|
Pollyanna posted:I’m a computer toucher by trade (a sentence that will not age well in a hundred years) so I’m used to translating requirements, specifications, and patterns into code. OpenSCAD is fine. I'm not suggesting that you avoid OpenSCAD because I don't think you can handle the computer touching, I'm suggesting you avoid it because it is not a user friendly tool for most applications. Even if you're comfortable with it, you'll be 10x more productive with FreeCAD, Fusion 360, or Onshape. Also I'm going to do one more round at talking up Onshape. All of the above tools are free for hobbyists at least, and I use Fusion professionally, but I still prefer Onshape when I have a choice. Their limitations for free users are that your project has to be public. But not like, someone can see your profile and then see all your projects, just that your filename is searchable. That means literally nothing when most of my part names are like, "shifter", or "pen barrel". But that does mean that there's a library of named parts that other people have done, natively in the software. 
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 17:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 03:17 |
|
|
gimme
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 17:30
|
|
|
GrabCAD has also served me well for finding random weird modules off eBay, seems some people just model stuff like that for fun? But the search engine on that site at least used to be extremely bad, like it required all entered words to be in the title and in order bad so narrowing a search could be tricky. Digi-Key is very good at linking 3D models right from the product page, and you can filter searches to only include parts with models. Useful both for finding good parts to use, but also just for grabbing generic models for some parts. I really wanted to use FreeCAD for some basic stuff but I found the sketch mode to be technically capable but also horrible to actually use, a lot of really obvious UI improvements could be made there. I tried to draw a dead simple front panel with a couple of holes the other day and it took me 2 hours to give up and just draw it in Illustrator, like an idiot. I couldn't even find the menu to make a non-constraining dimension despite knowing what it looks like from the docs, trying to add center-points to a line somehow took like 4 steps when it should be a single click, and labeling a constraint dimension for re-use seemed to be either broken or so poorly implemented that it functionally is. And when I tried to extrude my rectangle to make some type of part I could then make a machining drawing from everything turned into giant piles of error messages in the console window. I guess I see why they want three different linear dimension constraint modes + a special circle/arc radius and diameter mode, but I should not be required to explicitly select which type I want every time. And for some reason all dimensions must be assigned to a point, which again technically makes sense but I shouldn't have to select a horizontal linear dimension from some tiny point at the end of a vertical line to put my circle center 10 mm from it. Sure, I could later make that line angled, invalidating my line-circle distance constraint, but making the process this tedious can't possibly be worth it just to achieve some level of technical correctness. And again, what I tried to do was: make the box face rectangle, put some circles and rectangles at dimensions, extrude a body from that, then make a machining drawing for manual milling, and it completely failed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 17:37
|
|
|
I both agree with all of your complaints, but also find the sketcher to be the best part of freeCAD. I do have a better time if I define my dimensions outside of the sketch, because as you said referencing sketch dimensions is a problem. Also there are times when it will complain about excessive constraints even when there are other valid points in space that are valid with normal full constraint. It leads to some hilarious part explosions when trying to do some parametric design. I know stuff like fusion 360 has a more streamlined interface, but it just doesn't click with me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 18:30
|
|
|
If you have access to a .edu email address and proof that you are actively attending/working there (a recently dated paystub or transcript will work) you can get a free one year license to pretty much everything made by AutoDesk, including Inventor and Fusion 360 for 3D stuff. Full EagleCAD too if you want it. It's good for two active installs of each product and can be renewed as long as you remain qualified. https://www.autodesk.com/education/edu-software/overview?sorting=featured&filters=individual
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 22:56
|
|
|
I tried OpenSCAD for a while but found it a little obtuse in making “nice” objects, though if you just want shapes arranged relative to each other it was fine. I was trying to make little gearboxes so I was also trying to use various open source gear libraries for it with varying success, but I did also find it was pretty easy to write programs for it that would cause it to just crash, usually if they involved curves as it has to generate a lot of triangles to make them look smooth. I then tried Fusion 360 back when they had the startup license, and it was pretty good, but I didn’t want to continue with the “everything public/no commercial use/some features removed” hobbyist edition and switched to Solidworks, for which educational licenses could be had via various club memberships. After that was also promptly cancelled I tried FreeCAD but I’ve never really been able to figure it out compared to eg Fusion 360 so I’m kind of back to OpenSCAD again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 04:15
|
|
|
namlosh posted:swap.xls noice  Sorry to give you extra work though, my b... ========================= I have some more stupid questions about audio...  In that MAX98357 amplifier, there's extensive reference to total harmonic distortion + noise (THD+n) to the point where the output power and several other variables are divided between THD+n = 10% and THD+n = 1%. I thought there might be a pin to set this on the IC, but I haven't been able to find anything relevant in the data sheet.  (datasheet) After mulling it over for a bit and reading some random blog posts about it, I've come to the conclusion that THD+n is derived from other configuration settings and that the manufacturer provides THD+n referenced at 1% and at 10% just for the designer's convenience--With the 1% numbers being nominal values at typical operating conditions and 10% numbers being nominal values for when you turn up the gain and pump the volume and start blaring death metal. So that means I should just treat them as a range? As in, expect output power for a particular configuration to fluctuate between the THD+n = 1% and THD+n = 10% values, (i.e. usually 1.4W but potentially up to 1.8W for an 8ohm speaker at 5V power and 12dB gain) Am I on the right track?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 09:48
|
|
|
The simple version is they're saying that up to 2.5/1.4/0.77 watts you should only see max 1% distortion, and then if you push past that to 3.2/1.8/0.93 watts the distortion will rise towards 10%. So design for the 2.5/1.4/0.77. Generally in most audio systems you have plenty of gain to drive the output into clipping, because lots of sources are at variable levels, so as long as your total system gain is reasonable you don't need to like... design an exact gain to hit a specific exact output power with specific loads. Just let the user turn up the volume until they're happy with it or it starts to sound bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 13:55
|
|
|
Those power values are also only given as typical so they don't constitute a guarantee. Meanwhile, just down the datasheet is a max THD spec at 1W into a 4 ohm load of only 0.06%. That means that with a fresh part in that configuration, if you measure more THD than that you can call up a sales rep, return it, and make some engineers sweat.Charles Ford posted:[openscad chat] I really like openscad for the things I've used it for (laser cut cases, a giant novelty solderless breadboard for a friend's bachelor party, post-processing .stl files to add features for 3D-printing, a panel with a vent, one switch, and one power connector) , but I'll be the first to admit this all rings very true, and if I were laser cutting instrument panels I don't think it'd be the first thing I'd try. The general cantankerousness is why I compared it to LaTeX. It's the simplest viable tool for its niche. I imagine a lot of people would say it's far too simple to be viable for much of anything. It models everything as polygonal meshes only and it's easy to get it to generate way too many polygons and crash or lock up. Unless you tell it otherwise it also just generates the same regular polygon to approximate every circle, so tiny screw holes and giant wheels have the same complexity. You can pass in a parameter to change this for each circle/cylinder/sphere, but now you're manually managing something that most CAD software does automatically as a matter of course (or doesn't need because I imagine in "real" solid modeling software not all geometry is polygonal).
