Another plasma component...
There are arguments for having a single comp as well as having them separate. The only thing important for new users is the ability to edit only a single file and have the machine running. For more experienced users it is no big deal to have to work with separate components and files.
From my point of view. this is more than enough as is. I am pretty sure even the most sophisticated plasma cutters on the market lack some of the features included here and are far from customisable.
Plasma cutters are not and will never be " one size fits all ", there are distinct features and requirements for different uses. For machines cutting up to 6mm ( most of the hobby and small industrial ones ) there is no need for puddle jump, kerf crossing, even corner lock gets used very rarely. On bigger machines they are a must.
Take a look at new Messer greisheim machines, there is a noticeable trend of using floating head touch off and initial sensing ( no more ohmic sensing at all ), use of light weight aluminium gantry for rapid movements so the accelerations can be high hence no need for corner lock in most use cases, and use of water tables.
Now i have to wait till 22 of this month to get my new machine torch ( original Trafimet A141 ) with 12 meter cable, as i can not use the machine where it sits now without it. 6 and 7.5 meter cables are to short. At 450 euro a piece i ordered 2, but the wait is unbearable.
Thank you all .
I've seen some very large plasma tables... the largest being 90 metres long so a nest of parts to cut can be several hours of cutting.
After a mandatory cooling period, with the help of reverse run ( or just backing up a line or two in the gcode ) and the cutting can be resumed.
The idea here is to keep as much as possible in one place as long as the thread time is not exceeded.
There are a few reasons I think like this
1. That is consistent with the LinuxCNC component approach. Many standard components are < 10 lines of code.
Although technically this is one procedure, in reality it is many different procedures, each of which (mostly) follows the above criteria. They are then joined together in a reasonably easy to follow sequence in one place. I could (should) have split the 'CUTTING' procedure into the two differing types.
2. I was always taught that if you could not see a procedure on a single screen or page, it is too long and it needs to be broken up.
That is how I originally built this component, one procedure at a time. First probing then going to pierce height and so on. Get a procedure working then go on to the next one.
3. I was adding pieces of the puzzle on a progressive basis.
If these are separate components then one has to know how to connect them together and in the correct order which I think complicates the setup for a new user.
4. Many of the pieces are totally unrelated. Eg corner lock/velocity anti-dive and torch sampling have nothing in common.
The original debugging was easy as only one procedure at a time was added. However that may prove be different when (if) I actually get to try it to my table.
5. A small component is much easier to debug where we don't have access to a debugger to step through code in an interrupt service routine environment.
That would probably be able to be incorporated although I thought that puddle jump was used to get around this problem.
the main problem for the pierce is the material that boils and inexorably ruins the nozzle. generally it is improved by starting first at very low speed so that the melted material is left behind by saving the nozzle.
thanks for the job
The more you look, the more you find with Plasma! It really is a very unique CNC operation.
those who do not use it leave it to zero.
then I'll try on the real plasma with 7i80, thcad10 and I have to order only 7i37ta for io ...