

Alan




Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Bookmarks and files:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs 
Yahoo! Groups Links

Robert Hedan wrote:
> I'm interested.
> 
> Let me know what kind of money you want once you've got a detailed breakdown
> of your parts and outsourcing.
> 
> I suppose PayPal would be an acceptable payment method?
> 
> I have my own DIP 16F877s on hand, as well as plenty thru-hole resistors and
> capacitors.  I don't know if you're going all SMD to cut down on spacing,
> but maybe you can offer a kit where we can add ordinary parts.  You could
> include those design-specific parts like the MOSFETs and such, just an idea.
> 
> Robert
> :)
> 
> 


   Well I need to get it laid back out and back before worrying about details 
too much.  But yeah PayPal would work since I'm on Ebay etc.

   The FETs I have 2K on hand.  The 7406s I have 500.  Resistors the same.  For 
what the number would be it'd hardly make sense to leave them out, consider any 
you already had on hand as spare parts.


   The 7406s are DIP, so fairly locked in.  The PIC is the one thing that really 
saves space using a SMT part.  Easy enough to sample a few from Microchip if you 
don't have any.  I have some on hand as well.

   With two copies of the board, I may toss the 5th set of FETs on one board and 
squeeze it to just to 4 phase.  That would likely let the DIP back in if it 
won't squeeze in with 5 phase.


   Note there are a few other things to do before I send it off.  The PSP port 
uses up a lot of pins on the PIC, so many it can't run all 5 phases.  That's 
what one 595 was for, the other for an LCD.

   I plan to scrap the PSP for reading the parallel and switch to serial.  Able 
to do real serial for USB-serial adapter use, or able to use the inverse of the 
595 to read the parallel port pins in a serial manner.  This will let it use the 
same pins to talk to USB or 232 serial, or the parallel port either intelligent 
or just read pin states, all through the same few pins and only jumper a few 
things etc.  More options with the same few pins, and the PSP pins left to 
either run the 5th phase gates or talk to an LCD without an extra part.

   Also consider the original board did have reverse diodes on the FETs.  Only 
problems I had were blowing gates, once I figured out why and did the right 
things to eliminate it I had almost zero problems.  Only a few FETs blown after 
that, from shorting things testing and rough handling.  Took the diodes off one 
set to see and never had any problems attributed to that.  If there is room left 
over, it only takes a tiny bit of spreading to put the holes back in.  Then just 
mount the FETs on top, solder them in, and put the diodes in on bottom.  But 
there is an inherent diode in the FET and it's a 13A FET, don't think you need 
them much with 5 or 7 V 1A motors.  I never had many failures with it when 
running even before I fixed the problem on gate blowing.  Problems all came from 
screwing around with it in odd ways.  Even the gate blowing only really happened 
when I was plugging in motors while it had running patterns going on.  Fixing 
the drive method stopped that.  But again, easy to put them in if there's room, 
easy enough to solder them in place to the transistor leads on bottom even if 
there's not room for holes too.


   There is a lot of stuff to get done before I can even send it off, made worse 
by so many different boards going on it.  None of it is that hard, but it will 
likely be a week before it gets out now.

Alan

There is also one more thing about this CNC that I was generally saving for 
myself, but what the heck.

   Take a good look at my outer rails, and remember they are really the middle 
rail of a 3 rail slide.  There is already a groove for ball bearings on the 
outside.  In other words, a cut, a piece to redirect the ball bearings, and a 
piece of the outer rail to hold them in could make a recirculating bearing with 
very little work.  Able to go long distances without a long second piece since 
the bearings travel with it.


   The metal for this type rail comes on a big spool of flat metal.  It's folded 
over as it comes off the spool by 4 or more wheels, and made in long lengths 
that are cut and then punched.  Special ordered directly from the manufacturer 
it shouldn't be a problem to get 10 or 12 foot rail sections.  With travel 
pieces with recirculating bearings, that means you can make a 4' x 8' sheet 
plywood size driller and router for likely less than $200 for the rails, maybe 
less than $100.  Motors and drivers won't be that much more than for a smaller 
CNC.  Screw arrangement will be the only part to require much work, but 
shouldn't be that terrible either.

   There's a reason my controller has 12A MOSFETs and I have 120W steppers on 
hand, I just haven't built it yet.  I have sign making PC boards that are 5' 
long that I even could use a driller that long for too.  I just need to get 
cranking on it.

Alan

Robert Hedan wrote:
> All I'd need would be the assembled PCB driver boards, since you appear to
> have quite a lot of inventory on hand.  :)  I can take care of fabricating a
> box.  I guess I'd start with 3 axis, and get that working first.  All I'd
> need to know is exactly what input the drivers expect, and I should be able
> to feed it something, somehow, someday, from a PIC.
> 


   Got my board up and running tonight, it's been probably more than a year 
since I stopped drilling and have done almost completely top side boards for 
testing.  So I'm now remembering a few more changes to make..

50% or even 25% blind chopping on hold.  Right now it just sits there baking the 
motors, since I only used it intermittently I never cared.  100% torque 
stationary is overkill since you don't have that much moving.

Blind chopping for everything.  If you have say a 5V supply and 3V motors, this 
would let you set it to 3/5ths duty and assume you're getting around the right 
current.  Since it's usually the heat that kills this should be ok even if it's 
sloppy.

Microstepping.  Right now it's just dead half stepping.  Lots of resonating and 
vibration if you're not at a good speed.  Even just an 8 or 16 progressive 
transfer instead of full on/off would give a tremendous improvement.  A good 
acceleration profile and not running at speeds that vibrate badly would also be 
ok and easy to do.  May just have it do full or half steps, and the micro is 
just internal for smoothness, but really the supported range is rather high, 
would be easy enough to give full access to say 16 position microstepping and 
use 4 bits.

IR remote.  I have good IR code already built up, very easy to add.  Instant 
keyboard input, for manual jogging and more for and only a single pin, and not 
stuck in one place.

   There are a few other things I'm not thinking of right now no doubt.  While 
there's nothing too special besides the IR and math code parts, I'm not sure I 
actually want to give out the source.  May just make it easily available as a 
programmed chip and send it with the board etc, which may be easier anyway since 
it's going to need the SMT version.  Won't be a real limitation since it's made 
as dumb as it can be made, only goes point to point etc, with the real code work 
being all on the PC side.


   Was really just designed to be a basic motor running unit.  While it could be 
made into something very advanced without too much effort I don't think most 
people would need much beyond these improvements.  I'd be willing to stick about 
anything anyone wants in, but it'd be on a fairly long timetable for things 
beyond this.  Proper feedback based chopping is about the only other thing I'd 
use so it too may go in eventually.

Alan

Would it have to be PC-driven?

I've been thinking a lot about the via pins and working on a basic design;
possibly using a soldering iron, solder wire feeder and a stamp/anvil to
'squish' the solder flat (for multi-layer boards).  The thing with all these
operations is that they require specific coding:

- select a diameter for vias on a LCD input screen.
- holes of matching diameter in the DRILL file will be treated as vias.
- via process:
  * drill.
  * stamp a small circle of the via pad on both sides, to make a depression
around the hole, or maybe use a wide V pattern.
  * fill hole with solder.
  * stamp solder mound with a top flat stamp and bottom anvil (a simple
solenoid should make a great stamp, maybe spring-loaded to reduce the
vibration on impact).

I'm trying to find a flexible way of making vias, without chemicals, that
would allow me to use multiple layers one day.  I might be content making
2-sided prototypes for now, but I'd like to be ready for the future.

I don't really care to have your code controlling the motor control.
Ideally, I'd like to be able to control the pulses, and have a black box
that makes the motors work.  Look at the Gecko system, it is a similar
two-part system if I read the stuff right: a single controller and
individual drivers for each motor.

