 | | Re: Ideal Tank Platform Was: adder-subtractor ???? —Chris 'Xenon' Hanson
|
| | | (...) Ideally: Both motors should be driven in 'forward' direction so if one had a matched set of motors, you could perhaps achieve lateral speed balance. Forward end of tracks should be slightly elevated to grab and climb obstacles: <- Front * * * (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Ideal Tank Platform Was: adder-subtractor ???? —Steve Baker
|
| | | | (...) Well, if you read my *long* post from a week or so ago, you'll know that motor mismatch makes up at least 11% of performance, motor direction perhaps 1% or at most 2%, and HOW YOU BUILD YOUR MODEL accounts for at least 7% ... even when you are (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Ideal Tank Platform Was: adder-subtractor ???? —Chris 'Xenon' Hanson
|
| | | | (...) Yeah, I saw that. nice work, that. I figured I'd throw it in anyway on the principle that eliminating error of any source is always a noble cause. I like to use worm drives to 'turn the corner' anyway to get the extra torque so it's not a (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Ideal Tank Platform Was: adder-subtractor ???? —Steve Baker
|
| | | | (...) I guess - but surely - having an asymmetry in the robot's construction is more likely to cause it not to drive straight than the 1% to 2% due to the motor rotation direction. You may be a 'better' builder than I am - and perhaps be able to (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | RE: Was (Tank Platform) —Phil Vanderpoel
|
| | | | I know this isn't scientific or anything but this is what I have observed. If I have a bot with a "crazy" wheel, the direction that that wheel is pointing when the bot starts moving forward controls the bots direction more than anything else. And it (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
