Go to Post Seriously I didn't think that "FIRST, it's the WWF for smart people" would ever catch on. - Schnabel [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Technical > Motors
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #12   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 19-12-2013, 22:31
James Kuszmaul James Kuszmaul is offline
NEFIRST CSA
FRC #0971 (Spartan Robotics)
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Rookie Year: 2011
Location: Worcester, MA
Posts: 61
James Kuszmaul has much to be proud ofJames Kuszmaul has much to be proud ofJames Kuszmaul has much to be proud ofJames Kuszmaul has much to be proud ofJames Kuszmaul has much to be proud ofJames Kuszmaul has much to be proud ofJames Kuszmaul has much to be proud ofJames Kuszmaul has much to be proud ofJames Kuszmaul has much to be proud ofJames Kuszmaul has much to be proud of
Re: combined free speed of 3 motors

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ether View Post
I'm having trouble extracting an interpretation of the above. Could you explain what you mean? Perhaps give an example?
If you had two different motors, both attached to something (perhaps a shooter wheel), and you wanted to create an optimal controller for the wheel (given some cost function), then I doubt (although I may be wrong) that that optimal controller would have you always apply the same voltage to the motors. Hence, it is suboptimal to make this simplification, although there certainly may be situations where it is convenient, and therefore valuable, to make the simplification (such as if you were limited for space on your Digital Sidecar and wanted to be able to use a y-cable to control two different motors).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ether View Post
I thought that's what I did in the attachment to the original post. At what point in the derivation do you disagree?

To be clear, the derivation assumes the motors will be used to drive a load (like a drivetrain or heavy arm for example) with a reflected inertia much larger than the rotor inertia, so the dynamic contribution of the rotor inertia can be ignored.
I see how you would be driving a large load (in my equations, the moment of inertia was primarily a place holder for such a load), but I do not see how a derivation of a formula for the free speed logically leads to the idea that all the single motor formulas must be valid.
I agree that you can calculate a stall torque, stall current, free speed, resistance, and free current for the motor combination, but just because those numbers may be meaningful does not necessitate that the single motor equations are true.
In other words, just because you have formulas for combined stall torque, stall current, free speed, resistance, and free current, why is it that these equations are still valid for values of V, I, omega, and Torque other than those at stall torque and free speed:
V = I*R + omega / Kv
Torque = Kt * I
I may be missing something, but I have not seen any proof that these equations continue to hold, and I like to see proofs .
__________________
FRC971 (Student) 2011-2014
FRC190 (College Mentor-ish) 2014
WPILib Development 2014-present
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 21:54.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi