Subject:
|
Re: Motor control
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.handyboard
|
Date:
|
Mon, 18 Mar 1996 19:05:12 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Tom Cicatelli <cica@tiac.ANTISPAMnet>
|
Viewed:
|
2014 times
|
| |
|
|
Tom G. Brusehaver/Consultant Euler Solutions wrote:
>
> > 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.
<snip>
>
> Could it be handled well by using #defines (constants), or other
> functions?
>
> #define MOTOR_STOP 0
> #define MOTOR_REALLY_SLOW 12
> #define MOTOR_KINDA_SLOW 25
> #define MOTOR_MEDIUM_SLOW 37
> #define MOTOR_MEDIUM 50
> #define MOTOR_MEDIUM_FAST 62
> #define MOTOR_PRETTY_FAST 75
> #define MOTOR_REALLY_FAST 87
> #define MOTOR_FULL 100
It would make more sense to just use motor(1,speed*14)
This would give you the following:
Value --> Speed
0 --> 0
1 --> 14
2 --> 28
3 --> 42
4 --> 56
5 --> 70
6 --> 84
7 --> 98
I wouldn't bother rewriting the routine.
Tom
--
____________________________________________________________________
Tom Cicatelli cica@tiac.net
Melrose, Massachusetts
____________________________________________________________________
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Motor control
|
| (...) Depends on how far you wish IC to go. Someday there could be another controller that allows 100 disrete levels. On the other hand that could be handled well by allowing the value to go to 100, and the code written to go to 8 would be kinda (...) (29 years ago, 18-Mar-96, to lugnet.robotics.handyboard)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