If you incorporate the 'controller' aspect within your driver board, I lose
all flexibility to add customized tools in the future.  Maybe if you make a
PIC that we would pass parameters including all g-code data required to make
both arcs and lines.  This PIC would then communicate with the drivers and
have protected software just like the drivers.

I figure a modular approach would be the best.  I know it makes for a pain
since you are trying to use a single circuit, but separating the processes
permits you to protect the parts you want to keep for possible future
marketting.  We also get to add a variety of tools and interrupt the process
between operations.

Robert
:)


-----Message d'origine-----
De : Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com] De
la part de Alan King
Envoyé : juin 6 2005 12:58
À : Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
Objet : Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Stepper motor drivers


Robert Hedan wrote:
> All I'd need would be the assembled PCB driver boards, since you 
> appear to have quite a lot of inventory on hand.  :)  I can take care 
> of fabricating a box.  I guess I'd start with 3 axis, and get that 
> working first.  All I'd need to know is exactly what input the drivers 
> expect, and I should be able to feed it something, somehow, someday, 
> from a PIC.
> 


   Got my board up and running tonight, it's been probably more than a year 
since I stopped drilling and have done almost completely top side boards for

testing.  So I'm now remembering a few more changes to make..

50% or even 25% blind chopping on hold.  Right now it just sits there baking
the 
motors, since I only used it intermittently I never cared.  100% torque 
stationary is overkill since you don't have that much moving.

Blind chopping for everything.  If you have say a 5V supply and 3V motors,
this 
would let you set it to 3/5ths duty and assume you're getting around the
right 
current.  Since it's usually the heat that kills this should be ok even if
it's 
sloppy.

Microstepping.  Right now it's just dead half stepping.  Lots of resonating
and 
vibration if you're not at a good speed.  Even just an 8 or 16 progressive 
transfer instead of full on/off would give a tremendous improvement.  A good

acceleration profile and not running at speeds that vibrate badly would also
be 
ok and easy to do.  May just have it do full or half steps, and the micro is

just internal for smoothness, but really the supported range is rather high,

would be easy enough to give full access to say 16 position microstepping
and 
use 4 bits.

IR remote.  I have good IR code already built up, very easy to add.  Instant

keyboard input, for manual jogging and more for and only a single pin, and
not 
stuck in one place.

   There are a few other things I'm not thinking of right now no doubt.
While 
there's nothing too special besides the IR and math code parts, I'm not sure
I 
actually want to give out the source.  May just make it easily available as
a 
programmed chip and send it with the board etc, which may be easier anyway
since 
it's going to need the SMT version.  Won't be a real limitation since it's
made 
as dumb as it can be made, only goes point to point etc, with the real code
work 
being all on the PC side.


   Was really just designed to be a basic motor running unit.  While it
could be 
made into something very advanced without too much effort I don't think most

people would need much beyond these improvements.  I'd be willing to stick
about 
anything anyone wants in, but it'd be on a fairly long timetable for things 
beyond this.  Proper feedback based chopping is about the only other thing
I'd 
use so it too may go in eventually.

Alan



Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Bookmarks and files:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs 
Yahoo! Groups Links

Robert Hedan wrote:

> Would it have to be PC-driven?
> 
> I've been thinking a lot about the via pins and working on a basic design;
> possibly using a soldering iron, solder wire feeder and a stamp/anvil to
> 'squish' the solder flat (for multi-layer boards).  The thing with all these
> operations is that they require specific coding:
> 
> - select a diameter for vias on a LCD input screen.
> - holes of matching diameter in the DRILL file will be treated as vias.
> - via process:
>   * drill.
>   * stamp a small circle of the via pad on both sides, to make a depression
> around the hole, or maybe use a wide V pattern.
>   * fill hole with solder.
>   * stamp solder mound with a top flat stamp and bottom anvil (a simple
> solenoid should make a great stamp, maybe spring-loaded to reduce the
> vibration on impact).

