 | | calculating sensor resistance (Ohm's Law) —Lauren Klein
|
| | | I've been helping my little sister with her RCX-intensive science project, but we just finished all the calculations and her results seem screwy. Does anyone who understands RCX internals and/or Ohm's Law have some time to look this over and make (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: calculating sensor resistance (Ohm's Law) —Stef Mientki
|
| | | | | hi Lauren, you're quiet right, the inside of the RCX (in touch-sensor mode) is ok, and Ohm's law is also. So the problem lies probably in the sensor used. The cheap resistive pressure sensors are totally non-linear, more expensive sensors are full (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: calculating sensor resistance (Ohm's Law) —Lauren Klein
|
| | | | | | Stef Mientki <s.mientki@ids.kun.nl> wrote: : the inside of the RCX (in touch-sensor mode) is ok, and Ohm's law is also. I actually used temperature sensor mode, since I wanted a passive mode that wasn't just boolean. Would that have made a (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: calculating sensor resistance (Ohm's Law) —Pete Sevcik
|
| | | | Lauren, Your diagrahm is correct. Your voltage assumption is not. On RCX the full scale is 2 volts to 5 volts, not 0-5 like you have assumed. Try re-calculating with a 3 volt span. - pete. (...) -- Pete Sevcik sevcik@flash.net Techno-stuff Robotics (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: calculating sensor resistance (Ohm's Law) —Michael Gasperi
|
| | | | Pete Sevcik <lego-robotics@crynwr.com> wrote in message news:3ACE6E90.3FA776....rr.com... (...) full (...) That is not true for passive mode. The scale is 0v = 0 and 5v = 1023 in passive modes like touch or temperature. The problem with what Lauren (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: calculating sensor resistance (Ohm's Law) —Pete Sevcik
|
| | | | Michael, As usual, you are correct. Thanks for pointing out my error. - pete. (...) Techno-stuff Robotics (URL) for FUN ! (24 years ago, 8-Apr-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
