Hmm ... the one image which you posted the link to is a bit low resolution, but the controller looks familiar to me.
Differences from the Taiwanese Bridgeport clone with an Anilam conversion:
1) The handwheels were plastic deep dishes with spring-loaded folding cranks which would not bash your leg or whatever was within reach if an unexpected rapid move came up.
2) The Bridgeport clone conversion had taken the quill stop rod and coupled a ball screw to that for quill feed. (The real Bridgeport "Series I" I have uses a hollow ball screw around the quill, so the feed force is concentric with the spindle. I can't really see what is being done here.
3) My Bridgeport Series I has a fixed ballscrew for the X axis and a nut which is rotated by the motor (originally stepper, now servo). This has the advantage of eliminating whip in the leadscrew during a rapid move -- but also eliminates the possibility of using a handwheel to manually feed it.
4) I don't see the tape system for holding the program files (a small box which sits on top of the cabinet), but you can use a computer connected to the RS-232 port to accomplish the same thing -- and quicker. You'll need to find the magic code to switch save/load output/input to the RS-232 from the interface for the tape drive.
5) Looks like a really solid machine -- confirming what I have read about Lagun machines. Made in Brazil, IIRC.
6) The Crusader II has a sort of conversational programming mode -- which translates to actual G-code inside the machine as you can determine by examining the file produced by saving a program to a computer.
7) Assuming that it is like what I worked with -- always remember to turn off the power to the control box (switch on the back) or you will come back to find the base pan full of waylube from the constant operation of the oiler.
[ ... ]
Well -- you have what I can offer based on the photo and my twenty-year-old memory of the Crusader II by Anilam.
I have no idea how much wear the machine has suffered. However, it does seem to be missing the crank handle on the Y-axis wheel.
He is talking about the control -- the Anilam electronics. While I have used one (perhaps twenty years ago) it was the first CNC that I ever experienced, so I did not know what to look for then.
It worked nicely but there were things which I did not like (and which may not apply to this conversion), such as the approach for connecting the servo to the Z-axis quill feed. I *like* the way the Series-I Bridgeport does it -- and I suspect that is the same way that yours does it). I can't tell how the Lagun conversion does it. (BTW, it is pronounced like "lagoon", not like "LASer GUN", since it is from a Portugese speaking country.
The thing which gives the convenience of manual controls also introduces the possibility of X-axis ball screw whip during rapid motions.
The Anilam conversion of the Bridgeport clone used linear scales (encoders) on the axes instead of rotary encoders on the servo motors. This gives a more accurate reading of position, but will make the loop a bit longer and harder to close and tune I suspect.
This should be fairly easy to retrofit as well -- easier if you add encoders to the motors and ignore the linear scales -- assuming that the Lagun uses the same setup. The servo amplifiers should be in the cabinet under the angled arm supporting the control module. (Hmm ... that reminder to turn it off when you go away -- that switch *might* have been on the cabinet which had the servo amps, instead of the control box. It *has* been twenty years, after all. :-)
I would probably use the existing servos and servo amplifiers, and might actually use the Anilam computer as well, depending on how well it still works, and whether the touch sensitive areas on the front panel (in place of switches -- the only real switch is the panic switch) still work and have not had the markings worn off from use.
I have a Bridgeport with an Anilam Crusader II control. I replaced the servo motor drives with new AMC drives. They are set up pretty much like your mill IIRC. The servos have tachometer feedback going to the drives and the control sends +/- 10V to the drives for velocity command. The DRO scales feed back the actual position of the table, not the position of the motor. I have used my with the Crusader II control and that works fine for most purposes, I do hope to do an EMC2 upgrade in the future though.
The Crusader II control is pretty capable for manual programming, mine has features to make the most of manual programming. There is something like a
1000 move limit that isn't bad for manual programming but if you use a CAD/CAM system to generate 3d molds it could be a mess, having to break up the program into smaller chunks and loading a partial program at a time.
Some parts I used to make were both left and right hand. I wrote the routine to make a single part, using nested loops and axis offsetting I could make a matrix (3X7) of 21 parts in a single piece of material. I added a code to mirror an axis and made the left hand parts.
I would say bottom line is that if the control works good, that's fine. If not, it's an easy retrofit, encoders in, analog signals to drives, you've done that before.
I doubt it. Does it have dials with the handles? If so, they need to stay in sync with the leadscrews, and a push-to-engage works against that.
Hmm ... Mine are dovetail ways for sure on the Y-axis and the vertical ways for the knee. Not really sure about the X-axis, as they are hidden enough to make it difficult to remember.
Good -- concentric pushing then.
So it can over time produce wear of the quill in its bearings, since it is always producing a side thrust.
[ ... ]
Not a serious problem. I found the codes for the switch in a web site devoted to old Anilam machines.
Chapter 14 tells you how to do the transfers including the magic codes. It does assume that the serial port is connected to a switchbox to select between cassette tape (a tiny one) punched paper tape, and PC. (I guess two for the punched paper tape -- one for the tape punch, and one for the tape reader. :-) Or maybe it is for selecting different machines to connect to one PC. :-) I think that they must still be using one at the school in question.
It includes the pinout of the RS-232 cable as needed for the Anilam.
Other sections tell you a lot about other programming features. I would suggest downloading and saving all the pages for future use.
You can read up on the programming there too.
[ ... ]
Yes -- is it most likely 20 years old or a bit more. Not a problem for the hardware in a well maintained machine, but certainly so for the computer. (Well ... it is likely old enough to be from before the pirated electrolyte formula, so the capacitors may still be good.
But if the membrane switch panel front has gone bad, it is certainly time to haul out EMC instead of trying to make it work. There are a lot of switches on that panel.
I'm not sure what you mean by professional retrofit. New control of course, but would you also want new motors, drives, scales or encoders, ball screws? Personally I would only recommend an EMC or similar retrofit because the machine isn't worth spending a lot of money ($13K) on. If I were going to spend a good chunk of money I would prefer to find something with a tool changer or at least an automatic drawbar (tools could be arranged on the table for automatic machine pick up if you could control hold and release of the draw bar).
The reason I like EMC for these machines is that it works well with the analog signal and the encoder feedback for reasonable money.
I bought scale connectors and the large control connector for my mill. I was planning on connecting the EMC conversion through the existing connectors so I could switch back to the Crusader II if I needed to run the mill before the conversion was ready.
Even if you are using encoders on the motors you would get the same behavior, since the motors are not disengaged from the leadscrews during manual mode. They are powered down, of course, but that is a different matter. You *need* those motors on there to resist the cutting forces feeding the ball screws.
The primary difference is that the linear scales have an index output so your machine can be designed to home on power up without needing to pay attention to mechanical switches (other than to stop it if you are already past the index point, of course. :-)
I *think* that there may have been memory upgrades, as I remember our "real machinist" (TM) producing a program with something more than that to generate a very smooth complex curve -- generated from a formula and printed out by computer.
Yes -- even the old Bridgeport BOSS-3 (which is what my Series-I started life as) had switches to reverse the axes.
No guess there. If the price is reasonable, it should take into account the presence of the ball screws, the servo motors, and the scales, so it *should* cost less than a from-the-ground-up conversion.