On 5 Jan 2016, at 13:30, andy pugh wrote:

> On 5 January 2016 at 13:11, Sarah Armstrong
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> or
>> 999,999,999,999,999,967,336,168,804,116,691,273,849,533,185,806,555,472,917,961,779,471,295,845,921,727,862,608,739,868,455,469,056.00
> 
> You wouldn't want to get anywhere near this limit, though.
> 
> The real practical limit is the number of significant figures in the
> floating-point format (about 16). The difference between 1e99 and the
> next smallest representable number is about 10^83 complete
> revolutions.
> 
> For a 90:1 rotary and a 4096 count encoder you have an angular
> resolution of 3.5 arc seconds. or .0.001 degrees. After only
> 99999999999 degrees the double precision format can no longer
> discriminate between numbers one encoder count apart. A fairly fast
> rotary could get there in less than 100 years.
> 

Oh well; I suppose there is some hope then ...

Thanks for all your contributions, I had feared I was missing something obvious.
It does seem to me that there is a fundamental difference between linear and 
rotary axes. You would not want to exceed a defined limit on a linear axis 
simply because the slide would come to the end of its travel (or off the end), 
so exceeding the limit does not make mechanical sense.
With a rotary axis, it is entirely different. That suggests that limits should 
not be thought of, or applied, in the same way. I can't see any disadvantages 
in automatically treating rotary axes in a different way. The problem, I guess, 
is that while some axes on a mill or a lathe would naturally be treated as 
rotary, other unspecified machines with unspecified axis movement types would 
then need exceptions. It's a penalty of flexibility.
Anyway; for now I will try much larger limits on the odd occasion when I need 
to do this kind of rotary motion. Or do the job another way. In this case, the 
(diameter of the job + 2 x diameter of cutter) exceeded the Y travel on my 
mill, so I thought that using the rotary table was a reasonable solution. I 
could have done it in the manual lathe, but really object to the time that 
would take, so I stuck it on the mill while I got on with other jobs. One of 
the bonuses of CNC after all.

Regards,

Marcus

> -- 
> atp
> If you can't fix it, you don't own it.
> http://www.ifixit.com/Manifesto
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Emc-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Emc-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users

Reply via email to