just a quick follow up to make this question more general for everyone
i really just want a working config from someone that has the torque mode
servo stuff in linuxcnc working. i am getting confused if i need two
nested PID loops or if i can just use the default velocity control setup
On Mon,
hey everyone
i am trying to tune my yaskawa sigma 1 series servo drive at the moment and
thinking about using torque mode for tuning.
currently the process is auto tune drives to a rigidity setting and then
control drives with velocity reference in linuxcnc. I am not getting the
most amazing
On Sunday 29 August 2021 14:54:12 Rob C wrote:
> any interest / help
>
> https://www.pmdcorp.com/resources/type/articles/get/mathematics-of-mot
>ion-control-profiles-article
>
Figure 4 of that link largely describes linuxcnc current reversal profile
if a second inverted waveform is assumed at a
any interest / help
https://www.pmdcorp.com/resources/type/articles/get/mathematics-of-motion-control-profiles-article
On Sun, 29 Aug 2021, 18:40 Chris Albertson,
wrote:
> In the general case there may be no closed form solution so numeric
> integration is the only possible solution.I
In the general case there may be no closed form solution so numeric
integration is the only possible solution.I don't think there is any
other way to do it other than numeric integration except to require the
user to supply a function for closed form integrals. But for a 3-axis
mill that
I'm not sure about all this yet, brainstorming here...
After looking at TinyG code for handling jerk limitation in the joint
control it appears that they are using the forward physics equations and
numerically integrating to avoid violations.
Since numerical integration needs to be used for jerk
> On 29 Aug 2021, at 11:40, Alexander Brock wrote:
>
> The idea can be implemented in C and for simple cases like 1D funktions
> it should be fairly straight-forward.
My point is that the kinematics modules already exist, and not all of them are
under our control. Various users’ machines
On 8/26/21 10:38 AM, andy pugh wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2021 at 00:34, Alexander Brock
> wrote:
>
>> There is an elegant way to compute exact derivatives without computing
>> analytical derivatives by hand. Here is a nice introduction:
>
> Is that applicable to the LinuxCNC kinematics
