As far as I know, without the optical feedback from the pickup itself onto the pre-groove, focus are tracking effectively become open-loop.
-
-
Replying to @marcan42 @RichFelker and
Angular tracking is a problem too (normal burners just don't care except roughly on average). Friend built some FPGA-based PLL thing.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @marcan42 @RichFelker and
... which worked fine for visual purposes but for nm-scale tracking you really need some accurate angular feedback too.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
PLL with a small number of feedback markers and high quality OCXO might suffice?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The tricky bit I guess is that you need a high angular feedback frequency to compensate for mechanical instability.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @marcan42 @RichFelker and
I.e. no matter how good your PLL is, one pulse per revolution isn't enough for nm-scale accuracy.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
To avoid need for precise even spacing of marks, could you have one primary pulse per rev and many minor ones...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker @marcan42 and
...and measure timing between each one (average over many revs) before start to get phase offsets for each to feed into PLL?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Depends on whether you need dimensional accuracy or just track-to-track repeatability I guess. That sounds like it'd work for the latter.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I think it would work for either, no? Once you correct for phases of minor marks, everything is stable relative to the primary one.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I think the issue is you can't easily correct for the spindle not being perfectly centered and the like. That'll introduce consistent error.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.