Quote:
Originally Posted by Ether
But arguably, it also has consequences within the scope of the paper for its readers, who may assume the paper has been properly vetted and who may be misled/confused.
|
The likelihood of confusion deepens. With the exception of the last two rows, the results in table 1 are what is predicted with the improper wheel orientation shown in the force diagrams of figures 2 through 6. As shown, the wheel rotations indicated in the last two rows would not result in any rotation of the vehicle unless the center of gravity and geographic center were offset in the X direction. This is depicted in figure 6, but it is not clear from a casual reading of the text that this was a necessary condition to achieve the stated rotation.
At first glance (and for me, second and third), the translations reported in table 2 seem to be at odds with the results of table 1. In all 32 cases, wheels 1 (right rear) and 3 (left front) are rotated equally in the positive direction, and wheels 2 (right front) and 4 (left rear) are rotated by the same amount as each other, but less than the magnitude of rotation of wheels 1 and 3. Using the directions depicted in figure 5 (and not contradicted in figure 6), this would lead to a westerly (negative x) translation. All of the results in table 2 report a positive X offset, that is toward the east. The resolution of this inconsistency is in the final, parenthesized sentence at the end of the second paragraph of section 3.1:
Quote:
|
(The inclination angle α in the prototype is 135°.)
|
That is, that the wheels are installed in the standard mecanum configuration depicted in the graphics of figures 1-6, not the configuration shown in the force diagrams of figures 2-6.
At this point, I'll back away from this paper, rather than trying to figure out if the mistakes and inconsistencies are maintained or repaired in the analysis of table 3 and statement of conclusions.