Ed Nisley's Blog: Shop notes, electronics, firmware, machinery, 3D printing, laser cuttery, and curiosities. Contents: 100% human thinking, 0% AI slop.
The bCNC Terminal trace stops at the first failure, so I set GCMC to produce two-place fractions (“Number of decimals less than 3 severely limits accuracy”), then rammed the NGC file’s G-Code into a spreadsheet:
Spreadsheet – GCMC 2 digit – full path
The last two columns (perhaps you must open the image in a new tab to see the whole thing) compute the GRBL error values: the absolute difference between the two radii and that difference as a fraction of the radius. The R Error header under Start should be X, of course; I’ll regenerate the images for the DM column.
The reduced accuracy of the two-digit fractions triggers the error marked by the red cells, where the radii differ by 0.0082 mm (>0.005) and the relative error is 0.17% (>0.1%).
Suppressing the first failed arc by passing the same starting point to the next arc simulates the second failure:
Spreadsheet – GCMC 2 digit – suppress first failed arc
Similarly, the third arc from the same point fails:
Spreadsheet – GCMC 2 digit – suppress second failed arc
The fourth arc becomes a full circle and produces the circular gash across the deck:
Spreadsheet – GCMC 2 digit – suppress third failed arc
I traced the off-center circle with a marker to make it more visible, as it’s the drag knife cut that should have been the exit move after completing the window.
Huh. It never did that before …
The bCNC plot looked fine, but the Terminal log showed three Error 33 reports:
Failed arc command – bCNC screen – terminal and plot
The GRBL doc has this to say about Error 33:
The motion command has an invalid target. G2, G3, and G38.2 generates this error, if the arc is impossible to generate or if the probe target is the current position.
The error messages don’t occur immediately after the failing G2/G3 command, because bCNC sends enough commands to keep the GRBL serial input buffer topped off. After GRBL sends the error message, it continues chewing its way through the buffer and, when bCNC notices the first error, it stops sending more G-Code commands and shudders to a stop.
The great thing about Free Software is that when it breaks, you have all the pieces. Looking into the GRBL source code provides a definition of Error 33:
// [G2/3 Offset-Mode Errors]: No axis words and/or offsets in selected plane. The radius to the current
// point and the radius to the target point differs more than 0.002mm (EMC def. 0.5mm OR 0.005mm and 0.1% radius).
Which doesn’t quite match the code, but it’s close enough:
// Compute difference between current location and target radii for final error-checks.
float delta_r = fabs(target_r-gc_block.values.r);
if (delta_r > 0.005) {
if (delta_r > 0.5) { FAIL(STATUS_GCODE_INVALID_TARGET); } // [Arc definition error] > 0.5mm
if (delta_r > (0.001*gc_block.values.r)) { FAIL(STATUS_GCODE_INVALID_TARGET); } // [Arc definition error] > 0.005mm AND 0.1% radius
}
I’ve drag-knifed maybe a dozen top decks with no problem, so figuring out what broke took a while.
The key turned out to be in the Terminal log, where all coordinates in the G-Code commands had, at most, two decimal places. The GCMC program producing the G-Code emits three decimal places, so bCNC rounded off a digit before squirting commands to GRBL.
After more searching, it seems I’d told bCNC to do exactly that:
bCNC Config – Round 2 digits – highlighted
Perhaps I’d mistakenly set “Decimal digits” instead of “DRO Zero padding” when I reduced the DRO resolution from three decimals to two? It’s set to “2” in the CNC 3018XL configuration, so this seems like a typical one-off brain fade.
GRBL doesn’t execute invalid commands, so the tool position remains at the end of the window’s outer perimeter while the next two arc commands fail, because their center offsets produced completely invalid radii.
The three failed arc commands should have cut the right end of the window, the inner side, and the left end, but left the tool position unchanged. The final arc command should have withdrawn the blade along the outer side of the window, but became a complete circle, with the commanded end point equal to the leftover starting point at the same radius from the deck center.
The same G-Code file fails consistently with Decimal digits = 2 and runs perfectly with Decimal digits = 3, so at least I know a good fix.
Protip: Keep your hands away from moving machinery, because you never know what might happen!
This seems sufficiently obscure to merit becoming a Digital Machinist column. More analysis is in order …
It being the season for hacking down decorative grasses, our ancient Craftsman Hedge Trimmer woke up dead, a decade after I fixed its switch and predicted it’d be good for another decade.
After verifying the failure isn’t in the wall outlet or the extension cord, haul it to the Basement Laboratory Repair Wing, clamp the blade in the bench vise, remove a myriad screws, and pop the top:
Craftsman Hedge Trimmer – innards exposed
I should have removed the screw in the extreme lower right corner and loosened the similar screw at the rear of the bottom plate; they’re two of the three machine screws engaging nuts embedded in the shell. Everything is greasy enough to let the nuts slide right out of the plastic and no harm was done, but that need not be so.
After poking around a bit and finding nothing obvious, I checked the resistance across the plug: open-circuit with the switch OFF and nearly shorted with the switch ON.
Huh.
Put the case back together with just enough screws to prevent heartache & confusion, unclamp the blade, plug into the bench outlet, discover it works fine again, reinstall the rest of the screws, and continue the mission:
An on-sale pack of yellow Astrobrights card stock tempted me:
Homage Tek CC – Yellow Astrobrights paper
The somewhat wrecked cursor comes from my collection of discards, because I haven’t yet figured out how to mill the outline and engrave the hairline on raw stock.
The paper isn’t quite the same color as my Genuine Pickett Model 110-ES circular slide rule:
Homage Tek CC vs Pickett 110ES colors
Nor, of course, are the ticks and legends nearly as fine as you get with real engraving, but it’s probably Close Enough™ for anybody other than a Real Collector™.
Two coats of black paint produced the larger areas along the inner scales and completely filled those engraved lines:
Engraving Testpiece D – Testors Enamel – red black applied
With exactly the correct paint on exactly the correct material, it cured into a non-removable layer. Being enamel, however, the last coat requires two or three days for a full cure, so this isn’t a short-attention-span project.
It’s “non-removable” unless you’re willing to abrade the surface:
Sanding tends to remove too much plastic, particularly when confronted with raised walls & suchlike along the grooves. The darkest scale down the middle was engraved with 300 g downforce and is deep enough to retain all its paint:
Engraving Testpiece D – Testors Enamel – sanded – 250 300 g – detail
Engraving Testpiece D – Testors Enamel – scrape – 250 300 g – detail
There’s not much visible difference between the 250 g and 300 g scales.
All the scraped lines are over 0.1 mm wide, with the heavier downforce producing maybe 0.12 mm.
The double-coated lines are flush with the (scraped) surface and visibly matte. The single-coated regions have the usual glossy enamel finish remaining deep in the lines & numbers, with a thin matte outline flush with the surrounding surface. It’s basically impossible to photograph those features, at least for me.
The colors are crisp & vivid: enamel paint is the way to go!
The next testpiece should run downforce variations from 300 through 500 g and speeds from 1000 to 2400 mm/min. Scraping off the raised plastic before painting should deliver a better ahem painting experience without much surface damage; the trick will be clearing all the debris from the engraved lines.
Diamond on styrene C – scraped red-black Sharpie – start
Instead of sanding the surface, I used a paint scraper to remove everything down to the engraved grooves. The scraper in the upper right is a Rubbermaid 54807, which is apparently no longer available. If I ever buy a new scraper, I’ll spring for a carbide blade.
A dirt speck under the plastic sheet can still obliterate the markings, though:
Diamond on styrene C – scraped red-black Sharpie – first clearing
Overall, the results look just like a real slipstick:
Diamond on styrene C – scraped red-black Sharpie – 225 300 g scale detail
The upper scale was engraved at 225 g downforce, the lower at 300 g, with corresponding differences in width & depth.
Diamond on styrene C – scraped red-black Sharpie – 225 300 g line detail
The upper ticks are 0.1 mm wide and the lower ticks a scant 0.2 mm wide. Both ticks on the sanded Sharpie sample were close to 0.1 mm, which suggests:
Scraping removes less plastic
The grooves have a flat-ish bottom and side walls roughly matching the slightly worn 60° diamond tool
Sharpie ink is, of course, soluble in alcohol:
Diamond on styrene C – scraped red-black Sharpie – alcohol wipe
That’s not unexpected, as I’ve been removing Sharpie with alcohol forever, but it’s worth keeping in mind. I don’t know if spraying a clear topcoat (Krylon FTW!) would provide good sealing with enough wear resistance.
The Smell of Molten Projects in the Morning 