If you look carefully at the one photo, I think the badge on the
machine head says Index. It's in Reading, PA. They're selling it at
about the scrap price.

http://reading.craigslist.org/tls/2855148590.html

RWL

On 2012-02-17, GeoLane at PTD dot NET GeoLane wrote:
If you look carefully at the one photo, I think the badge on the
machine head says Index. It's in Reading, PA. They're selling it at
about the scrap price.

http://reading.craigslist.org/tls/2855148590.html

I am not sure where it is, but it is a hell of a deal.

I bought a similar, but a little better built Bridgeport Interact for
$500, in the same condition (nonrowking control).

Scrap value of this machine is more than 300. BL Duke scrap yard gives
$285 per ton, paid by check.

If propertly parted out and scrapped, it can easily fetch a thousand.

If converted to EMC2, it would be a good workhorse, provided that it
is not too worn.

i

On 2/16/2012 6:13 PM, GeoLane at PTD dot NET wrote:
If you look carefully at the one photo, I think the badge on the
machine head says Index. It's in Reading, PA. They're selling it at
about the scrap price.

http://reading.craigslist.org/tls/2855148590.html

RWL

Yes, it is probably less than scrap price. But they would have to pay
someone to break it down, and then to load it and move it to the scrap
dealer. I have scrapped out machines from my electronic assembly
business, but I certainly could never pay an employee to do it.

After 33 years, sometimes you just get tired of the junk just taking up
space.

Paul

On 2012-02-17, Paul Drahn wrote:
On 2/16/2012 6:13 PM, GeoLane at PTD dot NET wrote:
If you look carefully at the one photo, I think the badge on the
machine head says Index. It's in Reading, PA. They're selling it at
about the scrap price.

http://reading.craigslist.org/tls/2855148590.html

RWL

Yes, it is probably less than scrap price. But they would have to pay
someone to break it down, and then to load it and move it to the scrap
dealer. I have scrapped out machines from my electronic assembly
business, but I certainly could never pay an employee to do it.

After 33 years, sometimes you just get tired of the junk just taking up
space.

Paul

I just bought three machines, parted two and scrapped them. After all
payments, including paying the tow truck, I now have two valuable
parts and one whole machine (16x54 Axelson lathe) that cost me
nothing, in fact, I am already in the black.

Scrapping isn't such a nightmare as some people think. And I am just
beginning to learn about it, I used to not be able to do it.

i

Also, this machine should be very easy to retrofit, with the cabinet
to be used to host a computer. I would bet that cables are laid out
very accessibly.

i

On 2012-02-17, GeoLane at PTD dot NET GeoLane wrote:
If you look carefully at the one photo, I think the badge on the
machine head says Index. It's in Reading, PA. They're selling it at
about the scrap price.

http://reading.craigslist.org/tls/2855148590.html

Hmm ... a nice machine -- certainly for that price.

The "Level 11 Programming Manual", in combination with the 1979
original purchase date suggests that it is run from a LSI-11 CPU. Not
sure whether those are steppers or servos on it -- the images are not
that good. :-)

If I had room, I would be very tempted.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2012-02-17, GeoLane at PTD dot NET GeoLane wrote:
If you look carefully at the one photo, I think the badge on the
machine head says Index. It's in Reading, PA. They're selling it at
about the scrap price.

http://reading.craigslist.org/tls/2855148590.html

Hmm ... a nice machine -- certainly for that price.

The "Level 11 Programming Manual", in combination with the 1979
original purchase date suggests that it is run from a LSI-11 CPU. Not
sure whether those are steppers or servos on it -- the images are not
that good. :-)

If I had room, I would be very tempted.


If it was closer, I'd take it, but I'm about 1000 miles away.. I
have a stash of memeory borads, and possibly some other PDP-11 boards in
storage.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

On 2012-02-17, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2012-02-17, GeoLane at PTD dot NET GeoLane wrote:
If you look carefully at the one photo, I think the badge on the
machine head says Index. It's in Reading, PA. They're selling it at
about the scrap price.

http://reading.craigslist.org/tls/2855148590.html

Hmm ... a nice machine -- certainly for that price.

The "Level 11 Programming Manual", in combination with the 1979
original purchase date suggests that it is run from a LSI-11 CPU. Not
sure whether those are steppers or servos on it -- the images are not
that good. :-)

If I had room, I would be very tempted.


If it was closer, I'd take it, but I'm about 1000 miles away.. I
have a stash of memeory borads, and possibly some other PDP-11 boards in
storage.



If I bought it, I would junk the old control even if it was not yet
broken.

First, electronics that is that old would not be reliable. Second,
this is a very old and obsolete control, compared to the PC based
controls (Mach3 and especially EMC2).

i

"Ignoramus23626" wrote in message
...
On 2012-02-17, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2012-02-17, GeoLane at PTD dot NET GeoLane wrote:
If you look carefully at the one photo, I think the badge on the
machine head says Index. It's in Reading, PA. They're selling it at
about the scrap price.

http://reading.craigslist.org/tls/2855148590.html

Hmm ... a nice machine -- certainly for that price.

The "Level 11 Programming Manual", in combination with the 1979
original purchase date suggests that it is run from a LSI-11 CPU. Not
sure whether those are steppers or servos on it -- the images are not
that good. :-)

If I had room, I would be very tempted.


If it was closer, I'd take it, but I'm about 1000 miles away.. I
have a stash of memeory borads, and possibly some other PDP-11 boards in
storage.



If I bought it, I would junk the old control even if it was not yet
broken.

First, electronics that is that old would not be reliable. Second,
this is a very old and obsolete control, compared to the PC based
controls (Mach3 and especially EMC2).


That is an early bandit controller.

If I recall correctly it was made by Summit at about that time and the line
traded hands maybe several times then eventually went into the hands of
Allen Bradley from which it eventually evolved into the T8xx series.

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:28:41 -0600, Ignoramus23626
wrote:

If I bought it, I would junk the old control even if it was not yet
broken.

First, electronics that is that old would not be reliable. Second,
this is a very old and obsolete control, compared to the PC based
controls (Mach3 and especially EMC2).
i

Yup. The controller needs to be scrapped, but the machine itself looks
to be a pretty nice deal for the price.

Apparently, Ontelaunee Township is in Pennsylvania. That's not TOO far
from Chicago.
Dave

GeoLane at PTD dot NET wrote in message
...
If you look carefully at the one photo, I think the badge on the
machine head says Index. It's in Reading, PA. They're selling it at
about the scrap price.

http://reading.craigslist.org/tls/2855148590.html

RWL

Looks like a good candidate for a retrofit / update project. I paid $500
for my Hurco (but I was told the electronics worked). I know the servos
work, because I have tested them.

Ignoramus23626 wrote:

If I bought it, I would junk the old control even if it was not yet
broken.

First, electronics that is that old would not be reliable. Second,
this is a very old and obsolete control, compared to the PC based
controls (Mach3 and especially EMC2).


That is your choice, but you can't repair the electronics without
step by step instructions. There are 80 year old pieces of electronics
still in use, and a good tech can keep them working.

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

On 2012-02-18, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Ignoramus23626 wrote:

If I bought it, I would junk the old control even if it was not yet
broken.

First, electronics that is that old would not be reliable. Second,
this is a very old and obsolete control, compared to the PC based
controls (Mach3 and especially EMC2).


That is your choice, but you can't repair the electronics without
step by step instructions. There are 80 year old pieces of electronics
still in use, and a good tech can keep them working.


It may make sense for other types of devices, but old CNC controls, I
think, are not worth the effort. I am beyond happy with my EMC2 setup.

i

Ignoramus23204 wrote:

On 2012-02-18, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Ignoramus23626 wrote:

If I bought it, I would junk the old control even if it was not yet
broken.

First, electronics that is that old would not be reliable. Second,
this is a very old and obsolete control, compared to the PC based
controls (Mach3 and especially EMC2).


That is your choice, but you can't repair the electronics without
step by step instructions. There are 80 year old pieces of electronics
still in use, and a good tech can keep them working.


It may make sense for other types of devices, but old CNC controls, I
think, are not worth the effort. I am beyond happy with my EMC2 setup.


Good for you, but not everyone gives up that easy. Some take pride
in workmanship and their ability to do 'what can't be done'.

i


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

On 2012-02-18, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Ignoramus23204 wrote:

On 2012-02-18, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Ignoramus23626 wrote:

If I bought it, I would junk the old control even if it was not yet
broken.

First, electronics that is that old would not be reliable. Second,
this is a very old and obsolete control, compared to the PC based
controls (Mach3 and especially EMC2).


That is your choice, but you can't repair the electronics without
step by step instructions. There are 80 year old pieces of electronics
still in use, and a good tech can keep them working.


It may make sense for other types of devices, but old CNC controls, I
think, are not worth the effort. I am beyond happy with my EMC2 setup.


Good for you, but not everyone gives up that easy. Some take pride
in workmanship and their ability to do 'what can't be done'.

