JRW Member Join Date Jun 2002 Location South Carolina Posts 2,307 Oct 4, 2022 #31 moelsayed said: so do you and JRW mean to reduce encoder Number of steps for the encoder itself from 65536 to be 1000 first to see what is the result correct ? Click to expand... Yes- that is correct
moelsayed said: so do you and JRW mean to reduce encoder Number of steps for the encoder itself from 65536 to be 1000 first to see what is the result correct ? Click to expand... Yes- that is correct
moelsayed Member OP M Join Date Jan 2016 Location mi Posts 41 Oct 4, 2022 #32 JRW said: Yes- that is correct Click to expand... Thank you very much I will do that tomorrow morning.
JRW said: Yes- that is correct Click to expand... Thank you very much I will do that tomorrow morning.
JRW Member Join Date Jun 2002 Location South Carolina Posts 2,307 Oct 4, 2022 #33 Change the encoder ppr and test it before you change anything to "fast mode" I havent had to use that mode and I dont believe you can use the technology interface in that mode
Change the encoder ppr and test it before you change anything to "fast mode" I havent had to use that mode and I dont believe you can use the technology interface in that mode
moelsayed Member OP M Join Date Jan 2016 Location mi Posts 41 Oct 4, 2022 #34 JRW said: Change the encoder ppr and test it before you change anything to "fast mode" I havent had to use that mode and I dont believe you can use the technology interface in that mode Click to expand... I got your point, I will do that Really appreciate it.
JRW said: Change the encoder ppr and test it before you change anything to "fast mode" I havent had to use that mode and I dont believe you can use the technology interface in that mode Click to expand... I got your point, I will do that Really appreciate it.
moelsayed Member OP M Join Date Jan 2016 Location mi Posts 41 Oct 5, 2022 #35 Hello JRW and kalabdel, Now I reduced Number of steps for the encoder from 65536 to 1000 and now I am getting a reasonable values and no error. So now I will measure the actual speed for the motor and I will see the difference. Thank you so much for all of your explanation and you support. Sayed
Hello JRW and kalabdel, Now I reduced Number of steps for the encoder from 65536 to 1000 and now I am getting a reasonable values and no error. So now I will measure the actual speed for the motor and I will see the difference. Thank you so much for all of your explanation and you support. Sayed