??? 03/04/05 00:17 Read: times |
#89053 - I try to explain Peter's idea again Responding to: ???'s previous message |
I feel ashamed - my english is still so poor that I am unable to explain this one properly... Let me try once more. The poin is, that you don't count the edges. (Hence, it does not matter that you are missing some when rapidly oscillating while the encoder is not moving). You take samples at a steady pace,independently from the signals. The electrical + mechanical design of the encoder (assuming its electrical connection into the system does not introduce extra noise) must be such, that there is some minimum time between the transitions, where both signals are steady and clean (at a given maximum rotation/movement speed) (and of course, only one of the signals may change at a time). Then if you sample at such a rate that there is guaranteed at least one sample in that "clean area", you won't miss a single count. Of course, some noise filtering can be done by any means, but it is unrelated to the principle above. Jan Waclawek |
Topic | Author | Date |
Digital position encoder | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Dont do this. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Signals are not connected directly | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Is assembly ok? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
For Mehdi | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
its easy in software | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
but | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
same resolution | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
But...what if ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
So what is the solution? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
absolutely no problem | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Thank you | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
PLEASE not again | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Sorry | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
list.hw.cz | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
thank you | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Re: PLEASE not again | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Re frequency | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
So what frequency do we sample at? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
I try to explain Peter's idea again | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
We know it ! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Nothing ??? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
it takes time | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Code doesn't function | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
reverse direction ! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
This is not a problem | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
incorrect operation? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
right connection ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
I dunno | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Now... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
check the sample condition ! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
clarify | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
@Erik | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
@Peter | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Grey code | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Grey code more | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Grey INCREMENTAL ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
I guess 98 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Gray code | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Not a gray code | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Grey | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Yes of course its Grey code | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Absolute Vs Incremental | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
So now... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Yes it can but only... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Peter is right! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Lover not a fighter :-) | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Lover of software | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
steps lost or not | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Determining direction | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Its not Grey, its Gray !![]() | 01/01/70 00:00 |