View Single Post
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 27-10-2009, 19:16
EricH's Avatar
EricH EricH is offline
New year, new team
FRC #1197 (Torbots)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 19,741
EricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond repute
Re: pic: 2826 Halonomic Drive Prototype

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared341 View Post
Eric,

The problem is not with the vertical components of the vectors but rather with the horizontal. Also, I think that what I call "X" and what you call "X" are different.

So, using your notation:

Orientation of torque vectors - Vertical components - Horizontal Components

What I called "O":
/..\ (^v)(>>)
\../ (^v)(<<)

No problem here. The vertical components want the robot to turn CW, and so do the horizontal.

What I called "X":
\../ (^v) (<<)
/..\ (^v) (>>)

Problem! The vertical components want to turn CW, while the horizontal components want to turn CCW. The two cancel each other out as long as the roller friction is negligible.
I see now.

I also think that X and O should be "standardized" at a certain view for future reference. I'll let wiser heads than mine figure out whether you do it from the top or bottom, though.
__________________
Past teams:
2003-2007: FRC0330 BeachBots
2008: FRC1135 Shmoebotics
2012: FRC4046 Schroedinger's Dragons

"Rockets are tricky..."--Elon Musk

Reply With Quote