Subject:
|
Re: LEGO Purism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 9 Aug 2002 15:41:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1462 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, John Barnes writes:
> In lugnet.robotics, Paul Andrews writes:
>
> > I too like working within the existing constraints. It makes you creative.
> > Still. I'd kill for a stall sensor.
>
> Despite my urge to make new and better(?) sensors, Lego makes a stall sensor!
>
> Stick a rotation sensor in the drive train and timeout a change in count
> value. (Same way as automated braking system do.)
>
> JB
Yes. Guess I'm going to have to do it. The more I think about it. The more
attractive the programming and mechanical issues become. Like:
I have a two-motor setup. How do I monitor both or do I go for a synchro
drive instead?
Do I want to detect slip as well as stall?
How do I determine that the motor is stalled v. just plain stopped?
etc.
Darned. And I thought I'd finished my light-sensing object avoiding robot.
(I use a single light sensor and the IR transmitter to perform proximity
detection and the same (single) light sensor to seek out bright areas.
There's a mechanical bumper on the back so that I can tell if I back up into
something. The problem I always have is that no touch/proximity sensor can
cope with all situations where the robot gets stuck - hence my interest in a
stall sensor).
Ideally I'd like a solid-state current sensor
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: LEGO Purism
|
| (...) Despite my urge to make new and better(?) sensors, Lego makes a stall sensor! Stick a rotation sensor in the drive train and timeout a change in count value. (Same way as automated braking system do.) JB (22 years ago, 9-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
39 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