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 14:49
|
|
|
Rescue Toaster posted:The simple version is they're saying that up to 2.5/1.4/0.77 watts you should only see max 1% distortion, and then if you push past that to 3.2/1.8/0.93 watts the distortion will rise towards 10%. So design for the 2.5/1.4/0.77. Stack Machine posted:Those power values are also only given as typical so they don't constitute a guarantee. Meanwhile, just down the datasheet is a max THD spec at 1W into a 4 ohm load of only 0.06%. That means that with a fresh part in that configuration, if you measure more THD than that you can call up a sales rep, return it, and make some engineers sweat. I was thinking that 10% was a lot, but it sounds like it would be pretty hard to hit those values. Man this thing has pretty solid specs. This is making more sense now. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 19:03
|
|
|
Anyone here do industrial automation type stuff? At work we have some in house made machines used to automatically drill parts using air drills connected to a PLC. The Ingereoll Rand units on there now have been failing prematurely so I've been tasked with finding replacements. I ordered a system from a company that has built us similar stuff before and now I need to figure out how to adapt this to the current setup. I've got a couple pneumatic drill heads that are actuated from a pneumatic circuit. Right now the only way to cycle them is a push button with an input/output that I'm assuming completes the circuit. This needs to be automated, so I think I'm looking for a 2 way solenoid valve that I can connect to the PLC and essentially replace the push button. This is all done with 1/8 tubing, running 100psi. I've been digging through the Festo website but I'm way outside my comfort zone so I'm hoping someone can help me out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 10:26
|
|
|
It's like a pneumatic button?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 16:23
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:It's like a pneumatic button? I guess yea, there's just an input and an output bridging across two ports on the pneumatic circuit. When you hit the button I'm assuming it connects the two and lets everything cycle. Pneumatic momentary button maybe a better term? A Proper Uppercut fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Oct 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 16:39
|
|
|
A Proper Uppercut posted:Anyone here do industrial automation type stuff? How many do you need to control at once? That determines if you just one one pneumatic 5-way or 3-way valve or a valve block. How many inputs/outputs does your current setup use? If you've got enough discrete outputs to control each valve you need, then just get individual valves. Otherwise, you may need some type of comms-enabled manifold block (rs485, ethernet/IP, etc). I can go through my catalog and figure out what we're using for that kind of thing, but it is just a bog standard festo manifold with plug-in solenoid valve blocks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 16:44
|
|
|
I'm not sure what control voltage or form factor you need, but I've bought something like what you're describing from the link below before. https://www.automationdirect.com/adc/shopping/catalog/pneumatic_components/directional_control_solenoid_valves#start=0 PDP-1 fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Oct 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 16:54
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:How many do you need to control at once? That determines if you just one one pneumatic 5-way or 3-way valve or a valve block. How many inputs/outputs does your current setup use? If you've got enough discrete outputs to control each valve you need, then just get individual valves. Otherwise, you may need some type of comms-enabled manifold block (rs485, ethernet/IP, etc). I can go through my catalog and figure out what we're using for that kind of thing, but it is just a bog standard festo manifold with plug-in solenoid valve blocks. The circuit is all assembled to control everything with just the one input. The only option I currently have to cycle the setup is the push button that's attached to the circuit. I need to automate this somehow with the PLC and a 2 way valve that will essentially emulate the button. I'm just not sure what kind of valve I should be looking for. It can't take air from the manifold all the other valves are mounted on, I need to input and output from the pneumatic circuit. I suppose I should doodle up another schematic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 20:19
|
|
|
A Proper Uppercut posted:The circuit is all assembled to control everything with just the one input. The only option I currently have to cycle the setup is the push button that's attached to the circuit. I need to automate this somehow with the PLC and a 2 way valve that will essentially emulate the button. I'm just not sure what kind of valve I should be looking for. It can't take air from the manifold all the other valves are mounted on, I need to input and output from the pneumatic circuit. Yes. "The button" is ambiguous here when there are a couple of different power sources, as is "the circuit." A brief pneumatic and electrical one-line would be great. I'm going to assume you've got programming software and I/O available on the PLC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 20:24
|
|
|
