[team2039] Re: for tonights meeting
- From: Mark Amber <balloooza314@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: team2039@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:26:26 -0500
email *team2039-request@
<team2039-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>freelists<team2039-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
.org <team2039-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>*
*
*
*
*
with the subject unsubscribe
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Troy Buffington <
tbuffington@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> can you please remove this email from the mailing list? unfortunately, my
> son and i were not able to participate in the program this year. we are
> actually moving out of the area.
>
> thank you,
>
> troy
>
> On Jul 27, 2010, at 1:19 PM, Mark Amber wrote:
>
> Yes it does have resolution more than 1 per degree, when it spits out a
> value in java it is scaled to degrees, but it ends up being more like
> 360.125 I am not sure if they are all significant digits because I have no
> idea of the precision of the encoder.
>
> What I am saying is we should know how many clicks per rotation of the
> wheels (the swerve action not the wheels that accualy move the thing)
> because the joystick gives out a number in degrees (from -180 to 180) and if
> we have the wheels be on a 360 degree scale the pid will work.
>
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Adam Czerwonka <
> Adam.Czerwonka@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> That information is in the spec, I believe that it should also be
>> written into last year’s software. Worst case we’ll look up the sensor info
>> online. I’m sure it’s got resolution better than 1 per degree
>>
>>
>> *From:* team2039-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
>> team2039-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Mark Amber
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 27, 2010 1:05 PM
>> *To:* team2039@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> *Subject:* [team2039] for tonights meeting
>>
>>
>> Does anyone know how to find out exactly how many encoder clicks are in
>> one rotation of the wheel, I think that is an incredibly important part of
>> the program, I want it to be once we have one full rotation we
>> can divide that into 360 steps, and it needs to be extremely accurate, we
>> cannot go by looks, because every time the wheels spin it would just get
>> that much more off, so what ever error we have, say it is the length of this
>> --> u on your computer monitor it will be uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu off after 15
>> rotations.
>>
>>
>> I was thinking we could put an encoder on the swerve action and spin it
>> around 20 or so times, so the a few millimeters of error would be 20 times
>> less significant, then we could divide by 360x20, instead of 360.
>>
>>
>> Is my thinking correct, does anyone have better or more proven ways to do
>> this?
>>
>> --
>> »»Mark Amber««
>>
>
>
>
> --
> »»Mark Amber««
>
>
>
--
»»Mark Amber««
Other related posts:
