 | | Balancing robots
|
| Hi Gordon and Jim Motors really are tricky things. Oh dear, I seem to have stirred up a hornet's nest. I too have built magnetometers and they are far easier to understand and model. The problem with motors is that they go round - and they have a (...) (21 years ago, 26-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: Balancing robots
|
| Hi Peter, (...) To each their own. That they go round is called 'polar coordinates' if you have problems translating it to cartesian. The result is the same either way. The commutor is a (low) resistance. Now we could fall back on a lumped-parameter (...) (21 years ago, 27-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: Balancing robots
|
| Peter, take a look at these two papers. The first is the web page on the H bridge concept, and the second is an (oversimplified) description of an H bridge motor control. (URL) (NOTE PDF file) (These are very simple, not mathematical, but the (...) (21 years ago, 27-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: Balancing robots
|
| Just a thought. What if you were to set up a track for a steel ball to roll on and have some sort of sensor at the end that would tell the rcx that the robot is falling forwards/backwards. something like so: ___...___ |_/___...___\_| ___...___ (...) (21 years ago, 27-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: Balancing robots
|
| Hi Scott, That device is called a 'Tremble Switch'. It's a good start but I think you'll find a 'pendulum' form is more effective. You can pick them up from any pinball repair place, they're the thing that says 'Tilt'. Most of these are binary but (...) (21 years ago, 27-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: Balancing robots
|
| (...) Scott, I haven't tried that exact thing, but from the discussions I've had, I don't think it would work very well. The problem is that gravity is acting on the robot exactly the same as it's acting on the ball. The robot is not just tilting, (...) (21 years ago, 27-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics)
| |
