Timeline for Motor Controller Configuration
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:49 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://robotics.stackexchange.com/ with https://robotics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Dec 22, 2016 at 11:23 | vote | accept | ProjectM | ||
| Dec 22, 2016 at 11:22 | comment | added | ProjectM | The solution of placing just an absolute encoder at the joint does sounds interesting, the only problem we see here is that small errors in the joint encoder reading and noise caused by backlash and bending, may result in very large errors at the motor side, since it is multiplied by the transmission ratio. We are now considering another motor controller option which can handle two absolute encoders. Once we get things working, we can still have a look at different encoder setups which might make the overall design smaller, but it feels to dangerous to do this now already. | |
| Dec 22, 2016 at 11:22 | comment | added | ProjectM | We will indeed place a transmission between the motor and joint, with a ratio of ~100. I think the problem will be with using only one absolute encoder placed at the motor side, is that we still don't know the absolute position of the joint, because the absolute motor encoder will not count the rotations while being turned off, this we would need to recalibrate each time the system is turned on again. | |
| Dec 22, 2016 at 11:21 | comment | added | ProjectM | Thanks a lot for your in-depth advice. I agree that designing our own motor controller might be too dangerous if it is our only option, if we don't finish it in time (which can happen due to lack of experience), it might block the entire project. | |
| Dec 8, 2016 at 15:01 | history | answered | Chuck♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |