Compensating Robot Arm Deflection for End Weight

  • Thread starter Thread starter barry_scott
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Arm Bending Robot
AI Thread Summary
Compensating for robot arm deflection due to end weight involves calculating the deflection at the arm's end based on the weight applied. For a specific weight, the deflection can be determined, but simply adjusting the arm angle does not yield accurate results due to the variable deflection caused by the new angle. To achieve the desired endpoint position, the actual beam angle must be calculated while considering the deflection it will incur. The deflection function needs to be expressed in terms of the vertical component of the weight force, as this is the only factor affecting deflection. Ultimately, solving for the deflection function allows for accurate compensation to achieve the target angle.
barry_scott
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi guys, I'm doing a robotics project that requires me to compensate for the bending of the arm due to an end weight. I can calculate the deflection at the end of the arm for a given weight e.g.

End link horizontal (90 degrees), end weight = 1000g, deflection = 10mm
From this i can calculate the angle down to the deflected end point eg 3 degrees. Now the problem comes when i try to compensate for this deflection to get the end point to where i actually need it to be. Simply aiming the arm 3 degrees higher won't work as changing the beam angle changes the amount of deflection at it's end!

So basically given a target angle, say 90 degrees i need to know what actual angle to put the beam at so that when the deflection is applied the end point is at 90 degrees. But this requires me to know the beam angle to calculate the deflection to find the beam angle?

This is confusing me greatly and any mathematical insights would be greatly appreciated!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
You need to express the deflection function ##D(F,\varphi)## with a weight force ##F## at an angle ##\varphi##, which in your example was ##\varphi=90°## as a function of ##D(F_v,\varphi## instead, where only the vertical component ##F_v## of ##F## plays a role, since it is all which causes the deflection. ##F_v## is dependent on ##\varphi##. In the end you can solve for ##D(F_v,\varphi)=0##.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top