Re: test results

[Ray Henry <rehenry-at-up.net>]

Hassan

First I want to repeat what I said earlier so that casual lurkers who are 
anxious to detract from the EMC and promote other systems will understand 
what I'm saying here.  Again we can see that the motion is much closer to 
ideal, and much more repeatable that was the motion produced by the other 
controller.

Yes this is quite a bit better circle.  It exhibits about half the out of 
roundness of the first emc plot.  Again the repeatability of the 
computations in both directions is quite impressive.  

My guess from the first plot was that the rotation of the egg shaped 
nature of the thing was about 15 degrees clockwise from y.  In this plot 
it is clearly 45.  It would seem that we have some sort of math that 
rounds away from zero when both x and y are positive or negitive but 
rounds toward zero when x and y bear opposite signs.  As someone once 
said, "I find that fascinatin'."

I'd like to see two more tests with the machine set up this way.  The 
first would mill a square with sides along the x and y axi and about the 
same size as the diameter of the ballbar.  Measure and report the size of 
the sides and diagonals.  Then mill a diamond where the diagonals lay 
along the x and y axi and report the same set of measurements. 

What are the input_scale values that you are using?

We've gotta hire you and that gadget to test out a bunch of EMC 
configurations!

Ray



On Wednesday 19 February 2003 03:27 pm, you wrote:
> Hi Ray,
>
> I made the changes to INI file, and tested the machine again, and
> definitely I had a better results. you can compare the current results
> with the older one that posted.
> the number of pulses that I subtracted and added to the x and y axis
> was 200.
>
> Regards
> Hassan