And I take pride in having built a well working CNC control.

i

Ignoramus15653 wrote:

On 2012-02-18, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Ignoramus23204 wrote:

On 2012-02-18, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Ignoramus23626 wrote:

If I bought it, I would junk the old control even if it was not yet
broken.

First, electronics that is that old would not be reliable. Second,
this is a very old and obsolete control, compared to the PC based
controls (Mach3 and especially EMC2).


That is your choice, but you can't repair the electronics without
step by step instructions. There are 80 year old pieces of electronics
still in use, and a good tech can keep them working.


It may make sense for other types of devices, but old CNC controls, I
think, are not worth the effort. I am beyond happy with my EMC2 setup.


Good for you, but not everyone gives up that easy. Some take pride
in workmanship and their ability to do 'what can't be done'.

And I take pride in having built a well working CNC control.


Yet you can't repair it without buying modules from other people.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

On 2012-02-18, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Ignoramus15653 wrote:

On 2012-02-18, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Ignoramus23204 wrote:

On 2012-02-18, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Ignoramus23626 wrote:

If I bought it, I would junk the old control even if it was not yet
broken.

First, electronics that is that old would not be reliable. Second,
this is a very old and obsolete control, compared to the PC based
controls (Mach3 and especially EMC2).


That is your choice, but you can't repair the electronics without
step by step instructions. There are 80 year old pieces of electronics
still in use, and a good tech can keep them working.


It may make sense for other types of devices, but old CNC controls, I
think, are not worth the effort. I am beyond happy with my EMC2 setup.


Good for you, but not everyone gives up that easy. Some take pride
in workmanship and their ability to do 'what can't be done'.

And I take pride in having built a well working CNC control.


Yet you can't repair it without buying modules from other people.



I do not smelt my own iron, either. Ultimately, you have to buy
something.

What I can do now, and the old control could not, is

1) Watch youtube on the control, while milling.
2) I have rigid tapping and can tap holes accurately.
3) I have a big and well working 4th axis.
4) I have a servo controlled knee and now have a much bigger work
envelope.

I can write programs in a great G code language with subroutines,
closures etc.

i

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Ignoramus23204 wrote:

On 2012-02-18, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Ignoramus23626 wrote:

If I bought it, I would junk the old control even if it was not yet
broken.

First, electronics that is that old would not be reliable. Second,
this is a very old and obsolete control, compared to the PC based
controls (Mach3 and especially EMC2).


That is your choice, but you can't repair the electronics without
step by step instructions. There are 80 year old pieces of electronics
still in use, and a good tech can keep them working.


It may make sense for other types of devices, but old CNC controls, I
think, are not worth the effort. I am beyond happy with my EMC2 setup.

Good for you, but not everyone gives up that easy. Some take pride
in workmanship and their ability to do 'what can't be done'.

It's not a function of "giving up", and it is indeed a function of
knowing "what can be done". Old CNC controls were good in their day, but
a modern PC based control is vastly better in performance and function.

Old controls had very limited memory that can't keep up with modern CAD
generated G-code, had user interfaces that are atrocious by today's
standards, and lack the modern featured for quick at-the-control
programming of simple jobs. They also usually can't handle a 4th axis,
rigid tapping, or many other features of modern PC based controls.

If the old iron is good, it deserves a new productive life with a better
control.

On 2012-02-18, Pete C. wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Ignoramus23204 wrote:

On 2012-02-18, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Ignoramus23626 wrote:

If I bought it, I would junk the old control even if it was not yet
broken.

First, electronics that is that old would not be reliable. Second,
this is a very old and obsolete control, compared to the PC based
controls (Mach3 and especially EMC2).


That is your choice, but you can't repair the electronics without
step by step instructions. There are 80 year old pieces of electronics
still in use, and a good tech can keep them working.


It may make sense for other types of devices, but old CNC controls, I
think, are not worth the effort. I am beyond happy with my EMC2 setup.

Good for you, but not everyone gives up that easy. Some take pride
in workmanship and their ability to do 'what can't be done'.

It's not a function of "giving up", and it is indeed a function of
knowing "what can be done". Old CNC controls were good in their day, but
a modern PC based control is vastly better in performance and function.

Old controls had very limited memory that can't keep up with modern CAD
generated G-code, had user interfaces that are atrocious by today's
standards, and lack the modern featured for quick at-the-control
programming of simple jobs. They also usually can't handle a 4th axis,
rigid tapping, or many other features of modern PC based controls.

If the old iron is good, it deserves a new productive life with a better
control.

Exactly. I can edit G code with XEmacs, priceless.

i

Ignoramus15653 wrote:

On 2012-02-18, Pete C. wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Ignoramus23204 wrote:

On 2012-02-18, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Ignoramus23626 wrote:

If I bought it, I would junk the old control even if it was not yet
broken.

First, electronics that is that old would not be reliable. Second,
this is a very old and obsolete control, compared to the PC based
controls (Mach3 and especially EMC2).


That is your choice, but you can't repair the electronics without
step by step instructions. There are 80 year old pieces of electronics
still in use, and a good tech can keep them working.


It may make sense for other types of devices, but old CNC controls, I
think, are not worth the effort. I am beyond happy with my EMC2 setup.

Good for you, but not everyone gives up that easy. Some take pride
in workmanship and their ability to do 'what can't be done'.

It's not a function of "giving up", and it is indeed a function of
knowing "what can be done". Old CNC controls were good in their day, but
a modern PC based control is vastly better in performance and function.

Old controls had very limited memory that can't keep up with modern CAD
generated G-code, had user interfaces that are atrocious by today's
standards, and lack the modern featured for quick at-the-control
programming of simple jobs. They also usually can't handle a 4th axis,
rigid tapping, or many other features of modern PC based controls.

If the old iron is good, it deserves a new productive life with a better
control.

Exactly. I can edit G code with XEmacs, priceless.

i

I don't edit much G-code, what comes out of my CAD/CAM is just fine
generally. With a modern control it makes no practical difference if a
feature is composed of a couple lines of G-code or 5,000 individual
G-code lines of segments, it cuts the same and at the same speeds.

"Pete C." wrote:

It's not a function of "giving up", and it is indeed a function of
knowing "what can be done". Old CNC controls were good in their day, but
a modern PC based control is vastly better in performance and function.

Old controls had very limited memory that can't keep up with modern CAD
generated G-code, had user interfaces that are atrocious by today's
standards, and lack the modern featured for quick at-the-control
programming of simple jobs. They also usually can't handle a 4th axis,
rigid tapping, or many other features of modern PC based controls.

If the old iron is good, it deserves a new productive life with a better
control.


My uses wouldn't need extra memory since it would be used for my
projects, not production.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

Ignoramus15653 wrote:

I do not smelt my own iron, either. Ultimately, you have to buy
something.


A 30 cent IC VS how many hundred dollars for a conversion? How much
time spent rewiring it? Lost income from that time spent doing the
conversion?


What I can do now, and the old control could not, is

1) Watch youtube on the control, while milling.


Who gives a **** about You tube? I would be doing other work in the
shop while it was running. That is why the computer in the shop isn't
online. It stores schematics and parts inventory.


2) I have rigid tapping and can tap holes accurately.
3) I have a big and well working 4th axis.
4) I have a servo controlled knee and now have a much bigger work
envelope.


Yawn. I don't need that.


I can write programs in a great G code language with subroutines,
closures etc.


I'd rather be writing code for embedded applications, and have no
desire to go into the junk business. A computer of that age is very
cheap to fix, if it is repairable, and I would likely have the ICs or
other parts in stock so I would save all the time and money of
converting it. Also, there are floppy interface to USB stick units to
allow you to store 100 different programs on a machine, and you don't
need another computer in the shop to run the machine.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

On 2012-02-18, Ignoramus23204 wrote:
On 2012-02-18, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Ignoramus23626 wrote:

If I bought it, I would junk the old control even if it was not yet
broken.

First, electronics that is that old would not be reliable. Second,
this is a very old and obsolete control, compared to the PC based
controls (Mach3 and especially EMC2).


That is your choice, but you can't repair the electronics without
step by step instructions. There are 80 year old pieces of electronics
still in use, and a good tech can keep them working.

Note that a certain age of electronics has problems with
electrolytic capacitors. The formula for the electrolyte was pirated,
but what they stole was a wrong formula, and many capacitors made with
that formula continue to fail. Most seem to be used in computers and
similar devices -- which would certainly impact CNC controllers made
during that period.

It may make sense for other types of devices, but old CNC controls, I
think, are not worth the effort. I am beyond happy with my EMC2 setup.

Considering how much progress there has been in CNC controls,
and "linuxCNC" (the new name for "EMC2", which turns to to be too
similar to some computer security company) has many advantages over the
old ones.

For example, the old controller for the Bridgeport mills (BOSS-3
through BOSS-6 at least) used a DEC LSI-11 CPU card, which is limited to
64K of address space. This includes the firmware which implements the
CNC itself, and the RAM into which G-code programs are loaded.

