Subject:
|
Re: Compact dozer design
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Fri, 15 Apr 2005 00:14:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3932 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.technic, Nathan Bell wrote:
> In lugnet.technic, orion@orionrobots.co.uk wrote:
> >
> > Nope - it means if you have two motors which are not perfectly matched
> > (which they so very rarely are), you can still get a straight line. If
> > you build a motor-per-track buggy, and drive it accross a long
> > corridor, then without course correction, it is likely to veer slowly
> > off course. If you take a look at
> > http://orionrobots.co.uk/tiki-index.php?page=Adder%20Subtractor%20Drive
> > and http://www.lugnet.com/~469/projects/addsub they go into a bit more
> > depth on it.You can still make just as abrupt turns with it - although
> > they may be slightly easier to control with the add-sub drive.
> >
> > Danny
> > --
> > http://orionrobots.co.uk - Build Robots
>
> That does sound like an advantage. However if I'm not mistaken, it also means
> less torque because technically only one motor is driving the wheels. The other
> one is just for steering.
Well sort of. The application of torque is reversed - when steering a "1 motor
per track" model, you only get 1 motor driving, when going straight you get 2.
This is simply reversed in the adder/subtractor system.
It's a small price to pay for much easier control :)
ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Compact dozer design
|
| (...) That does sound like an advantage. However if I'm not mistaken, it also means less torque because technically only one motor is driving the wheels. The other one is just for steering. ?? Nathan (19 years ago, 14-Apr-05, to lugnet.technic)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
