Originally Posted by Roboman01
1: Good point, I hadn't thought of that.
2: That makes sense, but the system will not be as authoritative in its movements, if you're varying the pressure, and therefore, the output force.
3: If you're entirely set of using the adjustable regulator, why not go with an electronic one? That would cut down on your overall weight immensely. Also, my team is not measuring the extent of the cylinder directly; rather, we're actuating an arm. The arm has an encoder at the joint, which obviously measures the position of the arm itself. For our purposes, my system will work far more efficiently, since we won't have a variable output force. Also, my system will most likely weigh far less than yours, as we don't need a motor, gearbox, or secondary regulator. This is important, at least for my team, since we are within a few pounds of the limit.
4: Actually, my system could possibly be easier to program for, at least, in my team's application. For us, we either need the valve in one extreme or the other, or simply off. Also, we can gain higher positioning accuracy without any extra electronics, other than the single encoder on the joint of the arm. In order to make sure that you are positioned correctly, you would need both an encoder/potentiometer on the regulator, as well as an encoder/potentiometer on the arm, assuming you're using this for an arm.
|