USB has proven to be a really reliable communication interface. It’s likely more than adequate for all of these types of applications. Why do you think its not?
Read what I said please, using an un-shielded USB is asking for trouble I did NOT SAY USB was not a good commo protocol. I started with IBM in 1973 and have seen all manner of commo. I would rate USB as one of the best out there. I switched to MACH 3 and a Gecko 540 because I like it and have over 5 years of files already tested and ready to go. I love the S3 it is far and away the best for the money. Mach 3 gives me the ability to use my one wire touch probe, pause for tool change and more. I also said that the parallel protocol has its share of problems.
Most of the issues seen here are dropouts in communication, but the steps taken are usually grounding everything else. Like I said, I need a better understanding.
Sorry, and thanks for clearing that up. IMO the use of proper USB cables is always important. USB2 interfaces require cables rated for that spec, as do USB3 interfaces. Their shields are connected to the connector shells (“grounded”) at both ends. As shown here, the shields of some cables are more effective than others but it’s of really no consequence for most users. That’s really more about very high frequency radiation from the cable than susceptibility of its communications to external interferences.
One last parting thought on USB drop outs. It’s rare but I have had noisy PC power supplies cause all manner of commo problems. I had the advantage of access to a scope at IBM so tracking down noise was somewhat easier. As Gmack says grounding is important. In the early days, ie. 300 baud one never knew for sure what would cause a comm port to drop.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.