Review of EMC Conference at NAMES 2003
Many developers and active users of EMC gathered at the recent NAMES (North American Model Engineering Society) show in Detroit, Michigan, USA over the weekend of April 26 and 27, 2003. There was also a conference on the future direction of EMC held on the Monday after the show.<p>At the show there were half a dozen systems up and running EMC with the owners explaining EMC to the show visitors. </p><p>The display area was donated by the NAMES show sponsors and organized by Roland Friestad of Cardinal Engineering.
The purpose of the displays was to inform model builders and other metalworking hobbyists about CNC machine tools and how to build them for their own use.
In previous years this display and associated seminars helped inspire Bill Anliker to start the CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO list on Yahoo which resulted in many more people discovering and implementing EMC. </p><p>In addition to EMC, there were several other types of systems demonstrated. Sherline also announced at NAMES that they will be selling a CNC system based on EMC. A demo system was show at their booth. </p><p>While there was much discussion of EMC during the show and at meals in the evening, there was a special meeting session held on the Monday after the show.
This session or conference was open to all who could make it and was intended to help plan the future of EMC.
While a similar effort was attempted the previous year, this one was better publicized, better attended, and more structured. </p><p>EMC is definitely alive and well. While NIST has removed much of the public information about EMC from their ISD web site, they are continuing to research, develop and use motion control software.
EMC is only one of their uses for the RCS (Realtime Control System) library. During the past year NIST has been more active in other developments but has not left EMC behind as some had rumored. </p><p>Indeed, NIST sent two of its primary developers, Fred Proctor and Will Shackleford, as representatives to the conference. While NIST remains committed to EMC and has agreed in principal to respond to some of the requests generated as a result of the conference, no specific schedule or guarantee of completion are implied. EMC was, and still is a public domain effort and no one entity directly controls the future of EMC. </p><p>This being said, the ad hoc group that met for the conference had the goal of steering the future of EMC.
The summary of the conference below is just that, a summary, not any sort of official document issued by any controlling body. </p><p> </p><hr width="100%" size="2" />On the evening of Sunday, 27 April 2003, a sub-group that had attended the NAMES show gathered to organize an agenda for the conference on Monday. <p> </p><p>While many issues were discussed the primary outcome was as follows: </p> <ol> <li>The EMC effort needs to be better presented to the public. Issues of insulating users from the sometimes very technical development issues created the desire to segregate the "experience" into developer and user camps with separate web sites and mailing lists. Some method of "governing" the EMC community is desired.
</li> <li>The documentation, both user and developer, needs to be improved. The user manual exists in multiple forms and locations and is not always complete or up to date. The organization of the source code makes becoming a developer a daunting task. If EMC is to move ahead in in user acceptance and code development, these issues need to be addressed.
</li> <li>New features (lathe mode, etc.) need to be added, bugs need to be documented and fixed, and structural changes to the code are needed to allow future development to be more modular and extensible.
</li> <li>Last, but not least, Matt Shaver was again "volunteered" to be the public figurehead for our ad hoc group. The conference itself was convened at 8 AM Monday at the Southgate Civic Center where the NAMES show had be held over the weekend. This was an accomplishment in itself as many participants had been up past midnight the night before discussing EMC. </li> </ol> <p>The attendees present, in alphabetical order by last name, were: </p> <ul> <li>Douglas Albright user, systems integrator
</li> <li>Paul Corner user, developer, EMC evangelist
</li> <li>Craig Edwards user, entrepreneur
</li> <li>Jon Elson user, developer, entrepreneur, Pico Systems
</li> <li>John Farris educator, Grand Valley State Univ.
</li> <li>John Gothberg user
</li> <li>Ray Henry user, developer, entrepreneur, EMC evangelist
</li> <li>Hugh Jack educator, Grand Valley State Univ.
</li> <li>John Kasunich user, developer
</li> <li>David Nichols user, systems integrator, entrepreneur
</li> <li>Fred Proctor developer, NIST
</li> <li>Hassan Rabe user, student, Grand Valley State Univ.
</li> <li>Keith Rumley user, machine designer, C++ programmer
</li> <li>Will Shackleford developer, NIST
</li> <li>Matt Shaver developer, systems integrator, EMC evangelist
</li> <li>Steve Stallings user, entrepreneur, PMDX.com
</li> <li>David Volosky user
</li> </ul> <p>The meeting was conducted without a fixed chairperson, but was none the less reasonably organized and did cover the desired agenda well.
Because we were an ad hoc group and no formal rules were set for the meeting, decisions were arrived at by general consensus and no votes were taken. </p><p>Whenever the word "agreed" is used below to describe a decision process, is refers to this type of a general consensus and does not imply that everyone agreed. </p><p>Topic: </p> <ol> <li>The EMC effort needs to be better presented to the public. Issues of insulating users from the sometimes very technical development issues created the desire to segregate the "experience" into developer and user camps with separate web sites and mailing lists. Some method of "governing" the EMC community is desired.
On the topic of governance and how EMC is presented in public, the following were discussed and some items were resolved.
NIST is no longer providing user level information about EMC. As mentioned before, their web pages have been updated to reflect this. We may be able to restore some of the historic information on another site, but it will have to cleaned up to remove references to the old web site. NIST would also like to be out of the list server business.
The development files now reside on the Source Forge site at: http://sourceforge.net/projects/emc. This site also has a mailing list (emc-developers) that is only sporadically used. There are also a set of forums, one of which has the same name as the mailing list but is separate and unused. It was agreed that the emc-developers mailing list should become the developers mailing list of choice. The archive of this list can be browsed on the web site. We still need to find a new home for a mailing list for users. The web forums on Source Forge could be used, but a mailing list would be preferred. Yahoo was suggested, but was far from universally accepted. Whatever site does come to exist, it was agreed that a safe, searchable archive needs to exist. NIST has agreed to provide an archive of the existing EMC@nist.gov list to be contributed to any new list. Once this is accomplished the EMC@nist.gov list will be converted to an autoresponder directing people to the new developers and users lists.</li> </ol> <p> </p><hr width="100%" size="2" />Late breaking news….. <p> </p><p>it looks like we may be able to host both the users list and the emc-developers list on the Source Forge. To see what is if this proposed new list has be set up, check out: http://sourceforge.net/mail/?group_id=6744 </p><p>Note: We are referring here to e-mail lists, not forums which are web only and do not offer the user the opportunity to keep his own private archive of the messages </p> <hr width="100%" size="2" /> <p>The Source Forge site is already the "official" repository of the EMC development code. NIST itself uses Source Forge for their development of both EMC and the underlying RCS code.
NIST has also recognized the public’s vested interest by establishing an administrator role for one trusted member of the EMC public community. </p> <p>The Source Forge site needs to have a "last stable version released" and a "current development state" sections.
While the BDI is the most popular method of getting a stable EMC version to use in production, far too many people attempt to download the current CVS version solely to get a usable system to try to put into production. </p> <p>LinuxCNC.org already exists as a web site to promote EMC. It was generally agreed to keep it as the focus of promoting EMC to the public.
Rights to the LinuxCNC.org Internet domain are owned by Dan Falck who had remained in the background while allowing Steve Stallings to host the site, and for Ray Henry and others to determine the content.
He remains interested and has recently become more involved despite being unable to attend the conference. Other resources are expected and still encouraged. </p> <p>LinuxCNC could also host a user mailing list, but there is concern that rapid growth could strain resources. Steve Stallings has agreed to assist in making the LinuxCNC site more thorough and user friendly and to investigate potential homes for the user mailing list. </p> <p>To restate - the general intent is to guide users to the LinuxCNC.org web site and developers to the Source Forge web site. Each site should reference the other. Large bandwidth consumers, such as the Handbook and the current stable version of the code, would be stored on the Source Forge site even if the primary presentation of links is on the LinuxCNC site. </p> <p>The issues related to "governance" were discussed, but no specific decisions were made. The possibility of setting up a non-profit foundation was discussed but at this time no one is going to directly pursue this. We remain an ad-hoc group. All of the software code generated by NIST is, by US law, in the public domain. </p> <p>The present body of EMC code contains other code contributed by the public that is also in the public domain. There is also some code (mostly user interface) and some documentation (the EMC Handbook) that are covered under GPL (General Public License). Concern was expressed that, under the current situation, commercial organizations may utilize the code and are not obligated to contribute any of their bug fixes or improvements back to EMC. </p> <p>This will always be true for portions generated by NIST (US law again), but public contributions could be protected under the terms of the GPL. For any license to be enforceable it must be issued by a legal entity. This can be a person, a company, or a foundation. </p> <p>There was a general discussion of whether the GPL was a good idea and if so how could we accomplish this. After some brief explanation of how the GPL functions, it was generally accepted as a good idea. For more information on the GPL (General Public License) see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html</p> <p>Since we are an ad hoc group, we cannot issue such a license. Several people were concerned about the complexity of setting up a corporation in order to be able to issue a license (and perform other functions of interest to the group). It was discussed and agreed to investigate working with the Free Software Foundation. Situations such as this are usually handled by assigning copyright ownership to them and then the FSF licenses the software back to the public under the GPL. </p> <p>The FSF is also in the best position to defend the copyright since they designed the GPL and have access to some of the best legal resources in the US (law school professors from major universities), as well as on-staff attorneys. Matt Shaver has taken on this responsibility. </p> <p>Topic:</p> <ol> <li> The documentation, both user and developer, needs to be improved. The user manual exists in multiple forms and locations and is not always complete or up to date. The organization of the source code makes becoming a developer a daunting task. If EMC is to move ahead in in user acceptance and code development, these issues need to be addressed.
The current state of the user documentation was briefly discussed. While there was some concern about the accuracy and completeness of this documentation, most of the concern was about the divergent versions, where it should be hosted, and what standard should be used to edit the master document.
Target formats of interest were HTML, Adobe PDF, and plain text. The editing standard for the master document generated quite a bit of discussion. The conflicting concerns were ease of editing or contributing and ability to generate nice looking output in the desired formats. It turns out that is no trivial matter as anyone involved in publishing knows. Normal word-processing formats can do reasonably well but suffer from poor format conversion and operating system limitations.
Typesetting formats offer the most promise for controlling the appearance of the output. Recent efforts at updating the "EMC Handbook" were focused on using the "TeX" language, specifically the enhanced "LaTeX" version. While this language originated on UNIX systems, it is available today for most operating systems and is widely accepted in the typesetting industry.
No general consensus was reached, but in the interest of continuity it is likely that LaTeX will be the focus for the time being. Contributors who are intimidated by LaTeX (or any formatting language for that matter) could submit HTML, plain text, or even Word documents to those who are comfortable using LaTeX. For more information on LaTeX see: http://www.tug.org/
Ray Henry has agreed to be the coordinator for getting the user manuals updated. The issue of documenting how to install EMC was not discussed much.
This is primarily because of the existence of the BDI (brain dead install) CD ROMS. Paul Corner has done an excellent job of creating these and has agreed to continue doing so. One public relations issue was mentioned with respect to the BDI, that is the possibility of removing the stigma of the name by having an alternate definition of the acronym such as the "Basic Distribution Installer".
Developer documentation issues revolve mostly around readability of the code. Issues that were discussed include structural changes to reduce the complexity of the compile options (IFDEF stuff), making the modules smaller (no functions longer than two pages of code), and formatting styles (indent control and use of parentheses for readability even when not strictly required). Many of these also imply changes to the structure of the code as these issues are inseparable. NIST representatives agreed that these things need to be done and will strive to make them happen. Specifically they will address the IFDEF issue as soon as possible.
The other issues related to code documentation are the descriptions of how the interpreter language is implemented, how the code modules interrelate, and how messages and structures are defined.
John Kasunich has agreed to work on the code documentation, focusing primarily on EMCMOT and EMCIO, as well as providing an overview of the entire system. Additional volunteers are needed to document the EMCTASK and GUI portions of the system. NIST has agreed to review the documentation for accuracy.
</li> <li>New features (lathe mode, etc.) need to be added, bugs need to be documented and fixed, and structural changes to the code are needed to allow future development to be more modular and extensible. The discussion of new features was extremely productive. Unlike the previous year where we just discussed issues and set goals, this year we were able to resolve how to reach some of the goals and have work adopted by specific members. In no particular order, we discussed these matters:
</li> </ol> <p>Bugs: </p> <ul> <li>Interpreter flaws including inconsistency between EMC and other industry accepted interpreters about the usage of "offsets", and error reporting issues. Motion control issues including feed rate control when using a rotary axis, unintended motion of an uncommanded axis when entering an MDI command before the previous move has completed, the homing routine accumulating backlash distance each time homed.
General control issues including failure, sometimes, to save some parameters on shutdown, and possible race conditions and ownership conflicts issues with low speed I/O.
</li> </ul> <p>Structural improvements: </p> <ul> <li>Separate initialization and cleanup code.
</li> <li>Break up large functions into more manageable modules.
</li> <li>Manage compile options for kernel version and real time libraries by means of a wrapper function.
</li> <li>Critical for cleanup of IFDEF stuff.
</li> <li>Allow for easier configuration without recompiling code, especially with respect to I/O mapping and driver selection.
</li> <li>Make the interpreter more extensible by having G and M codes (other than basic ones like G00, G01, G02, G03, M02, and M30 that are clearly mandated to do one thing and for which all major industry vendors agree on) mapped through a function dispatcher controlled by initialization file values. Unused codes would map to error traps. Complex codes, like drill cycles and offsets shifts, would become user modifiable.
</li> <li>Support advanced features in interpreter, such as control over angular axis modes of 0-360 degrees versus continuous rotation.
</li> <li>Change method of passing commands from motion planner to interpolators to allow for control of maximum velocity and acceleration to be set independently for each axis.
</li> <li>Enhance motion control to allow for S-curve acceleration techniques and "jerk" control. This will require provision for the motion planner to have more than the present fixed 4 points in the interpolator queues.
</li> <li>This may also provide a convenient point to hook in for backing up short distances such as to clear a short on a wire EDM machine.
</li> <li>Decouple the trajectory planner from servo loops so that trajectory planner does not need to complete execution within one servo loop cycle. This will be partly accommodated by the mid-level abstraction discussed below.
</li> <li>Provide for bottom up servo and trajectory timing control rather than the present top down control.
</li> <li>Allow servo loops for different axes to run at different rates. Still assume master timing from one source, most likely the fastest servo loop.
</li> <li>Create a new hardware abstraction layer (HAL). This layer would be the SOLE presentation of all hardware to other sections of the code. As part of this, the non-real time I/O would now be routed through the HAL and thus the real time system. This is consistent with Jon Elson’s work and is essential for other further development paths. All control of bit mapping, signal polarity, and other hardware specific items would be controlled below the HAL layer, thus a signal such as "spindle" would always have the same sense (true equals spindle on) above the HAL layer regardless of how the spindle is actually turned on.
Likewise a velocity would always be represented the same way regardless of whether it actually controlled an analog servo, a digital servo, or a stepper motor. Stepper motors would always be required to simulate a servo to the motion control software.
Code below the HAL layer would be modular and would have access to initialization file data to configure actual signal polarities and other hardware specific items. Multiple, dissimilar motor drivers could be installed. Feedback and signal sensing would also pass through the HAL layer. John Kasunich has agreed to be the point man for defining the HAL.
NIST and other developers will also be heavily involved. The concept of a HAL is a major change to the EMC software and we hope to generalize it enough to allow developers to accommodate many types of radically different hardware without impacting the main body of the code.
Part of the concept may include having the HAL extensible by the initialization file and possibly having more than one HAL if required by abstraction at the mid-level layer, discussed below. Create a new mid-level layer of abstraction. Many possible names for this abstraction layer were mentioned including task abstraction layer (TAL), servo abstraction layer (SAL) and others, but nothing seemed to stick.
The concept is to abstract the presentation of servo loops to the task planner. This is essential for allowing the individualization of servo loops (independent update rates, maximum velocity, and acceleration parameters) and for having communication to servo loops via remote interfaces. While there was no mention of any abstraction of I/O processes at this level they would need to pass through this level and some abstraction may be desirable. The possibility of remote interfaces may imply the existence of multiple HALs.
No one has taken on responsibility for the mid-level abstraction, but NIST intends to do something because it is needed for some of their other projects. This is likely to come after the HAL stuff is worked out.
</li> </ul> <p>New features: </p> <ul> <li>Support for "electronic gearing" and related features needs to be addressed. This is a prerequisite for lathe threading, rigid tapping on mills, and support for jog wheels. Related issues include rollover support for spindle encoders and how to handle entry and exit of the slaved axis from electronic gearing mode. NIST is interested in adding this support and, after the session ended, they took advantage of the presence of knowledgeable users to learn as much as possible about lathe threading before heading back to the airport.
