 | | Re: robotic rovers —David Chen
|
| | | (...) To which you wrote: (...) Then he wrote: (much more concisely) (...) It could work in theory, but I just tested it again with 2 motors that were grossly mismatched. Having both motors interconnected (electrically) did NOT cause their (...) (25 years ago, 30-Aug-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: robotic rovers —Alex Wetmore
|
| | | | It sounds like you guys are trying to re-invent the adder/subtractor system. Check out (URL) for some designs using this. In an adder/subtractor you have two motors, A and B. The wheels are then run through a mechanical linkage such that one wheel (...) (25 years ago, 31-Aug-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: mechanical clutches —Ian Warfield
|
| | | | | I agree that the adder/subtractor is the way to go (at least for now) if you want any semblance of accuracy in your robots - I even started the thread on what was the best design for the a/s (remember LDraw?) from which this branched out. (I hope (...) (25 years ago, 31-Aug-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: robotic rovers —David Chen
|
| | | | I had written: (...) Yeah, I suppose you are right. I think the only advantage to this scheme is that you can use a micro motor to power the clutch mechanism to that you don't tie up a full size motor. Also if you are running out of motor outputs, (...) (25 years ago, 2-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