And memory in older controllers used to be specified in "feet"
(feet of punched paper tape, with each byte taking 1/10", so a foot of
tape is equivalent to only 120 bytes of program. If the whole address
space of the LSI-11 were available for the program, that would only be
546.13 feet of memory. And at least half of that was really taken up by
the firmware. Lots of PROMs.

The memory in the BOSS-3 through BOSS-6 machines is quite
limited, so they had to be set up (for larger programs) to read in as
much as the memory could hold, run that program, then read the next
chuck in and continue. This is a significant limitation if you were
trying to call functions (which had to be in memory the full time) or
were trying to run a loop (which might be longer than the memory present
in the machine). Disk drives were not even a thought. The choices for
input we

1) Punched paper tape (produced on another computer in the main
office of the plant).

2) Hand entered on a teletype or computer terminal (or now,
downloaded from the serial port of a PC, which might be
the very machine which generated the G-code.

2a) The teletype would have a punched tape reader, and punch
available, so that was sort of a third way to read things in.
and to save a program once you had it doing what you want.

Newer machines had miniature cassette tape drives, including the
Anilam Crusader II, and my little Emco-Maier Compact-5/CNC. (The latter
has the 6502 CPU which is at least as limited as the LSI-11, and
probably more so given the less efficient instruction set, so more
firmware was needed to do the same amount of control.) (I do plan to
build a linuxCNC controller for the spare Compact-CNC, and replace the
steppers with servos eventually.)

Enjoy,
DoN.


--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On 2012-02-18, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Ignoramus23204 wrote:

On 2012-02-18, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

[ ... ]

That is your choice, but you can't repair the electronics without
step by step instructions. There are 80 year old pieces of electronics
still in use, and a good tech can keep them working.


It may make sense for other types of devices, but old CNC controls, I
think, are not worth the effort. I am beyond happy with my EMC2 setup.


Good for you, but not everyone gives up that easy. Some take pride
in workmanship and their ability to do 'what can't be done'.

It depends on the old controller. If I have a mill, I want it
to *use* it, not to have it serve as a collector's item. And given the
limitations in the old BOSS-3 through BOSS-6 controllers, the linuxCNC
(was EMC2) does so much more, and does it so much more efficiently, that
the upgrade is hard to resist.

However, I spent quite a bit of time making a gear to repair a
Tektronix 7000 series oscilloscope plugin, just to make it work again.
Check out:

http://www.d-and-d.com/PROJECTS/TEK-Gear/index.html

I think that I posted this here before, and I think that you saw it
before too. FWIW, I've found a place which has replacements for all the
gears in that thing *except* the one which I made. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2012-02-18, Michael A. Terrell ? wrote:
?
? Ignoramus23204 wrote:
??
?? On 2012-02-18, Michael A. Terrell ? wrote:

[ ... ]

?? ? That is your choice, but you can't repair the electronics without
?? ? step by step instructions. There are 80 year old pieces of electronics
?? ? still in use, and a good tech can keep them working.
?? ?
??
?? It may make sense for other types of devices, but old CNC controls, I
?? think, are not worth the effort. I am beyond happy with my EMC2 setup.
?
?
? Good for you, but not everyone gives up that easy. Some take pride
? in workmanship and their ability to do 'what can't be done'.

It depends on the old controller. If I have a mill, I want it
to *use* it, not to have it serve as a collector's item. And given the
limitations in the old BOSS-3 through BOSS-6 controllers, the linuxCNC
(was EMC2) does so much more, and does it so much more efficiently, that
the upgrade is hard to resist.


It's a lot easier to resist when you are in poor health, and have
very limited funds.


However, I spent quite a bit of time making a gear to repair a
Tektronix 7000 series oscilloscope plugin, just to make it work again.
Check out:

?http://www.d-and-d.com/PROJECTS/TEK-Gear/index.html?

I think that I posted this here before, and I think that you saw it
before too. FWIW, I've found a place which has replacements for all the
gears in that thing *except* the one which I made. :-)


Yes, you did a good job. You should offer those gears on Ebay.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

On 2012-02-18, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

"Pete C." wrote:

It's not a function of "giving up", and it is indeed a function of
knowing "what can be done". Old CNC controls were good in their day, but
a modern PC based control is vastly better in performance and function.

Old controls had very limited memory that can't keep up with modern CAD
generated G-code, had user interfaces that are atrocious by today's
standards, and lack the modern featured for quick at-the-control
programming of simple jobs. They also usually can't handle a 4th axis,
rigid tapping, or many other features of modern PC based controls.

If the old iron is good, it deserves a new productive life with a better
control.


My uses wouldn't need extra memory since it would be used for my
projects, not production.