   I think this will not work as easily as just thinking it up.  There is a 
reason what I described has just a wire as the above, through, and below 
connection, namely it is very simple and connected and will work easily.  What 
you're describing here will have little if any functional advantage, and the 
notable disadvantage that it'll be unlikely to work in a stable manner across 
time and many holes.  By all means knock yourself out if you want to do it, just 
realize ahead of time it'll probably be 10 times longer to get it working and 10 
times more prone to problems once running than a simple wire system.

   Note that there is little point in reengineering a perfect system even if you 
could.  Boardhouses can still do it better, since they're doing mass quantities. 
  The goal for light duty for home prototyping etc is the simplest, easiest 
method that does what's needed good enough to work.  A pretty, flat solder via 
simply isn't really necessary, and will likely have a huge premium to 
accomplish..  Hand soldered wires work great for 95% of what most people need 
for prototyping.  Automating that so it's fast is the simplest, most effective 
vs the effort way that I've run across.  Rivets etc wouldn't be too bad, but the 
wire only needs bending, and can use the same movement that does X,Y location. 
One stone that kills two birds tends to be more reliable than seperate methods.

> 
> I'm trying to find a flexible way of making vias, without chemicals, that
> would allow me to use multiple layers one day.  I might be content making
> 2-sided prototypes for now, but I'd like to be ready for the future.
> 
> I don't really care to have your code controlling the motor control.
> Ideally, I'd like to be able to control the pulses, and have a black box
> that makes the motors work.  Look at the Gecko system, it is a similar
> two-part system if I read the stuff right: a single controller and
> individual drivers for each motor.

   That is what the dumb mode is for.  And look at what you're comparing it to, 
Gecko is about 10X more expensive than it could be.  Serious overkill for 95% of 
people just wanting to have basic computer controlled motion.  You can even work 
things up to have nearly all of their features with very low cost if you want to 
go to the effort.

> 
> If you incorporate the 'controller' aspect within your driver board, I lose
> all flexibility to add customized tools in the future.  Maybe if you make a
> PIC that we would pass parameters including all g-code data required to make
> both arcs and lines.  This PIC would then communicate with the drivers and
> have protected software just like the drivers.

   I think maybe you are not seeing the idea of dumb mode.  There is no 
difference between having my PIC there simply echoing to drive the drivers and 
not.  Software somewhere else still does the running.  I could stick an entire 
HPGL and G code engine into the PIC, but it would be sort of silly vs putting 
that software on the PC.  I have an HPGL interpreter that handles what Corel 
Draw puts out, and some utility would be gained by putting it in the PIC, but 
it's not that big of a deal to me.  Might even do G code eventually, since a 
single unit that did the G code and also all utility functions needed would be 
nice.  No hurry there either though, there are plenty of good CNC programs out 
there already.

   While it has an intelligent method for doing it's own point to point for 
developing PC software without having to bother doing the low level stepping, no 
one was planning to be there with a gun to make you use it.



   And in general the software that works through the parallel port simply 
doesn't offer direct chopping or similar, the port is too slow.  Extras like 
that have to be done in the driver side and don't affect much of anything back 
upstream.  And easy to turn off, a remote and LCD give access into internal 
settings, that's what they're for.

   My original rough prototype was done in early 2002, and looked at well before 
that and a few times since.  I've already looked at about all of the basic 
issues like this several times or more.

   And for sure no one will worry if you cut out the PIC and only use it for 
drivers.  You could split the board at the drivers and do your own glue and 
control.  Not going to tie the gates together in any fashion on the board 
though, you need seperated gates for braking, chopping, and etc.

Alan

"What you're describing here will have little if any functional advantage,
and the 
notable disadvantage that it'll be unlikely to work in a stable manner
across 
time and many holes.  By all means knock yourself out if you want to do it,
just 
realize ahead of time it'll probably be 10 times longer to get it working
and 10 
times more prone to problems once running than a simple wire system."

