Subject:
|
RE: Motor control
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.handyboard
|
Date:
|
Mon, 18 Mar 1996 17:05:31 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Chuck McManis <cmcmanis@netcom.com(spamcake)>
|
Viewed:
|
1937 times
|
| |
|
|
Well if you believe in encapsulation it should be 0 to 100.0 %, then the implementation
of the motor speed control could give its best effort in that regard. One of the things I
hope to do on my Handyboard is set it up to run two of my PIC motor controllers using
the servo out functions and they would be able to do 1% steps in power.
--Chuck
----------
From: Fred G. Martin[SMTP:fredm@media.mit.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 15, 1996 10:04 PM
To: MAR ERICSON
Cc: handyboard@media.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Motor control
> I'm not to familiar with the motor chips. Does the handyboard
> allow for speed control of motors?
Yes, and speed control is built in to the Interactive C motor
function. motor(0, 100) turns on motor 0 at full speed; motor(0, 50)
is half speed, etc.
While we're on the topic, I am considering changing the speed
argument, because in actuality there are only eight discrete power
levels from off to full on, so having the speed argument range from 0
to 8 might make more sense than 0 to 100.
do people have any comments on this? the problem i see with 0 to 100
is that you don't know exactly where the power steps are, and this
could be a nuisance in some applications. i think randy and i chose
100 as the top end of the speed range because it's a nice round
number, but i am thinking it would be better to expose rather than
hide the discrete nature of the speed control (i.e., the eight
discrete power levels).
any reaction?
-fred
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
