To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.roboticsOpen lugnet.robotics in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Robotics / 19512
19511  |  19513
Subject: 
Re: articulation points?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics
Date: 
Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:41:19 GMT
Viewed: 
758 times
  
In lugnet.robotics, "Rob Limbaugh" <RLimbaugh@greenfieldgroup.com> writes:

The more DOF's, the better the overall control and positioning *could* =
be.  In the case of the video recorders, you can tell the differences =
quite easily in 2, 4 and 6 head systems by pausing videos;

I was under the impression that a 6 head video recorder was a marketing
concept, i.e. it has 4 video heads and 2 audio heads, so in this case (all
things being equal) it would be exactly the same as the 4 head one. This is
really what I've been trying to get across, and that Steve put across more
clearly I think, simply that stating DOF based on the addition of all joints
can be misleading.

Mechanically, the contrast could be made by putting your leg in a cast.  =
You can still function and move around within your fully extended ranges =
of motion, but doing things requiring better control will be harder... =
specifically, going up and down a staircase... knee and ankle =
flexibility is greatly missed!  In this example, your maximum extended =
ROM hasn't changed, but your degree of resolution to move your foot =
within that range has been greatly reduced.

By adding the cast you have removed a genuine DOF from the leg though, and
it is now only capable of sweeping out a surface at the end (assuming a
static foot) rather than a volume. Would adding a second knee (another hinge
joint) add as much utility as the first? I don't think it would under normal
circumstances, and this is why I don't think it really adds another DOF
since it is in many ways duplicating the effects of the first knee.

Jennifer



Message is in Reply To:
  RE: articulation points?
 
(...) That, to me (and according to all definitions I've seen) is "range of motion". However, without DOF's, an effector couldn't be positioned. (...) The more DOF's, the better the overall control and positioning *could* be. In the case of the (...) (22 years ago, 20-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics)

2 Messages in This Thread:

Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR