 | | Re: Resets
|
|
Actually, when I first tried the new motors, I was able to use them for a while. It wasn't until I went to download a different program that it started happening. That's what's confusing me. Is it possible that the L293D is burned or something like (...) (29 years ago, 18-Mar-96, to lugnet.robotics.handyboard)
|
| |
| | RE: Motor control
|
|
Well if you believe in encapsulation it should be 0 to 100.0 %, then the implementation of the motor speed control could give its best effort in that regard. One of the things I hope to do on my Handyboard is set it up to run two of my PIC motor (...) (29 years ago, 18-Mar-96, to lugnet.robotics.handyboard)
|
| |
| | Re: Resets
|
|
(...) Well that would do it---it would discharge your battery. You actually should be getting more like 9.6 to 10v from a fully charged battery. Why don't you get an adatper that works and charge your battery until it's slightly warm and then see if (...) (29 years ago, 18-Mar-96, to lugnet.robotics.handyboard)
|
| |
| | speed control encapsulation
|
|
(...) This is the reason I remember for encapsulating the value. It wouldn't be hard to implement new speed control for the 6811 either which could do better than 9 divisions. One option is to leave the encapuslated interface, but make more (...) (29 years ago, 18-Mar-96, to lugnet.robotics.handyboard)
|
| |
| | Re: Motor control
|
|
I like 0 to 8 better. Also is there any way to control the frequency at which the PWM works? I find that some of my motors deliver too much at step 1. How about if there was something like: motor( motornum, cycles_on, total_cyles); if you feed (...) (29 years ago, 18-Mar-96, to lugnet.robotics.handyboard)
|
| |
| | Re: Motor control
|
|
(...) Depends on how far you wish IC to go. Someday there could be another controller that allows 100 disrete levels. On the other hand that could be handled well by allowing the value to go to 100, and the code written to go to 8 would be kinda (...) (29 years ago, 18-Mar-96, to lugnet.robotics.handyboard)
|
| |
| | Re: Motor control
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) It would make more sense to just use motor(1,speed*14) This would give you the following: Value --> Speed 0 --> 0 1 --> 14 2 --> 28 3 --> 42 4 --> 56 5 --> 70 6 --> 84 7 --> 98 I wouldn't bother rewriting the routine. Tom (29 years ago, 18-Mar-96, to lugnet.robotics.handyboard)
|
| |
| | address for RWI
|
|
Try "jadietsch@activmedia.com" or "bkennedy@activmedia.com" -- Randy (...) (29 years ago, 18-Mar-96, to lugnet.robotics.handyboard)
|
| |
| | Re: Servos w/ the handyboard?
|
|
(...) Yes. Just use the "servo.icb" and "servo.c" libraries that are distributed with Interactive C. This will convert the Handy Board's digital input 9 sensor (which is really a bidirectional counter/timer pin) into a stable servo control line. You (...) (29 years ago, 18-Mar-96, to lugnet.robotics.handyboard)
|
| |
| | RE: Motor control
|
|
I would rather have use of the 0 to 8 range because many of the values in the 0 to 100 range simply fall into groups which give only 9 speeds. However, I do not support rewriting the IC code. Tom's suggestion, motor(1,value*14), is simple and meets (...) (29 years ago, 18-Mar-96, to lugnet.robotics.handyboard)
|
