To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.roboticsOpen lugnet.robotics in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Robotics / 14052
14051  |  14053
Subject: 
Re: Ideal Tank Platform Was: adder-subtractor ????
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics
Date: 
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 04:45:44 GMT
Original-From: 
Steve Baker <SJBAKER1@AIRMAIL.nomorespamNET>
Reply-To: 
sjbaker1@SPAMCAKEairmail.net
Viewed: 
516 times
  
Chris 'Xenon' Hanson wrote:

Steve Baker wrote:

Chris 'Xenon' Hanson wrote:
   Both motors should be driven in 'forward' direction so if one
had a matched set of motors, you could perhaps achieve lateral
speed balance.
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 being careful not
to trap axles.
Compared to those things, motor direction is almost irrelevent - and
certainly not worth much extra complexity.

   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 design problem for me.

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
pinch those axle collars *just* tight enough so they don't bind
but also prevent the gears from slopping back and forth.  If you
don't have the 'magic fingers' needed to get that *identical* on
both sides of the tank, that 7% that I measured due to build variance
will surely bite you.

Now, if you have a DIFFERENT gearing on the two sides of the
tank so that the motors can rotate the same way, the odds of your
being able to eliminate that 7% error get **WAY** higher...and if you
have to put the motors in different places on the two sides, your
weight distribution will be different - which is probably another
cause of asymmetric driving.

So, does anyone set their collars onto the axles using feeler-gauges
to space them at just the *ideal* distance from the beams?  That
may be the *best* thing you could do to make your models go
straight!

   If one we using the adder-subtractor drive that started this
thread, it'd all be irrelevant anyway.

That's true. It's an elegant solution.

--
Steve Baker   HomeEmail: <sjbaker1@airmail.net>
              WorkEmail: <sjbaker@link.com>
              HomePage : http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1
              Projects : http://plib.sourceforge.net
                         http://tuxaqfh.sourceforge.net
                         http://tuxkart.sourceforge.net
                         http://prettypoly.sourceforge.net
                         http://freeglut.sourceforge.net



Message has 1 Reply:
  RE: Was (Tank Platform)
 
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 (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Ideal Tank Platform Was: adder-subtractor ????
 
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics)

5 Messages in This Thread:

Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR