PDF Archive search engine
Last database update: 08 December at 18:10 - Around 76000 files indexed.
Comparison of Terminal Velocities of Air Bubbles in Various Liquids .
Swerve Inverse Kinematics Inverse Kinematics The goal of inverse kinematics is to determine the appropriate inputs to a system (in our case, commands to the turning and driving motors) in order to produce a desired output (a velocity vector and a rotational speed and direction for the robot). For swerve, we don’t need to determine what to send the motors directly, since we’re using control loops for that, but we do need to tell those control loops what direction and speed we want for the wheels. Determining the outputs The outputs we want are determined by user input. I decided to keep it simple and set the x component of the desired velocity vector based on the xinput of the left joystick, the y component of the velocity vector based on the yinput of the left joystick, and the desired rotation based on the xinput of the right joystick. I’m considering joystick inputs to be on a range from 1 to 1. Some definitions: V The maximum speed one of our wheel pods can move max V The desired velocity vector of the frame (componentized into V and V ) f f, x f, y ⍵ The desired rotation of the frame; I’m defining counterclockwise as positive f L The vertical length of the robot (measured between contact points of wheels) W The width of the robot (measured between contact points of wheels) √ 2 R = L 4 2 + W4 The robot’s radius of turning Target settings based on my control scheme: V = V * leftJoystickX f, x max V = V * leftJoystickY f, y max ⍵ = V * rightJoystickX / R f max Wheel motion If there’s no rotation, each of the wheels clearly moves with the same velocity as the frame; they should all face the same direction and move the same speed. This is identical to crab drive. Applying rotation changes the target velocity of the wheel. Recall V = ⍵R from physics. Thus, on the upperleft pod, the target velocity is componentized as follows. (Note to self: add diagram). 1 ɸ = tan (L / W) The angle between the frame and the first wheel pod 1 V = V ⍵ * sin(ɸ ) * R = V ½ * ⍵ * L 1, x f, x f 1 f, x f V = V ⍵ * cos(ɸ ) * R = V ½ * ⍵ * W 1, y f, y f 1 f, y f The following is a table, by physical position on the frame, of the componentized wheel velocities: V = V ½ * ⍵ * L 1, x f, x f V = V ½ * ⍵ * W 1, y f, y f V = V ½ * ⍵ * L 2, x f, x f V = V + ½ * ⍵ * W 2, y f, y f V = V + ½ * ⍵ * L 1, x f, x f V = V ½ * ⍵ * W 1, y f, y f V = V + ½ * ⍵ * L 1, x f, x f V = V + ½ * ⍵ * W 1, y f, y f Note that they are very similar, except for the sign on the rotational influence term. Each pod inherits the target velocity of the frame, and its velocity components are either added to or subtracted from by the rotational influence term, depending on where they are. Determining the wheel pod settings Now that we know the target velocity for each wheel pod, deriving the target angle and speed for each wheel is simple. Θ = atan2(V , V ) The target angle for wheel pod n n n, y n, x |V | = n √ The target speed for wheel pod n (V n, x)2 + (V n, y)2 Finally, because the target speeds may not be in the same range as your motor settings, if any of the target speeds is greater than 1, divide all target speeds by the greatest target speed. Room for improvement Note that this technique does NOT account for the fact that wheels can turn backwards. In order to reverse direction, it is more efficient to hold the wheel pods at the same angle and reverse their wheels. However, this technique, when applied on its own, will instead turn the wheel pods 180° at full forward drive power.
405 THE INITIAL VELOCITIES OF FRAGMENTS FROM BOMBS, SHELL, GRENADES R.
For the given velocities, find the results of the fallowing questions.
For example, McCollum 1) It explained why disregarding anisotropy in standard surand Snell (1932) reported on velocities measured on outcrops veys with restricted offsets was possible.
Comparing the velocities of M1 and M2 provides some insight into how quickly the economy is spending and how quickly it is saving.
If, therefore, the velocity is not slow the results obtained can only be regarded as a fiist approximation \ and a second approximation might be obtained by substituting the values of the component velocities hereafter obtained in the terms of the second order, and endeavouring to integrate the resulting equations.
3.5 Relationship between Average and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maximum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Velocities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
To further characterize the mechanical unfolding of GB1 under different loading geometries, we examined the dependency of the unfolding force on pulling velocity by measuring the force extension relationships under different pulling velocities.
A.25.Curvature effect of trailing edge wake on the external velocities and pressures A.26.Lift coefficient of the RAE 101-airfoil vs.