[team2039] Re: for tonights meeting
- From: Troy Buffington <tbuffington@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: team2039@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:28:27 -0500
got it,
thanks
On Jul 27, 2010, at 1:26 PM, Mark Amber wrote:
> email 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:
