--You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenPnP" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to openpnp+u...@googlegroups.com.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openpnp/fc6a3ecb-58a1-4c0f-bd78-3b55fc6b904cn%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openpnp/12cae503-01e9-48c1-86e9-09b4bf8eefb8n%40googlegroups.com.
Just to make a more complete picture:
There are other solutions, where the Z travel is made irrelevant, both in terms of available head-room and in terms of force needed to couple/decouple a nozzle tip.
PnP machines are usually weak on their Z motors, because we want
light heads for speed (acceleration), obviously, and
therefore we want small motors. Lifting parts is obviously very
light work, so it would be a shame to sacrifice that design goal
for the very few nozzle tip changes that happen in a job.
However the X, Y motors are usually strong, so users have made
"wedge" holders, where the coupling and decoupling is done by
driving X or Y against wedges that separate or connect nozzle
tips. This also makes them passive (no extra motor, signalling or
power needed). I think there is potential to make these way more
compact, and/or to share one wedge for all the tips that
then branches out into slots (see the discussion in the second
link):
https://youtu.be/KRR3bC9j_3s?feature=shared
https://groups.google.com/g/openpnp/c/xAWzXVgXSUQ/m/8orHMgBxBQAJ
The wedge design allows for quite fast and fluid motion, so I'm
actually not so sure it is necessarily slower than the active
design discussed here (if your machine's Z can do it at all).
Btw., I would always sink the nozzle tip holder into the table,
if possible, to avoid any risk of collision. This example (my
machine) is not a wedge design, it just shows the aspect of being
sunken:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uFxV1-vnXw
_Mark
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openpnp/CADBU0edrjmpgVxA6TfiNY5AXcQtJr3UsLy6wghR27fW2t_AkJQ%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openpnp/8dcc2bed-3381-4e8e-8995-70a910696dffn%40googlegroups.com.
Hi Mike,
this code is not by me, but looking at it I see it just always actuates ON.
This means you need to make two actuators, one to open,
one to close, and assign them accordingly. And on both
actuators you only need to assign the ON case G-code.
https://github.com/openpnp/openpnp/pull/1040
Needless to say, this has some room for improvement. 😉 A second
issue, is that this binds actuators by name (the old way), so if
you rename the actuator later, things will be broken.
_Mark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenPnP" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to openpnp+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openpnp/0ca7c44d-814b-4633-9f3b-dc8d68df1ca9n%40googlegroups.com.
> but I did not get the point of assign the ON case G code ?? what do you mean by this?
Make this "True", not "False". Both actuators only use the "True"
= ON case.

_Mark
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openpnp/5e95f197-eea7-45f4-8ae5-cc39f1e8e3b0n%40googlegroups.com.
> Mark you wrote: "but looking at it I see it just
always actuates ON."
> No, at 1st test above I could trigger it on
or off manually from the same window !!??

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openpnp/10d93cec-ea2b-4215-b6d3-059736de2c54n%40googlegroups.com.

| From | Alexander<785...@gmail.com> |
| Date | 09/28/2024 21:24 |
| To | OpenPnP<ope...@googlegroups.com> |
| Subject | Re: [OpenPnP] Re: Holder Juki Nozzle |
