| |
"Matthias Jetleb" <Jetleb@Netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:3c5763f6.19596939@www.lugnet.com...
> Well I haven't seen your version of the Project-X design, but I'll
> assume it's similar (albeit vastly inferior) to the one I'm entering.
Ooooooooo, someone else is actually NOT doing a gantry? ;)
> I'm assuming that for the sake of speed, you are keeping moving mass
> to a minimum and hence, not loading the motors very much. The problem
The mass is at a minumum, but due to the size fo the robot to get the
required work envelope, unfortunatley it does seem like it requires quite a
bit of beef to get the thing torkin'.
> engines around. This system works very well, but the frequency must be
> fairly high. If you slow the frequency down considerably you get
> exactly what you described - jerky on-off motion. I'm somewhat of the
I agree, I think if i could deal with 1/1000 sec. units instead of 1/100, I
wouldn't have this problem. In fact, Derek Raycraft exhibited beautiful
motor control using leJOS a few dinners ago.
> opinion that the NQC doesn't allow you to toggle the power fast enough
> to make the motion smooth. The 50% duty cycle you describe would work
> if the frequency were higher. I've been giving serious consideration
> to using assembler to program the RCX in order to give me the control
> over the output's frequency and duty cycle that I require. The bottom
> line is, I'm having the same problem as you are.
It is very relieving to know that that is the case! I thought I was alone.
Maybe I could contract Derek and his super-savvy leJOS skills to program my
robot driver for me? :) Ooooo, yes, I could just see it now. RCX 1 runs
leJOS, as the driver for the robot. RCX 2 controls the aux. functions, and
contains the logic to drive the PuzzleSolver, AND IT RUNS NQC.
Cross-platform communication! :)
Iain
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: "Servo" Driver for NQC
|
| (...) Well I haven't seen your version of the Project-X design, but I'll assume it's similar (albeit vastly inferior) to the one I'm entering. I'm assuming that for the sake of speed, you are keeping moving mass to a minimum and hence, not loading (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
18 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
