RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Hexapod question
Posted by
Kevin Martin
on 2003-12-09 13:23:54 UTC
Your platform will rotate easily because the particular geometry amplifies
any play in your joints and flex in your outer frame.
In particular, all of the "legs" are more or less perpendicular to the
stress they encounter when you try rotating the platform, so the small
amount of radial play in the leg is experienced as a much larger play
tangential to the leg.
As a more concrete example, consider a 2-dimensional system with just two
legs:
o fixed pivot Y
\ ^
\ leg 1 |
\ +--> X
\
o mobile flex joint
/
/
/ leg 2
/
o fixed pivot
Assume each of the legs has, say, 0.005" of lengthwise play due to all the
joints, and that the fixed pivots are 40" apart.
When the mobile point is dead centre (both legs 20" long), the Y play of the
mobile point would be about 0.005", but the sideways (X) play would be a
whopping 0.9"! The actual X play in this case depends on whether the legs
are actually 20.000 +0.005 -0.000 (which gives the large play) or 20.000
+0.000 -0.005 (which mathematically gives zero play but in practice will
still have large play because you have a 3rd-degree polynomial relationship
between stress and strain instead of the usual first-degree polynomial).
As the legs lengthen and the mobile joint moves to the right (as
illustrated) the play in the X direction improves but the play in the Y
direction can get arbitrarily large (ultimately proportional to the square
root of the leg length).
There is a "sweet spot" (likely where the legs are 90 degrees apart) where
the play in either direction would be about equal to the leg longitudinal
play of 0.005" times sqrt(2)
Most commercial hexapods are designed to run with each leg more or less
perpendicular to the next one to stay in the sweet spot.
-Kevin Martin
any play in your joints and flex in your outer frame.
In particular, all of the "legs" are more or less perpendicular to the
stress they encounter when you try rotating the platform, so the small
amount of radial play in the leg is experienced as a much larger play
tangential to the leg.
As a more concrete example, consider a 2-dimensional system with just two
legs:
o fixed pivot Y
\ ^
\ leg 1 |
\ +--> X
\
o mobile flex joint
/
/
/ leg 2
/
o fixed pivot
Assume each of the legs has, say, 0.005" of lengthwise play due to all the
joints, and that the fixed pivots are 40" apart.
When the mobile point is dead centre (both legs 20" long), the Y play of the
mobile point would be about 0.005", but the sideways (X) play would be a
whopping 0.9"! The actual X play in this case depends on whether the legs
are actually 20.000 +0.005 -0.000 (which gives the large play) or 20.000
+0.000 -0.005 (which mathematically gives zero play but in practice will
still have large play because you have a 3rd-degree polynomial relationship
between stress and strain instead of the usual first-degree polynomial).
As the legs lengthen and the mobile joint moves to the right (as
illustrated) the play in the X direction improves but the play in the Y
direction can get arbitrarily large (ultimately proportional to the square
root of the leg length).
There is a "sweet spot" (likely where the legs are 90 degrees apart) where
the play in either direction would be about equal to the leg longitudinal
play of 0.005" times sqrt(2)
Most commercial hexapods are designed to run with each leg more or less
perpendicular to the next one to stay in the sweet spot.
-Kevin Martin
Discussion Thread
Simon M. Arthur
2003-12-09 06:56:50 UTC
Hexapod question
Jon Elson
2003-12-09 09:40:28 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Hexapod question
Graham Stabler
2003-12-09 11:37:45 UTC
Re: Hexapod question
Graham Stabler
2003-12-09 11:45:25 UTC
Re: Hexapod question
Kevin Martin
2003-12-09 13:23:54 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Hexapod question
Simon M. Arthur
2003-12-09 21:55:33 UTC
Re: Hexapod question
Simon M. Arthur
2003-12-09 21:55:34 UTC
Re: Hexapod question
Graham Stabler
2003-12-10 05:07:25 UTC
Re: Hexapod question
Ray Henry
2003-12-10 05:43:54 UTC
Re: Hexapod question
Asim Khan
2003-12-10 06:32:58 UTC
EMC related Question G54 G55,... and use of 5241, 5242, 5243 variables [asimtec]
Tim
2003-12-10 08:38:43 UTC
Re: Hexapod question
Madhu Annapragada
2003-12-10 09:13:24 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Hexapod question
Mariss Freimanis
2003-12-10 10:03:33 UTC
Re: Hexapod question
Carl Mikkelsen
2003-12-10 10:38:13 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Hexapod question
Jon Elson
2003-12-10 10:59:20 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Hexapod question
Chuck Knight
2003-12-10 11:00:07 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Hexapod question
Jon Elson
2003-12-10 11:03:17 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Hexapod question
Chuck Knight
2003-12-10 11:47:04 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Hexapod question
Carl Mikkelsen
2003-12-10 13:10:45 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Hexapod question
industrialhobbies
2003-12-10 14:08:30 UTC
Re: Hexapod question
Jon Elson
2003-12-10 14:59:06 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] EMC related Question G54 G55,... and use of 5241, 5242, 5243 variables [asimtec]
Graham Stabler
2003-12-10 15:31:11 UTC
Re: Hexapod question
Simon M. Arthur
2003-12-10 15:34:45 UTC
Re: Hexapod question
Paul
2003-12-10 16:42:46 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Hexapod question
Richard L. Wurdack
2003-12-10 17:27:51 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Hexapod question
Harvey White
2003-12-10 18:45:58 UTC
Re: [cad-cam] [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Hexapod question
Simon M. Arthur
2003-12-10 19:07:39 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Hexapod question
Ray Henry
2003-12-10 22:43:36 UTC
Re: Re: Hexapod question
Jon Elson
2003-12-11 03:55:25 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Hexapod question
Ray Henry
2003-12-11 06:52:18 UTC
Re: Re: Re: Hexapod question
alex
2003-12-11 07:32:39 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Re: Re: Hexapod question
ballendo
2003-12-11 11:48:35 UTC
Re: Hexapod question
Jon Elson
2003-12-11 14:43:33 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Re: Re: Hexapod question
Kevin Martin
2003-12-11 16:18:35 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Hexapod question
afaIII
2003-12-11 18:12:22 UTC
Re: Hexapod question (joints)
alex
2003-12-11 18:37:32 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Re: Re: Hexapod question
Graham Stabler
2003-12-11 19:11:43 UTC
Re: Hexapod question
Raymond Heckert
2003-12-11 20:46:06 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Hexapod question
industrialhobbies
2003-12-11 21:09:05 UTC
Re: Hexapod question (joints)
Don Rogers
2003-12-11 23:11:54 UTC
Re: Hexapod question
Graham Stabler
2003-12-12 02:29:01 UTC
Re: Hexapod question
Indy123456
2003-12-12 05:18:32 UTC
Re: Hexapod question
ballendo
2003-12-12 06:41:38 UTC
Re: Hexapod question
ballendo
2003-12-12 06:42:22 UTC
Re: Hexapod question
ballendo
2003-12-12 06:42:31 UTC
Re: Hexapod question
ballendo
2003-12-12 06:42:55 UTC
Re: Hexapod question
ballendo
2003-12-12 06:42:56 UTC
Re: Hexapod question
afaIII
2003-12-12 07:31:08 UTC
Re: Hexapod question
Raymond Heckert
2003-12-12 18:07:07 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Hexapod question
Ray Henry
2003-12-13 06:56:21 UTC
Re: Re: Hexapod question
cadcracker@l...
2003-12-13 12:49:33 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Hexapod question
Dave Dillabough
2003-12-15 13:24:20 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Hexapod question
doug98105
2003-12-15 16:23:07 UTC
Re: Hexapod question