Gimbal table; tilt calculation given acceleration

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around designing an auto-correcting two-axis gimbal table for stabilizing a mass in a moving vehicle. The setup includes two rotating frames controlled by stepper motors and a microprocessor, with an accelerometer monitoring vehicle velocity to determine necessary tilt angles. The challenge lies in calculating the relationship between the vehicle's acceleration and the required tilt to prevent the mass from toppling, akin to managing an inverted pendulum. Suggestions include considering the mechanics of a banked track and the need for additional degrees of freedom to adjust the center of gravity. Ultimately, achieving stability while allowing for movement presents a complex engineering problem.
perlmonkey
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I am working on an electronics project which is sort of an auto-correcting two-axis gimbal table. There are two degrees of freedom, being two square frames - one can rotate on a pitch or y-axis, the outer frame can rotate about a roll or x-axis. There is a third outer frame which is fixed to a base. These frames are connected together by ball bearing pillow blocks and attached to stepper motors, which in turn are connected to a microprocessor to control rotation of these frames, so that I can move them at a specific angle.
The purpose of this device is to keep a mass which is placed on the center frame, on the frame without it sliding off - in a moving vehicle.
I am monitoring the velocity of the vehicle with an accelerometer, so I can get the g-force in the x and y direction.

So I know I need to tilt, x and y a certain degree to compensate for the acceleration and deceleration of the vehicle, but I have no idea how to get the relationship between the vehicle's velocity and the angle that the gimbal tables should be.

With no object on the table, and with the velocity changing, I'm thinking the table should not move. But placing something on the table will raise the center of gravity and it will want to topple over, like an inverted pendulum - at least this is what I'm envisioning. I need to tilt the pendulum to keep it from falling over.

Can someone point me in the right direction?

Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If the tilting table was fixed to the vehicle it would be quite easy. You just need to tilt the top it so that the total force on the object is zero. The maths is similar to the "vehicle on a banked track" problem.

If the tilting table itself can move (eg tip over) then I think you need more degrees of freedom so that you can shift the center of gravity relative to the "feet" of the table...or somehow allow the object to slide on the table so the weight is more over some feet than others... but I think that would be very hard to do.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top