That's a strange statement.

i

Michael A. Terrell wrote:




Yet you can't repair it without buying modules from other people.


Before EMC (the original one) or Mach, I bought an Allen-Bradley
7320 control from a guy in California and got it running, with great
difficulty. It didn't come with the executive tape or servo amps,
which were supposed to be part of the package. I had to make my
own servo amps (this was before eBay, too), get an executive tape
from a guy who repaired these, and then patch the executive for the
encoder resolution I had. I built my own BTR also, using an old
laptop for storage of G-code.

I COULD repair it, and had to do so on a regular basis. This was
a 1978-vintage control, and I was trying to use it in 1996-1998.
So, it was roughly 20 years old at the time. EMC came along just
as I was getting seriously frustrated by unreliability of the thing.
There were some problems with the original EMC, and so I went back
and forth a couple of times (I had rigged some connectors so I
could switch between the two pretty quickly.) Well, after the 3rd
swap, EMC was good enough that I never powered the A-B control
on again.

Besides the reliability issue, EMC stored G-code on a computer
with a hard drive, you could edit the G-code on the EMC PC, the
PC was on the local network, You could run primitive diagnostics
on the machine, and the servo response was a lot "snappier".
I'm probably missing a bunch of other features.

A PDP-11 based control is probably a few years newer, but many of
those controls had a VERY limited user interface. Not too bad
for selecting a stock program and running it, but pretty
primitive for editing programs at the machine, for instance.

Oh, and finally, if you look at what the vultures charge for
a board out of a 30 year old control, you could replace the entire
electronics of a modern Pico Systems or Mesa interface from
computer through the servo amps for what one replacement
board would cost.

Jon

Jon Elson wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

?
?
? Yet you can't repair it without buying modules from other people.
?
?
Before EMC (the original one) or Mach, I bought an Allen-Bradley
7320 control from a guy in California and got it running, with great
difficulty. It didn't come with the executive tape or servo amps,
which were supposed to be part of the package. I had to make my
own servo amps (this was before eBay, too), get an executive tape
from a guy who repaired these, and then patch the executive for the
encoder resolution I had. I built my own BTR also, using an old
laptop for storage of G-code.

I COULD repair it, and had to do so on a regular basis. This was
a 1978-vintage control, and I was trying to use it in 1996-1998.
So, it was roughly 20 years old at the time. EMC came along just
as I was getting seriously frustrated by unreliability of the thing.
There were some problems with the original EMC, and so I went back
and forth a couple of times (I had rigged some connectors so I
could switch between the two pretty quickly.) Well, after the 3rd
swap, EMC was good enough that I never powered the A-B control
on again.

Besides the reliability issue, EMC stored G-code on a computer
with a hard drive, you could edit the G-code on the EMC PC, the
PC was on the local network, You could run primitive diagnostics
on the machine, and the servo response was a lot "snappier".
I'm probably missing a bunch of other features.

A PDP-11 based control is probably a few years newer, but many of
those controls had a VERY limited user interface. Not too bad
for selecting a stock program and running it, but pretty
primitive for editing programs at the machine, for instance.

Oh, and finally, if you look at what the vultures charge for
a board out of a 30 year old control, you could replace the entire
electronics of a modern Pico Systems or Mesa interface from
computer through the servo amps for what one replacement
board would cost.


Jon, I have repaired electronics for over 45 years. That's how I
made my living, and a lot of that work was to repair digital circuits.
My computer work has ranged from the KIM and the 4004 processor, to
embedded controllers aboard the space station. I have a copy of 'Linux
CNC' and most of the parts on hand to build a mini mill but a machine
that size would get very little use in my shop. I should still have a
full set of the manuals from Heathkit for their LSI-11 based computer
which basically kitted the DEC system, under license. I have repaired a
lot of equipment without manuals. I have a dozen National Semiconductor
memory boards for that series that were pulled from working DEC systems.
I could probably design and build a replacement for any bad board for
less than the vultures want. Or just buy the non working stuff for
salvage from someone else guts when doing a conversion.


Most of the parts I would be making would be to repair existing
tools, or to prototype a design project. I am 100% disabled and no
longer have access to the machine shop where I worked, so I am trying to
piece together what I want, for whatever time I have left. It's the
only way I can work, given my health and my budget.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

Ignoramus15653 wrote:

On 2012-02-18, Michael A. Terrell ? wrote:
?
? "Pete C." wrote:
??
?? It's not a function of "giving up", and it is indeed a function of
?? knowing "what can be done". Old CNC controls were good in their day, but
?? a modern PC based control is vastly better in performance and function.
??
?? Old controls had very limited memory that can't keep up with modern CAD
?? generated G-code, had user interfaces that are atrocious by today's
?? standards, and lack the modern featured for quick at-the-control
?? programming of simple jobs. They also usually can't handle a 4th axis,
?? rigid tapping, or many other features of modern PC based controls.
??
?? If the old iron is good, it deserves a new productive life with a better
?? control.
?
?
? My uses wouldn't need extra memory since it would be used for my
? projects, not production.
?
?

