Subject:
|
Re: r/c servos
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 20 Aug 1999 20:47:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
847 times
|
| |
|
|
Robert Munafo <munafo@gcctechNO.SPAMcom> wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, lego-robotics@crynwr.com (John Barnes) writes:
> > [...] If it's s/w, then the rep. rate could be dramatically reduced
> > and finer timing resolution used to drive the servo position input.
>
> If all you need to do is generate a pulse of a certain length, why can't
> you do something like this?
>
> Sleep(1); // synchronize with the centisecond timer
> Fwd(OUT_A, 7);
> Sleep(1); // 1/100 of a second
> Off(OUT_A);
> Sleep(2); // 2/100 of a second
> // and repeat...
The answer is pretty simple, actually. In order to control a servo, you
need to use pulses whose lengths are on the order of 1-2 ms. The more
steps you get in that range, the more servo positions you can use.
NQC can't produce pulses as short or as accurate as those required to
control a servo.
-Kekoa
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: r/c servos
|
| (...) If all you need to do is generate a pulse of a certain length, why can't you do something like this? Sleep(1); // synchronize with the centisecond timer Fwd(OUT_A, 7); Sleep(1); // 1/100 of a second Off(OUT_A); Sleep(2); // 2/100 of a second (...) (25 years ago, 20-Aug-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Robotics
|
|
|
|
|
|
