Thread: Team Update #18
View Single Post
  #196   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2011, 15:12
JesseK's Avatar
JesseK JesseK is offline
Expert Flybot Crasher
FRC #1885 (ILITE)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Reston, VA
Posts: 3,712
JesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Team Update #18

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ether View Post
When the minibot drives the bottom plate into the switch, there will be rebound acceleration of the minibot. This acceleration is very large and cannot be ignored. The only time there would be no rebound acceleration would be if the speed had become near zero by the time the minibot hit the switch.
The basic cause-effect of this, as an example, is that even if the minibot moves the plate 1", causing the sensor to be in contact for 3/4" of that movement, the contact time of the sensor is much less than the 100ms I listed. So we need either a higher sampling rate to allow finer granularity in the false-positive algorithm, or we need a dampening mechanism that's implemented by the "GDC" or by teams.

====

As far as I can tell, interrupt-driven signals have just as much probability for false-positives as sampling does in this setup. The interrupt would have to be held high/low for a certain amount of time to ensure it's a valid trigger, which still requires some sort of 'time' specification for teams to ensure they don't lose contact with the sensor too quickly.
__________________

Drive Coach, 1885 (2007-present)
CAD Library Updated 5/1/16 - 2016 Curie/Carver Industrial Design Winner
GitHub
Reply With Quote