Is an Accelerating Reference Frame Valid for Line Follower Robot Calculations?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the feasibility of using an accelerating and rotating reference frame for calculations in a line follower robot's control system. The user seeks to understand if acceleration calculations remain valid when performed in this dynamic frame, akin to a fixed reference frame. Key equations discussed include the relationship between angular acceleration and net torque, as well as the acceleration of the center of gravity related to net force. The user expresses interest in the Coriolis effect and the implications of fictitious forces in this context. Ultimately, the goal is to establish a fixed coordinate system on the robot that simplifies calculations, potentially leading to a scenario where observed forces equal the robot's acceleration.
MechatronO
Messages
30
Reaction score
1
I'm attempting to build a line follower robot and I'm currently in the process of building appropriate models.

For the control system I need to define a coordinate system. The most convinient coordinate system from many point of views would be a coordinate system that moves along and changes direction with the robot, thus a rotating and accelerating reference frame.

The question is if calculations regarding acceleration still would be valid if they are carried out in the same way as in a fixed reference frame.

The calculations to be carried out are:

ƩM = Jω' - Angular acceleration related to net torque applied
ƩF = ma - Acceleration of center of gravity related to net force applied


I've glanced some about information regarding the coriolis effect but I don't really understand it yet. No "loose" object are to be treated in the reference frame.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Aha. That was an interesting article.

The force observed from an arbitrary accelerating and rotating coordinatesystem is

Fb= Fa + F_{fic}

F_{fic} = -(m_{ab} + 2mƩv_{j}u'_{j} + mƩx_{j}u´´_{j})

Fb is the appearent force that an observer in a rotating reference frame would think is acting on an object, while F is the "real" force an observer in an inertial reference frame would see and Ffic is the fictional force coming from the movements of the ref. system and m_{ab} is the acceleration of the ref. system.

I however want a coordinatsystem that is fixed both in position and angle to the robot at a point on the robot which defines position [0,0,0].
The position and velocity in its "own" coordinatesystem would thus be 0.
Will this zero all terms in the Ffic and leave Fb = F - m_{ab} in this particular case?


As the robot would see the acceleration and in combination the force "on itself" in this system as zero we would get back F = m_{ab} if the world of math smiles to me this time?
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top