That's why I think it through first.  If it turns out to be more trouble
then it's worth, I move on.  Once I get all my parts on hand, the plan that
remained on the table is the one I'm following; most likely the wire-cutting
system which was my original plan, but manually (hence the dozens of
copper-wire rolls on hand).

--------------------------------------

"A pretty, flat solder via simply isn't really necessary, and will likely
have a 
huge premium to accomplish."

And that's why I think things over for a good while first.  I have other
things to do besides
fabricating little metal pieces and stuff.

---------------------------------------

"That is what the dumb mode is for."

I must have missed that part, that's good.

---------------------------------------

"And look at what you're comparing it to, Gecko is about 10X more expensive
than it could be.  Serious overkill for 95% of people just wanting to have
basic computer controlled motion."

Yup, Mariss is building the thing to survive a walk in a mine field.  Mariss
is also targetting heavy CNC work too, not light drilling.  His drivers are
going to be up against a lot more resistance that what we need.  I'd like to
be somewhere in the middle, with a unit that can work hardwood and plastics.
I can use the hardwood pieces for silicone mold-making.

---------------------------------------

"While it has an intelligent method for doing it's own point to point for 
developing PC software without having to bother doing the low level
stepping, no 
one was planning to be there with a gun to make you use it."

You've never met my wife have you?

---------------------------------------

"And for sure no one will worry if you cut out the PIC and only use it for 
drivers.  You could split the board at the drivers and do your own glue and 
control.  Not going to tie the gates together in any fashion on the board 
though, you need seperated gates for braking, chopping, and etc."

I have no intention of modifying your design in any way.  I don't have
anywhere
near enough experience to decide 'my' way is better than yours.  Shoot, I
don't
even know what my way is yet.  I'll know that when I have everything in
front of me,
until then I'm just reviewing my options and making suggestions.

Robert





Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Bookmarks and files:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs 
Yahoo! Groups Links

Robert Hedan wrote:

> "What you're describing here will have little if any functional advantage,
> and the 
> notable disadvantage that it'll be unlikely to work in a stable manner
> across 
> time and many holes.  By all means knock yourself out if you want to do it,
> just 
> realize ahead of time it'll probably be 10 times longer to get it working
> and 10 
> times more prone to problems once running than a simple wire system."
> 
> That's why I think it through first.  If it turns out to be more trouble
> then it's worth, I move on.  Once I get all my parts on hand, the plan that
> remained on the table is the one I'm following; most likely the wire-cutting
> system which was my original plan, but manually (hence the dozens of
> copper-wire rolls on hand).
> 

   Well that's what probably 99% of self prototypers do.  But with a little 
rearranging of how the driller works I think it'd be easy enough to do wire vias 
automatically too.  They're a problem point even on made boards, to be avioded 
as much as possible.


> 
> ---------------------------------------
> 
> "That is what the dumb mode is for."
> 
> I must have missed that part, that's good.
> 

   Yep should handle about everything, there are too many specialized programs 
out there to not have some way to use them.  Some people already have a paid one 
or have their favorite in mind, easy enough to make it work for everyone.

> 
> I have no intention of modifying your design in any way.  I don't have
> anywhere
> near enough experience to decide 'my' way is better than yours.  Shoot, I
> don't
> even know what my way is yet.  I'll know that when I have everything in
> front of me,
> until then I'm just reviewing my options and making suggestions.
> 


   Well it's not about that, just that if something more specific for direct 
drive is needed it'd be easy enough to just use the driver side of the board.

   I have about a dozen things to do tonight and tomorrow, after that though 
I'll have some time to finish off several board designs and get the panels 
ordered.  Layout for these is pretty basic, so I can send it off even before 
getting the rest of the additions to the software finished..

   Do need to test out the serial chip for reading the parallel port though just 
to be sure.  If that didn't work well enough I'd have to go back to the Parallel 
Slave Port.  Should work fine though, may really need two serial in chips though 
to handle all the pins.  Gotta get some things out tomorrow or I'd look at it 
tonight.

Alan

"Gotta get some things out tomorrow or I'd look at it tonight."


I don't think anyone here is in panic mode for a driver just yet.  :)

I received my UPS tracking number, so I know my rods and bearings are on
their way.  Still trying to figure which option provides more flexibility in
the long run; the standard moving gantry technique, or a fixed
center-mounted plate for various tools with 2-layer sliding platforms.

I suppose this is only going to be version one out of probably several
generations of a machine.  So I proably can start with whatever is the
easiest to assemble.  I'm just not sure which one that is though 'cause I've
never done quite this sort of machine.

One thing I would 'like' to have, is the ability to work aluminium.  Some
framework of my first machine will most likely be wood since that is the
tooling I have now (carbide-tipped).  I don't have any metal-working bits
yet, but I will start piling those up.  Aluminium is priced competitive with
steel locally and is not as dense, making machining easier, lighter and more
forgiving.

My plan is to use the wooden/scrap-metal version to fabricate aluminium
parts for a 2nd generation machine; bigger, stronger, faster.  Now where did
I hear that before?  Hope it'll cost less than to rebuild 'him'.

Robert
:)




Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Links, Files, and Photos:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs

If Files or Photos are running short of space, post them here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs_Archives/ 
Yahoo! Groups Links

> "Gotta get some things out tomorrow or I'd look at it tonight."
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone here is in panic mode for a driver just yet.  :)
>



   Every day it gets pushed back is another day added on before it happens.
Especially for something like the serial testing, you test quick and then you
have time to redesign if it doesn't work.


> I received my UPS tracking number, so I know my rods and bearings are on
> their way.  Still trying to figure which option provides more flexibility in
> the long run; the standard moving gantry technique, or a fixed
> center-mounted plate for various tools with 2-layer sliding platforms.

   Gantry has full reach minus the width for the gantry itself.  Sliding
platform has half the workable area with the same rails unless you take pains to
mount one direction of the platform to the other in a way that only uses a few
inches, which then puts an interference into the center area.  Lose some area
but you gain the advantage of easy multiple tools since they're not moving.
Actually I'd say split table, 1/2 gantry with table moving for one direction.
It's probably the easiest to get reasonably accurate since you can work on
things seperately.

> 
> I suppose this is only going to be version one out of probably several
> generations of a machine.  So I proably can start with whatever is the
> easiest to assemble.  I'm just not sure which one that is though 'cause I've
> never done quite this sort of machine.
> 

   Build lightly for a first pass or two and expect to decide to change things.


> One thing I would 'like' to have, is the ability to work aluminium.  Some
> framework of my first machine will most likely be wood since that is the
> tooling I have now (carbide-tipped).  I don't have any metal-working bits
> yet, but I will start piling those up.  Aluminium is priced competitive with
> steel locally and is not as dense, making machining easier, lighter and more
> forgiving.
> 

    In general mild steel is easier than aluminum.  Slower since it's harder,
but aluminum doesn't cut as well in general since it's softer.  Start with easy
stuff and work up, look at the machining websites.  I think some of the other
metals are better at first, like brass.

   About everything grinds instead of cuts ok.  Plan to hook up the Dremel with
a cutoff wheel or to and play around.  When it's aligned well and the rest of
the wheel follows in the cut groove, and only the edge is cutting, a cutoff
wheel is an excellent thing.

> My plan is to use the wooden/scrap-metal version to fabricate aluminium
> parts for a 2nd generation machine; bigger, stronger, faster.  Now where did
> I hear that before?  Hope it'll cost less than to rebuild 'him'.
> 

   If your cost is similar then it's no problem, but don't let steel put you
off.  It's not much weight if it's used judiciously to stiffen a machine only
where it needs it.  Steel everywhere is a different story.

Alan