That's a strange statement.


What's strange is that you feel that everyone has to do things your
way. I see things as repairable items, you see things as scrap value.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

Ignoramus15653 wrote:

On 2012-02-18, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

"Pete C." wrote:

It's not a function of "giving up", and it is indeed a function of
knowing "what can be done". Old CNC controls were good in their day, but
a modern PC based control is vastly better in performance and function.

Old controls had very limited memory that can't keep up with modern CAD
generated G-code, had user interfaces that are atrocious by today's
standards, and lack the modern featured for quick at-the-control
programming of simple jobs. They also usually can't handle a 4th axis,
rigid tapping, or many other features of modern PC based controls.

If the old iron is good, it deserves a new productive life with a better
control.


My uses wouldn't need extra memory since it would be used for my
projects, not production.



That's a strange statement.

I agree. It is a statement from someone who has not spent any time with
modern CNC equipment and CAD/CAM systems. My little hobby projects
routinely have G-code over 1,200 lines, some vastly more.

"Pete C." wrote:

Ignoramus15653 wrote:
?
? On 2012-02-18, Michael A. Terrell ? wrote:
? ?
? ? "Pete C." wrote:
? ??
? ?? It's not a function of "giving up", and it is indeed a function of
? ?? knowing "what can be done". Old CNC controls were good in their day, but
? ?? a modern PC based control is vastly better in performance and function.
? ??
? ?? Old controls had very limited memory that can't keep up with modern CAD
? ?? generated G-code, had user interfaces that are atrocious by today's
? ?? standards, and lack the modern featured for quick at-the-control
? ?? programming of simple jobs. They also usually can't handle a 4th axis,
? ?? rigid tapping, or many other features of modern PC based controls.
? ??
? ?? If the old iron is good, it deserves a new productive life with a better
? ?? control.
? ?
? ? My uses wouldn't need extra memory since it would be used for my
? ? projects, not production.
?
? That's a strange statement.

I agree. It is a statement from someone who has not spent any time with
modern CNC equipment and CAD/CAM systems. My little hobby projects
routinely have G-code over 1,200 lines, some vastly more.


You're right, and I don't want to learn yet another programing
language. Most days my close vison is nearly useless, so that I can't
spend hours staring at a monitor to write software, or design complex
mechanical parts.

Since the machine is over 1000 miles away, it's all rather pointless
for so many of you to keep harping on how I should do things.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

"Pete C." wrote:

Ignoramus15653 wrote:
?
? On 2012-02-18, Michael A. Terrell ? wrote:
? ?
? ? "Pete C." wrote:
? ??
? ?? It's not a function of "giving up", and it is indeed a function of
? ?? knowing "what can be done". Old CNC controls were good in their day, but
? ?? a modern PC based control is vastly better in performance and function.
? ??
? ?? Old controls had very limited memory that can't keep up with modern CAD
? ?? generated G-code, had user interfaces that are atrocious by today's
? ?? standards, and lack the modern featured for quick at-the-control
? ?? programming of simple jobs. They also usually can't handle a 4th axis,
? ?? rigid tapping, or many other features of modern PC based controls.
? ??
? ?? If the old iron is good, it deserves a new productive life with a better
? ?? control.
? ?
? ? My uses wouldn't need extra memory since it would be used for my
? ? projects, not production.
?
? That's a strange statement.

I agree. It is a statement from someone who has not spent any time with
modern CNC equipment and CAD/CAM systems. My little hobby projects
routinely have G-code over 1,200 lines, some vastly more.

You're right, and I don't want to learn yet another programing
language. Most days my close vison is nearly useless, so that I can't
spend hours staring at a monitor to write software, or design complex
mechanical parts.

Sorry to hear that


Since the machine is over 1000 miles away, it's all rather pointless
for so many of you to keep harping on how I should do things.

You're the one harping on us how we should revive the antique control
and live with it's tremendous limitations rather than upgrade it to a
modern control.

At any rate, in April or so I will be doing another cross country trip
up to the frozen northeast, and before I go I will search around to see
if there is a similarly good deal along the way I can pickup to retrofit
for my shop.

On 2012-02-19, Pete C. wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
Since the machine is over 1000 miles away, it's all rather pointless
for so many of you to keep harping on how I should do things.

You're the one harping on us how we should revive the antique control
and live with it's tremendous limitations rather than upgrade it to a
modern control.

Exactly. Both Pete and I have machines based on modern PC controls, so
we speak out of actual knowledge.

At any rate, in April or so I will be doing another cross country trip
up to the frozen northeast, and before I go I will search around to see
if there is a similarly good deal along the way I can pickup to retrofit
for my shop.

Pete, you will be VERY happy if you come across a Bridgeport Interact
sized machine. But you likely will need to use a servo based control
system.

I can look for one for you and let you know if I come across anything.

i

Ignoramus15658 fired this volley in
:

Pete, you will be VERY happy if you come across a Bridgeport Interact
sized machine. But you likely will need to use a servo based control
system.

I can look for one for you and let you know if I come across anything.

Ig, when you upgraded your control, did you re-use the servo drivers in the
Interact, or go to commercial 90V drivers? And power supplies?

LLoyd

On 2012-02-19, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:
Ignoramus15658 fired this volley in
:

Pete, you will be VERY happy if you come across a Bridgeport Interact
sized machine. But you likely will need to use a servo based control
system.

I can look for one for you and let you know if I come across anything.

Ig, when you upgraded your control, did you re-use the servo drivers in the
Interact, or go to commercial 90V drivers? And power supplies?



Lloyd, I sold the original Bosch drives and went to $30 AMC 30A8 80
volt drives. I lost half the max speed, which is something that I
could not care less about, since high speed is only used for
jogging. I ended up having a 60 IPM jog speed, which is all I need.

Part of the reason was that Bosch drives needed three phase, part was
that I burned one by accident, and part was that I wanted to have
simple replaceable drives.

It was a huge learning experience and very time consuming, but I ended
up with something that I like and I learned a lot.

i

Ignoramus15658 fired this volley in
:

Part of the reason was that Bosch drives needed three phase, part was
that I burned one by accident, and part was that I wanted to have
simple replaceable drives.


Good reasons! My drives are DC, and still eminently repairable with off-
the-shelf discrete parts, but hardly "replaceable", as the complete drivers
are pretty scarce. I'll give some thought to that issue.

Lloyd

On 2012-02-19, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:
Ignoramus15658 fired this volley in
:

Part of the reason was that Bosch drives needed three phase, part was
that I burned one by accident, and part was that I wanted to have
simple replaceable drives.


Good reasons! My drives are DC, and still eminently repairable with off-
the-shelf discrete parts, but hardly "replaceable", as the complete drivers
are pretty scarce. I'll give some thought to that issue.

One of those AMC drives went bad on me, replacement was trivial.

i

"Pete C." wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
? ?
? ? I agree. It is a statement from someone who has not spent any time with
? ? modern CNC equipment and CAD/CAM systems. My little hobby projects
? ? routinely have G-code over 1,200 lines, some vastly more.
?
? You're right, and I don't want to learn yet another programing
? language. Most days my close vison is nearly useless, so that I can't
? spend hours staring at a monitor to write software, or design complex
? mechanical parts.

Sorry to hear that

?
? Since the machine is over 1000 miles away, it's all rather pointless
? for so many of you to keep harping on how I should do things.

You're the one harping on us how we should revive the antique control
and live with it's tremendous limitations rather than upgrade it to a
modern control.


I'm not suggesting that method is for someone else. I simply stated
that I could make it work, and with what little use it would get, It
wouldn't make financial sense to tie up that much cash.


At any rate, in April or so I will be doing another cross country trip
up to the frozen northeast, and before I go I will search around to see
if there is a similarly good deal along the way I can pickup to retrofit
for my shop.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

"Pete C." wrote in message news:4f41118c$0$2065

At any rate, in April or so I will be doing another cross country trip
up to the frozen northeast, and before I go I will search around to see
if there is a similarly good deal along the way I can pickup to retrofit
for my shop.

Which frozen Northeast? It's 45F outside.

jsw

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:14:15 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


"Pete C." wrote in message news:4f41118c$0$2065

At any rate, in April or so I will be doing another cross country trip
up to the frozen northeast, and before I go I will search around to see
if there is a similarly good deal along the way I can pickup to retrofit
for my shop.

Which frozen Northeast? It's 45F outside.

jsw

Yeah, I was going to say something about that. I'm going fishing
tomorrow, in fact.

Saturday morning I returned from frozen Chicago. It was 49 deg. at
O'Hare on Friday.

--
Ed Huntress