Inertia matrix of my robot is non invertible under some conditions....

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the issue of a robotic manipulator's total inertia matrix being non-invertible at certain joint angles. The user has developed a model for a dynamically equivalent manipulator with a fixed base and spherical passive joint, referencing an attached paper for details. Despite checking all calculations, the entire inertia matrix remains non-invertible, although smaller submatrices show different properties. Specifically, the upper right 3x3 matrix for the spherical joint is non-invertible, while the lower n by n matrix for the rest of the manipulator is always invertible. Suggestions for troubleshooting the issue are sought, emphasizing the complexity of the equations involved.
Sed
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hello,

What could be wrong when the total inertia matrix of a robotic manipulator is non invertible when under certain values of the joint angles?

Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You would be more likely to get useful help if you showed us what your robot looks like and how the inertia matrix was developed.
 
The model is for a dynamically equivalent manipulator (fixed base with spherical passive joint). The model was developed in the attached paper.
I checked all the steps, everything seems fine except for the resulting inertia matrix.
The whole matrix is non invertible but if i divide it into small matrices where the upper right 3 by 3 matrix represents the spherical joint inertia and the lower right n by n matrix represent the rest of the manipulator. Then the manipulator matrix is always invertible and the spherical joint one is not.

If you have just an idea about what might cause the problem, i realize it's a long process to got through all the equation.

Thank you
 

Attachments

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