Subject:
|
Re: rotation sensors and input limitations
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Sat, 13 Feb 1999 00:01:31 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
[bryan.beatty@]Spamless[autodesk.com]
|
Viewed:
|
2007 times
|
| |
|
|
John A. Tamplin wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, Bryan Beatty wrote:
> > ...Basically, you take advantage of the slipping belt so that every time
> > you need to switch axle positions, you "re-zero" the axle position
> > against the physical limiter at A. Thus, any errors of motor position
> > do not accumulate; the only error is whatever builds up in rotating from
> > A to B or C, once. The tolerances on the motor and on the positioning
> > of B and C are probably good enough for this to work.
> Another possible error is slippage of the belt (aside from when you want
> it to slip at end-of-travel). I haven't played with belts & pulleys much
> because when I did at first I found slippage to be a problem. Am I missing
> something or are you saying it is a reasonable tradeoff for not using a
> sensor input?
Well, it does have the limitation that you can't have a lot of torque on
the "switcher" shaft, but for some applications that may not be a big
problem. It all depends:
1. how much torque do you need to rotate the switcher shaft, and
2. how precise does the switcher shaft position need to be?
High-torque, high-precision applications are going to be tough without
using an angle sensor.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: rotation sensors and input limitations
|
| (...) Another possible error is slippage of the belt (aside from when you want it to slip at end-of-travel). I haven't played with belts & pulleys much because when I did at first I found slippage to be a problem. Am I missing something or are you (...) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
