Accelerometer total not equal to 1

  • Thread starter Thread starter mark2468
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Accelerometer
AI Thread Summary
The theoretical output of an accelerometer in a static position should equal 1 g, but discrepancies arise depending on device positioning. The user has normalized readings by dividing each axis by its maximum value, yet the total still does not equal 1. Another participant clarifies that the correct calculation involves the square root of the sum of the squares of the axes, which should equal 1, assuming no other accelerations. The user seeks a method to achieve consistent totals across different static positions in 3D space. The discussion highlights the challenges of ensuring accurate accelerometer readings and the potential for common issues in calibration.
mark2468
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Hi.

The theoretical total of accelerometer output when in a static position is equal to 1 g. However I get a different result depending on where the device is positioned. Some is greated than 1, some is less.

What I have done is determine the max value for each axis and divide all readings of a particular axis by the max for that axis. e.g:

Zmax = 1.14 and so all Z values are divided by 1.14.

I have done this for all three axis but the total is still not equal to 1. If there was a slight offset I could live with this, but it is different for all static positions.

Is there a way of getting the totals being the same for all positions in the 3d plane?

Mark.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The total shouldn't be one. It's the square root of the sum of the squares that should be 1. Assuming no other accelerations.

And why do you start a new thread for every question with your accelerometer? Can't you keep it all in one thread? I guarantee you'd get better answers that way.
 
sorry, am new to forums.

I meant the total being the square root of the sum of the squares. This is not equal to 1, and the difference is not the same at each reading. If it was I could easily remove it.

Is this common and is there a way to correct it.
 
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