# Tag Info

5

Can you set up the problem so that the quantities you care about (e.g. power) are more explicitly represented? Reasoning physically, where could the power go? Accelerating masses, including rotation Pushing against gravity, electromagnetics, other potentials Stretching springs and whatever Dissipation through friction You say "optimize power ...

3

As the wikipedia page of Occupancy grid mapping explains, the result of the mapping process is a binary 1 or 0, occupied or not, the decision itself may be based on noisy data, which involves the probabilistic assessment of prior information to infer the posterior probability of the occupancy.

2

First, you need to get rid of the damping matrix C as it transforms kinetic energy into heat. Second, you should make the mass matrix as small as possible. (lightweight construction). After that you can think about the best way to distribute the mass that you cant get rid off by taking the desired movements into account.

2

Cause of the intrinsic noise in sensory data, we have to consider a probabilistic model (mostly Gaussian) for the sensor measurements. As a matter of fact, the description and definition of the mapping problem will be probabilistic. The goal is to compute the most likely map given the sensor data and commands given to the robot: In occupancy grid mapping as ...

1

For a real robot, do I need a URDF as well? It is not necessary to create a URDF for a real robot, but it's highly recommended. Many of the tools are designed to leverage it. For example the robot_state_publisher will take in joint states and generate the tf transform tree using the mapping provided by the URDF. All the motion planning and other libraries ...

1

The system in the paper is supposed to control an exoskeleton which will mimic the motions of the person inside, except bearing the weight of the backpack (and some of the person's weight, too). There is no traditional control input for servoing. Instead, to detect the person's intent, it seems to rely on how the person inside incrementally perturbs the ...

1

i had corrected the kinematic diagram as per the right hand rule, and the dh parameters are, i had updated thekinematic diagram with the 5th frame (for camera mount)

1

First thing first- you can consider any direction as positive or negative, but need to keep it constant while solving the problem and even while programming robot. In almost all cases of 6-DOF manipulator, the co-ordinate system of joint 1 is aligned with the universal coordinate system. Theta- its joint parameter, it signifies angle between 2 x-axis about ...

1

Assuming this is a platform attached to a robot of some kind, you can: Measure the platform pose directly, as with an inclinometer, IMU, laser, camera, etc., Measure the platform pose indirectly, by putting rotary encoders on the joints and using kinematics to determine the platform pose for a given set of joint positions, or Estimate the platform pose with ...

1

I suppose that what you're seeing when you add your robot model to the world is something like this: That is, only the top part of the robot is visible. The problem is not that the bottom part isn't there, it's just that the robot's origin is the joint between the two parts, therefore the lower part is below the floor. If you rotate the world (hold <...

1

I have never used it ,because I have always dealt with custom simulators but I know others have had success with the RotorS simulator. Answers to your questions: 1) Can I modify these models so that it can simulate my drone? Is it enough to change the geometry, mass and inertias to make it work? Kind of. You could just take one of their existing models,...

1

Welcome to Robotics, Andrew Sol. I think I'm a little confused with your question as it appears to be about independent rotational masses connected by rotational springs, but then later you're asking about gear ratios. This is a succinct as I can think to put it, and again I may have misunderstood the question so please feel free to comment on this answer ...

1

The equations of motion is simply \begin{align} J_m \ddot{\theta}_1 + K_{md}(\theta_1-\theta_2) &= \tau_e \tag{1} \\ J_d \ddot{\theta}_2 + K_{md}(\theta_2-\theta_1) &= \tau_L + \tau_s \tag{2} \end{align} Rewriting (1)&(2), we get $$\begin{bmatrix} J_m & 0 \\ 0 & J_d \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \ddot{\theta}_1 \\ \ddot{\theta}_2 ... 1 Yes it is possible. You can look at the following paper Stiffness Analysis and Comparison of 3-PPR Planar Parallel Manipulators With Actuation Compliance Guanglei Wu , Shaoping Bai , Jørgen A. Kepler 1 Those two papers have a different equation for the same robot because they have taken different assumption. The first paper has considered the centre of mass to be at the end of the link, and the other paper has considered the centre of mass at the middle of the link. Now the dynamics of any two-link manipulator irrespective of the link shape is$$ \tau ...

Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible