Puma 560 simulation using pumakins

Hi everyone,

When I wrote about replace the original encoders is because in many projects in Brazil like my one, the cost of retrofitting with new hardware control components only cost 11% of new robot price. It's a industrial robot.

robottom wrote:

what is the setup you would are currently building up?

It's a IRB6-S2(ASEA - ABB - 1970), you can see my post. It isn't updating yet.

plus.google.com/116960304375198732734/posts

HARTING connectors will be analyse later to decide if I can use or is better to replace for new one.

Regards.

Hi Jerry,

attached a first archiv file of my current setup. There is no optimization of velocity and no other optimizations. Just the setup to test if the genserkins works with the setup of the DH parameter set the basic setup of linuxcnc. After further tests and optimizations I can upload a new version.

Best regards, Thomas

Fantastic!

I want to really thank you for that... I am not sure when I will get to start on a PUMA rebuild... but I know that eventually my controller will fail... so it is good to know that I don't have to start everything from scratch. I will contact the group and find the other individual with a PUMA... I'll let him know that when he van get about $850 saved for the Geckodrives... we should be able to set it up. (6 drives at $140 per drive.)

Thanks again!!

Hi Jerry,

what I forgot: My configuration is the MilliMMixPuma560.ini and not the other .ini files. It will start the control of the Puma via a normal parallel Breakout Board and at the same time the simulation window of the Puma simulation.
Btw: Two weeks ago my original Puma controller failed. There seems to be something wrong with the serial interface. I can no longer control the machine via external terminal.
I also thought about buying 6 Geko's for $850 but decided for UHU because I'm already using the UHU and the self-made UHU is only half of the price of the Geko (~350 EUR all together for 6 UHUs). The rest of the controller is using very cheap material (e.g. used 48V, 1KW server power supply for the high power servo supply). All parts of the controller together below 500,-- EUR.
When I find more time I will upload a short YouTube video.
There are still some obstacles - one is the internal correction moves of the hand joints JT4-6 what is not part of genserkins and the simulation.

Best regards, Thomas

I do have the 398H PUMA MANUALL... this also includes the schematics... it's a loose-leaf manual... so I could pull out pages and scan or photograph them if you do not have the schematics. There is a jumper between two pins... if missing, it goes from 9600 Baud to 300 baud... if that jumper came loose... that could Be a part of the issue.

Hand Joint - if the other 5 joints are working... we should be able to extrapolate to figure the DH for the remaining joint... in theory anyway. I really have to give credit to the original PUMA designers... they did a great job at the time.

I'll see if the manual has any DH parameters... I thought I saw something once... could be wrong. But if there...it will most likely be very useful.

Jerry

Hi Jerry,

I should have the schematics somewhere. I will first start to exchange the card with the one of a puma 260 controller in my basement (I keep for spare parts). But this has not the highest priority currently.
The issue with the JT5 correction moves looks a bit more complicated. I don't think that it will work with DH parameters. My first observation on the running original Puma (at this time it was still running) was: If the JT4 or JT6 moves the JT5 is from the TCP stable. But if you look inside the JT5 (or was it JT6?) is driven by the controller (even if you run in a joint mode only JT4 or JT6). This is interally calculated by the controller and it seems that the move is needed because of construction of the hand gearings.
I have to code the same somewhere in the LinuxCNC. At the first glance it looks like a proportional move depending on JT4/6. So if you have something with DH parameter I can test it if you can find it.

Thanks, Thomas