 | | RE: Detecting tilt with an Accelerometer. —Ralph Hempel
| | | | (...) <sound of Ralph eating his poorly thought out words> John, You are, of course, correct. The beam is always under 1 G if it is parallel with the Earth's surface. In free-fall, the beam becomes "weightless" and the accelerometer returns 0. As (...) (22 years ago, 21-Oct-02, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Detecting tilt with an Accelerometer. —Steve Hassenplug
| | | | | (...) Stop eating for just a sec, and help me understand this. If a sensor (accelerometer) is parallel to the earth's surface, the reading should be zero, right? (no acceleration due to gravity) But, if the object holding the sensor begins to fall (...) (22 years ago, 21-Oct-02, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | | | | | | | | RE: Detecting tilt with an Accelerometer. —Ralph Hempel
| | | | | | (...) Steve, The accelerometer is actually a micromachined beam. Think of a miniature version of your arm holding a 5 lb brick. Your measurement axis is rotation about the shoulder joint. Whether or not you or the brick are moving, the brick is (...) (22 years ago, 21-Oct-02, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Detecting tilt with an Accelerometer. —T. Alexander Popiel
| | | | | (...) No acceleration along the sensed axis, yes. (...) At this point, we need to know the type of sensor you're using (is it a pendulum type sensor, or a linear compression sensor, or gyroscopic precession sensor, or something even stranger?), and (...) (22 years ago, 21-Oct-02, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | | |
