Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago
Hi here we need a discussion to finalize the mechanical design
options:
1. Cart based
2. Rotatory
3. Sliding based
Cart based:
it can be simplifies by resticting motion in 1d but still there is a huge
possibility that ..... cart may run in a particular direction even though it
has
balanced ....it wont look that robust although problem is solved.
Slider based: it has resticted area to move so problem is not with that ....but
pendulum may fall when our slider reaches boundary and its not a very pleasant
condition either if we dont have swing up mechanism....
Although we can try our hands in swing up mechanism later but its not at all
our
primary objective we must concentrate on balancing first to complete our
primary
model as early as possible.
Rotary based: In my view this is the best alternative we have ...b' coz in this
design we have leisure to rotate as many times as it wants ...It has lots of
distance to balance the pendulum. Also we can add on swing up mechanism later
without having to alter the design..Also its a big issue to store the project
in our
room ....slider mechanism would account for a large mechanical body so we have
to
dismantle it to store...rotatory and cart based have smaller bodies to be
stored.
Although last point may seem worthless but its too a important factor if we
want to
go on improve our design....our mechanical design must be robust to last longer.
But give this thing a thot that rotatory based would change equations of motion
or
not...we dont want them to get complex to add on difficulties...
i think they wont because still applied force is in the link below ..only
difference
is locus of the moving rod would be cylinderical surface instead of a plane.
pls post here your views so that we can lock our mechanical design issue.
Original comment by mudit.da...@gmail.com
on 13 May 2010 at 3:37
I too agree with the rotatory base....i read some docs and also saw videos on
the
same...as far as equations of motion are concerned ,i don't think thats going
to
pose a serious hurdle.......needs a few modifications
Original comment by rhythm2...@gmail.com
on 13 May 2010 at 5:43
[deleted comment]
i too agree with the rotary type.
Equations of motion will be based on Lagrangian dynamics, see this link
regarding the
dynamics.
[www.cse.wustl.edu/~nganesan/ese447/dynamics.pdf]
Original comment by sushanti...@gmail.com
on 13 May 2010 at 8:58
i think its too much...I have uploaded a file named 0964A in file section pls
watch
it...its standard design by microchip and no such things are required.
Original comment by mudit.da...@gmail.com
on 13 May 2010 at 12:05
This is a good documentation.
Update this with our current discussions on mechanical design.
And follow up with your plans for simulating mechanical design on software.
Original comment by manavkataria
on 25 May 2010 at 6:56
Original comment by manavkataria
on 16 Jun 2010 at 9:02
"Pot ki shaheedi bachane ke liye, ek tarkeeb!"
On discussing with a friend we came up with the following solution for saving
the pot from becoming a martyr - We give it a Metal Jacket! - Iron Man Style!
...Ok! I better stop now! :P
For documentation: The major problem we face is that the pot splits into 2 due
to
+ The centripetal force acting on it
+ it does not have any support keeping it from splitting
+ Its shaft solely bears the load & centripetal force of link2
Original comment by manavkataria
on 21 Jun 2010 at 5:48
Attachments:
+ The Setup could control the pendulum relatively better in a certain sector of
the platform.
+ This indicates that mechanical design highly contributes to the development
of a good Inverted Pendulum.
Following updates are being planned:
+ Implementing a new caster wheel
+ Using a Spirit Level to level the platform and link1.
@ MUDIT :
It would be a good idea to upload a video here showing the current state of
we've achieved.
Original comment by manavkataria
on 23 Jun 2010 at 5:13
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
mudit.da...@gmail.com
on 13 May 2010 at 3:18