mkardasi wrote: Kerf crossing might be an exception for a small subset of users because your kerf crossing algorithm is better at detecting a torch dive than corner lock.
One could argue that a small subset of plasma users are hobbyists with low amperage machines and do not cut the range of material thicknesses cut in industry so they do not see some of the conditions that become evident in a production environment.
Kerf crossing (void sensing) and corner lock are two totally different conditions.
kerf crossing deals with the sudden spike in voltage when the torch traverses a void. The voltage rise rate is orders of magnitude higher than in normal cutting. Whilst the term implies it happens when crossing a kerf (to save production time), it also happens at the end of a hole when the slug drops away. It is more evident on thicker material. The THC responds to the voltage increase by a massive downward movement to correct the increased voltage. So we need to lock out the THC until normal cut conditions return.
Corner Lock (or velocity anti-dive) senses a reduction in cut velocity. Torch voltage is stable if the height and velocity remain constant. Slowing down the velocity will increase voltage so the THC will try and compensate by lowering the torch which can also cause a crash or poor cut quality due to wrong heights. This does not impact on just corners are there are many situations where the Trajectory planner cannot honour the commanded cut velocity. eg. short segments and irregular shapes.
