| ??? 03/03/12 22:56 Read: times |
#186397 - yes, but Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Reference was made to one that had 2500 pulses per revolution, and an index, yet was considered "relative". I don't suppose the nomenclature makes that much difference, but I am curious. Doesn't the combination allow you to determine exact position, at least to within the precision limits of the encoder?
YES, with a proper quadrature decoder it does BUT, after a power down, not until index has been passed. "Language professors" may argue, but since the position is relative to the index, that's the name. Erik |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| controlling an incremental encoder | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| controlling the encoders? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Study time! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Encoder is Feed back element | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Encoder is normally feedback loop... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Incremental? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Incremental contrasts with Absolute | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Relative | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| A small positive or negative change | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Isn't that absolute as well? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| trick question? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| by contrast ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| yes, but | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| O.K. I get it ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Even With Index | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Single Track Absolute Encoders | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| just a point | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| re | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Wrong sort of encoder! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Spammer | 01/01/70 00:00 |