Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!mcdphx!citek.mcdphx.mot.com!hbg6 From: hbg6@citek.mcdphx.mot.com Newsgroups: comp.robotics Subject: Re:ideas for inclination sensors Message-ID: <13845@mcdphx.phx.mcd.mot.com> Date: 18 Oct 90 17:45:06 GMT Sender: listen@mcdphx.phx.mcd.mot.com Reply-To: hbg6@citek.mcdphx.mot.com Organization: Motorola Microcomputer Division, Tempe, Az. Lines: 36 Summary: Expires: References:<3717@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <107247@convex.convex.com> Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: In article <107247@convex.convex.com> jjensen@convex.UUCP (James Jensen) writes: >In article <3717@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> fredm@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Fred Martin) writes: >>robots must do is climb an inclinated plane. Thus, I'm soliciting >>all of you robot hackers for ideas on inclination sensors. > >How about some strain gauges with weights on them? > I guess that if you had a weight, hanging from two strain gauges, on two links running at 45 degrees from the weight to the gauges it would work. The ratio of the two gauge readings would indicate inclination. I think you could even resolve 360 degrees using rigid links. ======= ======= gauges [] \ / [] \ / \links/ \ / +-----+ | | weight | | +-----+ Can you get strain guages sensitive enough that you could use a very light weight? I would think that acceleration with a relatively heavy weight could destroy the strain guage. (I guess I'l have to get out the Omega strain guage book :-) ) John ..................................................................... reply to 'from' address; hbg6@citek.mcdphx.mot.com NOT the 'sender' line address! Someday my sysadm will decide this is a 'real' problem. :-) ..................................................................... All opinions expressed are mine and not Motorolas, their loss. .....................................................................