Lathes impose many other new requirements on the EMC software.
Tool offsets need to support two axes of offset (X and Z) as well as a radius.
Both the offsets must always be taken into account as they are both in the "plane" of the cut unlike the case for milling machines. The case of cutter compensation "on" must also understand the tip radius of the tool. This differs from in milling in that radius compensation is used to move the tool further into the cut instead of moving back from it. This is because the uncompensated cut assumes that the cutter tip is square and always presents the full X and Z offset. When a taper or arc is being cut, this is not true and in actual fact the radius of the cutter tip causes the offset to be reduced. Like a mill, the lathe still has "inside the cut" and "outside the cut" issues, only the inside case actually happens when the tool is truly inside the part such as when boring a hole. There is no lathe equivalent to a pocket on a mill.
Most CNC lathes have built in procedures for measuring and setting offsets. (Caution: The above paragraph is based on my somewhat shaky understanding of CNC on a lathe.)
Other special cases related to lathes include provision for constant surface speed for facing mode (requires spindle speed control slaved to X axis travel), roughing cycles, and threading cycles. Threading cycles can include multiple passes, angle of progression on subsequent passes (90 degree, 29.5 degree, alternating 29.5 degree), finishing passes, tapered threads, and multi-start threads. CNC lathes often have extra axes for additional turrets, cutoff tools, and power tailstocks.
Paul Corner has a CNC lathe which he has indicated that he is willing to use to investigate lathe modes and to test EMC lathe software as it is developed. Canned cycles that are user configurable need to be added.
The case of the CNC lathe above demonstrates how important this can become. Subroutine support is industry standard and needs to be added to EMC. User macros are desirable and should be able to access external routines by shell scripts, TCL, or other methods. It is assumed that the external routines could interact with EMC by NML messages or some other mechanism.
The interpreter could be made more modular or at least selectively loaded based on initialization file data. Motion issues related to rotary axes need to be addressed.
The current EMC code can generate unrealistically fast or slow motions because the rotary axis feed rate is assumed to be in degrees which have no direct relation to linear distance. One quick fix for this problem is to cap the motion speed based on the fastest moving axis and provide for a way to scale the rotary axis feed rate factor to something useful.
This can work reasonably well for G00 but less so for G01 moves that need actual feed rate control at the cutter tip. Another way is to use the method developed by Rab Gordon. The math of this method is explained in this message on the subject:
A related description of the algorithm and assumptions about radius can be found at:
During the EMC conference another interesting approach to rotary feed rate compensation was discussed. Unlike most simple machine tool controls, EMC is capable of understanding the geometry of the machine.
This is called kinematics and is not normally used for milling machines with rectilinear motion. It was developed for robotics and more advanced machine tools such as the Hexapod, but it could be used to solve the rotary axis feed rate problem for a simple 4th axis. It would be necessary to have data in the initialization file to describe the setup of the rotary table. The math can be somewhat complex (hyperbolic sines) but NIST believes that some simplifying assumptions are possible for the case of a single rotary axis parallel to one of the rectilinear axes.
Another topic mentioned was enhancement of the homing routines. This could include control of the sensing of the encoder index signal and possibly user configurable back off algorithms. One topic which was not covered, but came to me later was to implement a watchdog signal that could be used to enable external I/O.
This might could be done below the HAL level, but some thought should go into what a watchdog should really be monitoring.
The last topic covered was testing strategies. No solution to testing each EMC release on the wide variety of machines was found. Testing compilation on the various software environments was considered and it was generally decided that future releases would be tested on the Linux 2.2 and 2.4 kernels with both RTL and RTAI real time libraries. Support for Solaris and QNX would be retained but not routinely tested.
Support for VRTX and real time versions of Windows NT would be dropped. Most of the above features were of interest to NIST, but no specific commitments were made. It is in the best interest of the EMC user community to provide as much of our own effort as possible.
The documentation and structure improvements which have already been committed to will go a long way to making this easier to accomplish. The meeting ended with a everyone tired but excited by the progress made. It is expected that we will have another similar meeting at NAMES 2004.
</li> </ul> Best regards, Steve Stallings temporary secretary for the ad hoc EMC group