It would be super great to have some sort of standard benchmark test. Only thing I can think of off hand would be to test a slide mounted vertical with a hanging ballast. Have something like 3-4 different standard load weights and distances. So a guy could compare an X kg load over XXXmm stroke accel and speed. I know that many are in one way or another challenged when determining speed or accel. So couple the above test with a number of cycles repeatability test. So a 100 cycle run of lifting and dropping 20kg over a 450mm stroke take how many seconds? And what is the measured positional error at the end of the test. (post a video as proof) This would eliminate wild claims, but allows for some amount of time recording error if using a watch, and allows some amount of creative implementation of accell profiles and such. I think most machines could test in one of say 3 strokes and 3 weight classes. If a guy was wanting a high accelerate low speed machine, and wanted to showcase it, choose a small stroke high load test. Basically a stout milling machine would not, should not, have similar numbers as a large laser machine. A 3D priner would need to accel quickly with a medium load, but most importantly repeat(they have to make an extraordinary number of moves to make things. A router intended for detail engraving of large parts would have similar needs. Thoughts? -Sam
I don't understand what this would accomplish. On my machine, for instance, I adjusted the speed and acceleration parameters until each stuttered then backed off a little. I don't really care what the maximums are because I can't cut nearly as fast as the machine will advance. It's not like I'm building a product to sell and want to give prospective clients specs to compare to other machines. My machine is what it is and I just want to make sure I don't exceed the limits. Why would I want to see how much weight it will lift?
Ha, sound like old school hotrod tuning, before dynos were common place. The data would not be helpful instantly, or for what you've already built. The info would have to accumulate, become common place. What was described is nothing more and a very simple dyno for linear actuation. Many forms of dynos exist, they are not a new idea, and they have been found to be valuable for advancing understanding in many different fields of engineering. Really it cannot be helpful without some group acceptance. Only if a lot of guys are of a different mindset than the one you described will it work. More of a community benefit over time.. Along the lines of what I think open source type guys could appreciate. Wish I had gotten some sort of quantifiable data points from the machines I've built before. Guess I'm not much of a gut feel, good enough, kinda guy. I want to prove it is better this time, then figure out why and learn from it. In case the point hasn't hit home.. You don't care about max speed, you cannot cut at high speed(or have no desire to).. You could have benefited from the data being avaible. You could have saved money buying only enough to travel at your cut speeds or bought better balanced equipment that could cut at higher speeds.
I guess I don't understand. I have no idea how I could've purchased anything different that would've saved money. Most of us use surplus stepper motors. The only specs are size, weight and the amount of torque. It has been my experience that the quoted torque isn't very reliable. There are too many variables in the construction and operation of the controllers. The only way I could see this as being any use at all is if there was a HUGE database of motor brands and models. Because almost all of the equipment is surplus, the list would always be full of holes, only populated with what was available at a given time.
Also, you would need more than one machine with the exact same specs doing the exact same task, or you would not be able to confirm that the components you tested are truly the norm for that component set.
The test would not be on a machine, once on a machine far to many variables would be introduced. I'm sure better ideas than mine will come about, but that is why I suggested a weight being lifted. If anything comes of this it needs to be a test that anyone can recreate somewhat accurately. I do see the point of needing decent sample sizes
I think we should rather all measure repeatability and accuracy, to know what you can realistically expect from a machine and when you want to get to 0.001" space between two paths and cant, not to pull your hair out.