A Proper Uppercut posted:I've been digging through the Festo website but I'm way outside my comfort zone so I'm hoping someone can help me out. That said, for the "what kind of valve do I need?" question, you know you want two states for it with an input air line and output air line. Draw out what you want the input/output lines connected to in each state (vented to atmosphere, closed, or connected). Valve catalogs will have diagrams like this:  showing how the ports are connected in each state. The middle part is a slidy block that goes left/right. For this valve, the 1 and 2 ports are capped in one state, and connected for flow from 1->2 in the other state. You'll also need to know the flow rates you need to support
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 20:46
|
|
|
I'd call the festo sales rep and ask them to recommend something. But it sounds like you just need regular solenoid valves with momentary logic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 21:28
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:If you're controlling expensive machine tools for work, it's probably something you shouldn't be DIY-ing if you're not comfortable already. "Is it possible for me to screw this up in a way that either destroys tens of thousands of dollars of equipment or maims somebody?" and "If I'm wrong about that and it does happen, who gets sued?" are questions you'll want to have good answers to. I'll go into more detail later but yes that 2/2 valve diagram is exactly what I need, actuated by a PLC. I was having trouble, most of the stuff I found were 3/2 valves. There will be 100 psi compressed air in the lines.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 21:59
|
|
|
You're sure the non-supply side of it has some other path to atmosphere/consumes gas quickly? A valve like that one won't depressurize the far end when it switches, it'll just cap it. 3/2 universal are more common since you usually want to either be pressurizing or venting  1 goes to air supply, 2 goes to thing-to-control, 3 is atmosphere (these pictures are from ASCO 411 mini valves, because those are what I interact with at work) Foxfire_ fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Oct 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 22:15
|
|
|
Hi all. Fishing for advice here... Let's say you were trying to resurrect a cool calculator/clock/goddamn lighter combo device:  but the only one you've been able to find on sale in years was something you could get for $15 because it suffered battery leakage and its board looks like this:  and after cleaning and soldering back on the resistor that was rattling in the battery compartment... the calculator doesn't turn on. And let's say that Casio, in their If all this were to happen... would the only real option be to attempt reverse-engineering the PCB or am I missing something? I'm an ex-engineer but even though I worked in semiconductors it was purely on the optics/chemistry and solid state physics side of things. I haven't done anything PCB- or circuit-related since early on in college, many moons ago. So if reverse-engineering the PCB is pretty much the only option, I'd love to hear suggestions on how to learn it, i.e. any blogs/YouTube/etc. you could recommend.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 22:39
|
|
|
Trabant posted:Hi all. Fishing for advice here... Doing gods work. This is one of those things where you need to spec requirements. Is your goal to recreate it PCB and all? Or is a looks-like, works-like...so-long-as-you-dont-disassemble it "reproduction" acceptable? If all you care about is its three core functions, then hide a bic and take an arduino, buzzer and a small lion pack and make the rest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 23:12
|
|
|
Okay, so details. I work for a plastic extrusion manufacturer. I work on tooling and other weird projects. A lot of our extrusions needs holes drilled in them, so we have in house made machines that will do that. This one essentially is two air motor powered drill heads that will cycle and drill holes in the extrusions using a rotary encoded that rides on the extrusion connected to a PLC that cycles the drills according to whatever it's set to. We used to buy off the shelf drills from Ingersoll Rand but they have started failing very prematurely over the past year or two, so I was tasked on getting different drills on this machine. I went to a company that we've used in the past that will supply drill heads along with controls to automate them. So now I have a bunch of manifolds and hoses all hooked together that they supplied-  I'm doing this in an airport on MS Paint so sorry for the crudeness. The arrows is the air direction. The drills will cycle when I push the button because, I'm assuming, it completes the circuit. There's no electricity involved save whatever powers the valve. I need something I can replace the button with that will act the same, just connecting both sides of the setup. There is exhaust on the air motors of the drills so I think I just need to be able to open and close a 2 way valve with the PLC. There is basic onboard programming on the PLC, that's a bridge when I'll cross when I get to it. Here's a crappy picture of the setup I took last time I was working on it with the old and new drill attached-  Plane is boarding now gotta go.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 23:27
|
|
|
Trabant posted:Hi all. Fishing for advice here... That’s amazing… I’m assuming you put vinegar on it to stop the corrosion from continuing? Lightly sand it to get corrosion off and expose fresh copper? Look for broken traces with a multimeter? Is that a calculator on a chip? I’m assuming you’ve tried looking up a datasheet? It’s gonna be tedious as hell, but as said, very cool if you got it working
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 23:29
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:Doing gods work. This is one of those things where you need to spec requirements. Good point -- I'm perfectly fine with a solution where I use all-new guts but retain the outside look and controls. As you can see in this action shot:  (still can't believe that the lunatic who sold me this shipped it from Italy to Texas loaded with butane) it's a very basic 4-function calculator + clock/calendar. If I could find a way to use the buttons to actually control the functions of new guts, then I'm all for it. I do foresee a problem trying to find a perfectly-fitting display, and space inside is at a premium -- a solid 1/4 or more of the case is taken up by the lighter assembly to keep the God of Fire imprisoned. Still, I'm going to research that option. Thanks for the suggestion! namlosh posted:That’s amazing… I’m assuming you put vinegar on it to stop the corrosion from continuing? Lightly sand it to get corrosion off and expose fresh copper? Look for broken traces with a multimeter? Yup, I did the vinegar + isopropyl alcohol song and dance (and scratched back to bare copper when resoldering the loose resistor). I tested the connections I could understand, but I haven't checked all traces -- that should be my project for next week. Also I can attempt fixing the contact pads, as the power connection was iffy... TBD on how to do that. The chip powering this thing is a NEC D1862G which is remarkably difficult to get much info about. Some places do call it calculator-on-a-chip and state it was used in a few Casios of the era but that's all I could find online. You do point out a major assumption on my end: that I could harvest the chip and use it on a cloned board, which is really just pure hope because I have no clue whether the chip is actually functional itself. It does look undamaged by the battery leak at least...
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 00:24
|
|
|
I'm not an expert, but it kind of looks like some of those traces might be gone, which is bad, but not the end of the world, as you can just solder point to point wires on it. It was likely hand drawn in the first place, so it's not like it needs perfectly matched trace lengths. If you plan to keep using that chip, the first step will likely always be tracing out where each line goes and see what you can figure out. Hopefully it's just a two layer board, so it will be easy to trace. Follow a PCB trace from one component to another, check continuity between those two points. There should be continuity because you're just hooking up to a copper trace with no components int the middle. If there isn't any continuity and it looks like it goes through a trace that got damaged by corrosion, you could just solder a wire between the two points to bypass the damaged part. I saw CuriousMarc do that on a calculator he fixed for LGR.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 00:50
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:I'm not an expert, but it kind of looks like some of those traces might be gone, which is bad, but not the end of the world, as you can just solder point to point wires on it. It was likely hand drawn in the first place, so it's not like it needs perfectly matched trace lengths. If you plan to keep using that chip, the first step will likely always be tracing out where each line goes and see what you can figure out. Hopefully it's just a two layer board, so it will be easy to trace. Follow a PCB trace from one component to another, check continuity between those two points. There should be continuity because you're just hooking up to a copper trace with no components int the middle. If there isn't any continuity and it looks like it goes through a trace that got damaged by corrosion, you could just solder a wire between the two points to bypass the damaged part. I saw CuriousMarc do that on a calculator he fixed for LGR. Lol, yesssss. I was going to suggest sending it to CuriousMarc as a joke For real though. Hold the board up to a bright light and take a pic… I’ll bet it’s really simple except for the button matrix
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 01:29
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:I'm not an expert, but it kind of looks like some of those traces might be gone, which is bad, but not the end of the world, as you can just solder point to point wires on it. It was likely hand drawn in the first place, so it's not like it needs perfectly matched trace lengths. If you plan to keep using that chip, the first step will likely always be tracing out where each line goes and see what you can figure out. Hopefully it's just a two layer board, so it will be easy to trace. Follow a PCB trace from one component to another, check continuity between those two points. There should be continuity because you're just hooking up to a copper trace with no components int the middle. If there isn't any continuity and it looks like it goes through a trace that got damaged by corrosion, you could just solder a wire between the two points to bypass the damaged part. I saw CuriousMarc do that on a calculator he fixed for LGR. namlosh posted:For real though. Hold the board up to a bright light and take a pic… I’ll bet it’s really simple except for the button matrix I put the board on a light box so here are a couple of big ole photos:   If something got corroded away up due to the leaks, it would almost certainly be on the back like the three power pads (second pic, lower left). I don't see any obviously broken traces, but that's what continuity testing will be for!
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 02:58
|
|
|
It all looks pretty repairable unless the chip is dead, so a custom pcb is unlikely to be necessary Trying to find a replacement for that chip that works is going to be very tricky though
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 03:11
|
|
|
Well I'm down in our Atlanta plant so I can actually look at the setup The push button is down in the middle there. I think I found a valve that will work. I checked the PLC and it's setup to output 24VDC. https://www.automationdirect.com/ad...e/dvd-2ac2a-24d Any thoughts on any of this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 18:06
|
|
|
That's a small valve. What are the airflow requirements for your drills?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 18:28
|
|
|
TacoHavoc posted:That's a small valve. What are the airflow requirements for your drills? They don't specify a cfm but it's 100 psi. When you hit the push button to cycle you only need to hold the button down for a second so I don't think it's anything crazy. Edit: nope found it, it's 30 cfm. But for a very short amount of time. Also, I don't think the main volume of air goes through this button/valve, to be quite honest I'm not quite sure how it works. The hoses connecting to it are only 4mm so it can't be anything crazy. As I was told earlier in the thread I think I'll just yolo it. At worst its just not going to work, nothing should get damaged. A Proper Uppercut fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Oct 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 18:33
|
|
|
Possibly a diaphragm to open a larger valve? Kinda like the way sprinkler valves have that lil bleed screw to make them open.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 19:18
|
|
|
CopperHound posted:Possibly a diaphragm to open a larger valve? Kinda like the way sprinkler valves have that lil bleed screw to make them open. That's what I thought, I've worked with basic air stuff but this is getting much fancier than I'm used to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 19:34
|
|
|
Your drawing from earlier shows a line going directly from the manifold to the drill heads. Could that be the main supply to the big cylinders and the lines stemming off the button are just small control lines that actuate a larger valve?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 22:46
|
|
|
PDP-1 posted:Your drawing from earlier shows a line going directly from the manifold to the drill heads. Could that be the main supply to the big cylinders and the lines stemming off the button are just small control lines that actuate a larger valve? I was mainly doing that from memory, if you look at the picture I posted of the setup earlier the big air line is on the other side of the push button. In any case I ordered the valve and will hopefully be able to get it hooked up tomorrow if I don't run out of time. A Proper Uppercut fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Oct 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 23:18
|
|
|
Quick follow-up on the calculighter: we have the faintest signs of life! The screen briefly lit up, although all it showed were basically all segments turning on followed by a few random shapes. It looks like one of the problems is that the power contact pads are shot, which isn't surprising: Anyone have tips on how to clean these up and what would be the best way to adhere the foil that's lifting off? Also, the traces on the front of the board appear to be fine, continuity-wise. The back... I don't know yet. edit: also, I badly need some better probes and leads for my bare-bones multimeter and power supply, goddamn this is PITA to work with. Trabant fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Oct 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 00:57
|
|
|
Trabant posted:edit: also, I badly need some better probes and leads for my bare-bones multimeter and power supply, goddamn this is PITA to work with. I'm a huge advocate of soldering tiny wires, maybe an inch long, down to pads of interest and getting on those with micrograbbers then just clipping the other end to the meter probes (fine) or if you have banana plug to clip cables plugging those straight into the meter. The idea is to make it difficult to break something you've invested a lot of time and/or money in with one slip of a probe across the board.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 01:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 03:17 |
|
|
A Proper Uppercut posted:I was mainly doing that from memory, if you look at the picture I posted of the setup earlier the big air line is on the other side of the push button. After looking at your picture this should work. When the button is actuated, you dump manifold pressure to the top pilot ports on the manifold. That connects manifold pressure to all of the A ports on each of those 4 blocks, so based on the labeling it should extend the drill and run the motor. What isn't clear is how the bottom pilot ports get re-energized after the drill cycle, but it probably has something to do with the blue hoses that terminate offscreen. But yeah, the small valve you got should work just fine in place of that switch. I wasn't familiar with air-actuated pnuematic valves until today so that was cool to learn.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 02:20
|
|