2

Author Topic: Linear Quadratic Regulator to DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT OF A SELF BALANCING ROBOT  (Read 2474 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline king28Topic starter

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7
  • Helpful? 0
Hi, everybody , i am great to discover this forum.

I am now l doing my project  using Linear Quadratic Regulator to  DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT OF A SELF BALANCING ROBOT, and stimulate it by using MAtlab 7.5.

Any one have experienced on it?

 now i am looking for the suitable devices and material  , any recommendation ? Some people suggest that using MC68HC12 is that works?Or we should use CMD-555?



Any recommendation  from u all guys??about the circuit, devices or whatever...hope can post it here to help me .

I will appreciate ur help.


Thank you

Offline cosminprund

  • Robot Overlord
  • ****
  • Posts: 284
  • Helpful? 8
Doing an balancing bot seems to be an very complex task that requires a lot of research. It has been done before and you can find some references but (to my limited knowledge) there's no tutorial on how to do real balancing.

You can see an tutorial on how to simulate balancing here:
http://www.societyofrobots.com/member_tutorials/node/185
In my opinion that's not balancing, that's keeping the base parallel to the surface - it only looks like balancing, but it's a start.

It seems that the most famous balancing bot is the "nBot", read up on that, you'll get lots of links to other balancing bots once you get to the nBot page.

You should probably do a bit more research, figure out exactly what you want to do and then come back with better questions, like: "Hey, I'm using this 3D accelerometer and this gyro and I'm not sure what MCU to use. Since the 3D accelerometer can only be read at about 300Hz and the gyro about 1Khz, is this MCU fast enough?". The idea is to do your own research and ask specific questions, giving as much information as possible.

Hope this helps.

P.S: Don't double-post, that never helps.

Offline Soeren

  • Supreme Robot
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,672
  • Helpful? 227
  • Mind Reading: 0.0
In my opinion that's not balancing, that's keeping the base parallel to the surface - it only looks like balancing, but it's a start.
Well, it's OK to disagree with the established science world, but a rose is still a rose to the rest of us  :P
Would you claim that a helicopter isn't flying, since it uses other methods than a regular aeroplane?

Balancing is balancing, whether your means of sensing an off-balance state is done by U.S., accelerometer, gyro, trained monkey or even your dishwasher/SO.

Apart from that, I agree that king28 should do a bit of research him-/herself before asking educated questions, or he will loose all rights to state "I am now l doing my project ", as it would neither be "I am doing", nor "my project" anymore, but should be changed to "I got someone to do it for me, fear me if I graduate".
Regards,
Søren

A rather fast and fairly heavy robot with quite large wheels needs what? A lot of power?
Please remember...
Engineering is based on numbers - not adjectives

Offline cosminprund

  • Robot Overlord
  • ****
  • Posts: 284
  • Helpful? 8
In my opinion that's not balancing, that's keeping the base parallel to the surface - it only looks like balancing, but it's a start.

Well, it's OK to disagree with the established science world, but a rose is still a rose to the rest of us  :P
Would you claim that a helicopter isn't flying, since it uses other methods than a regular aeroplane?


:) Well I guess it boils down to how one define "balance". Since English is not my first language I asked google for a bit of help. Google suggested those two:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_(ability)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/balancing

And
The Wikipedia definition links "balancing" to the center of gravity and by that definition the Ro-Bot-X is not a balancing robot (because it maintains an fixed angle between itself and the surface it lays on, irrelevant of how this moves it's center of gravity in relation to it's base of support).

The second definition (and that's what's probably the more usual one) links balance to "canceling out forces" - that sounds allot more scientific :D By that definition the Ro-Bot-X is an balancing robot... unless it has to move across a surface that changes inclination.

And yeh, trained monkeys are good at keeping balance :P


Offline aludra_55

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
  • Helpful? 0
hi... i got this monkey to balance... it looks like a robot though...

made up of 1 axis accelerometer and no gyroscope.. no encoders either...

Offline msprague

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
  • Helpful? 1
You might like to read this as well:
http://www.wa4dsy.net/robot/balancing-robot/analog-balancing-bot
Dale built a balancing bot without a microcontroller. There is no obstacle detection or navigation, but it does the balancing very well. He has a very nice writeup on it.

 


Get Your Ad Here

data_list