Subject:
|
RE: Motor Speed Control
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc
|
Date:
|
Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:43:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
6070 times
|
| |
|
|
>
> Actually, it's more like standing on the brakes, letting go and then
> gunning the gas, stepping off the gas and standing on the brakes :-)
:)
> And yes, that WILL use more gas, and more batteries. Now, if the
> resolutiion of timing for the brake command was small enough to
> slow the motor significantly without actually stopping it, then
> we'd have something!
I'm not sure how the Swan firmware does it, but I have mine set so it cycles every 8
ms. It's on for 0 to 8 ms, then off (brake) for the rest, depending on the speed.
That's fast enough to produce a very smooth result. There is no visible starting &
stoping of the motor, but I'm sure the effect on batteries is the same as above.
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Motor Speed Control
|
| (...) That's the case too for Swan firmware with standard parameters. (...) And yes, power consumption is much higher using on break. I measured variation of RCX current with one motor, power level 3 (50% duty cycle). Idle RCX current (35mA) is (...) (20 years ago, 1-Dec-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | RE: Motor Speed Control
|
| (...) Actually, it's more like standing on the brakes, letting go and then gunning the gas, stepping off the gas and standing on the brakes :-) And yes, that WILL use more gas, and more batteries. Now, if the resolutiion of timing for the brake (...) (20 years ago, 30-Nov-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
