Subject:
|
Re: odometry (was Re: Homing with the IR Tower)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:31:40 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Ralph M. Deal <DEAL@nospamKZOO.EDU>
|
Viewed:
|
2579 times
|
| |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Jul 1999, Laurentino Martins wrote:
> At 09:20 28-07-1999 Wednesday , Mario Ferrari wrote:
> [snip]
> > Yes, 95 ticks are always 95 ticks, but the point is if your robot really *is*
> > in the position where it's expected to be on the floor. The main problem with
> > odometry, as you know well, is that errors accumulate very fast. The
> > unavoidable slippage of the tracks makes the things worse. From what I read so
> > far about detecting a robot position, tracks are the worst choice. See, for
> > example, the great "Where am I? Sensors and methods for Mobile Robot
> > Positioning" by J.Borenstein (freely available on the net but can't remember
> > where).
>
>
> I've downloaded, printed and read it all some time ago :-)
Great source. Just found a source where Johann Borenstein discusses the
original 1966 paper and gives links for the full electronic version or a
CDROM or a book version. Here is the source:
http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~johannb/position.htm
Thanks for the pointer! Ralph M. Deal deal@kzoo.edu
--
Did you check the web site first?: http://www.crynwr.com/lego-robotics
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: odometry (was Re: Homing with the IR Tower)
|
| At 09:20 28-07-1999 Wednesday , Mario Ferrari wrote: [snip] (...) I've downloaded, printed and read it all some time ago :-) (...) I've used 2 wheels instead of tracks once, and the results where terrible compared with tracks. The problem was that (...) (27 years ago, 28-Jul-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
23 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
