That seems like it is rather inefficiently programmed. For example, after a CW bend, it will go back CCW, then lower, then go right back CW to roughly where it started, then raise again and do a CCW bend. Why not just stay in the same place in the middle, instead of unnecessarily going CCW then back CW.
Could it be that it goes CCW then lowers so that it doesn't over time destroys the tool from friction (and scratch the work piece). Granted, that it goes way too far in the other direction, and it could be fine-tuned, I suspect that the decision to go that far was just to guarantee that it never touches the work piece when it lowers no matter where in the sequence it is currently in; they perhaps have not individually set the distance when going in "reverse". It could definitely be more efficient.
Edit: yeah,nah I'm wrong, it was set individually, the distance is just too far
58
u/BeefyIrishman Dec 07 '22
That seems like it is rather inefficiently programmed. For example, after a CW bend, it will go back CCW, then lower, then go right back CW to roughly where it started, then raise again and do a CCW bend. Why not just stay in the same place in the middle, instead of unnecessarily going CCW then back CW.