Subject:
|
RE: Two New Contests at BrickBots.Com
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:03:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
516 times
|
| |
|
|
> Am I completely thick or is the problem simpler than I'm imagining? Way
> back when at the University of Waterloo, we designed a 2D
> inverted pendulum
> balancer on a plotter bed. The pendulum rotated a sensor, and we had to
> move the bed to keep it stable. You'd get bonus points for moving the bed
> in 2 dimensions....
>
> I just don't understand the statement "Build a robot that stabilizes the
> inverted pendulum by rotating it" or the picture (which should be enclosed
> in a <pre> tag to display properly.
OK, now that I've figured out what the pendulum base looks like, I can
see the advantage of the rotating base, namely that we eliminate the
need for detecting the end of the range of motion!
Thanks to all who helped in my quest for understanding. Now I have to
figure out if I can build this with touch sensors or if I should use
a rotation sensor...
Cheers, Ralph Hempel
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Two New Contests at BrickBots.Com
|
| (...) Nope your not thick, but the RCX is! It seems to be simple problem, but I suspect the limitations of the RCX / LEGO's will make it difficutlt. (...) Wow, I just now finally understand! The picture B. Shahian linked to finally make it clear for (...) (24 years ago, 26-Feb-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | RE: Two New Contests at BrickBots.Com
|
| (...) back when at the University of Waterloo, we designed a 2D inverted pendulum balancer on a plotter bed. The pendulum rotated a sensor, and we had to move the bed to keep it stable. You'd get bonus points for moving the bed in 2 dimensions.... I (...) (24 years ago, 26-Feb-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
8 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
|
|
|
|
