-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
New issue
Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # to your account
Refine Spring #102
Refine Spring #102
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Michael Anderson <anderson@mbari.org>
Signed-off-by: Michael Anderson <anderson@mbari.org>
Signed-off-by: Michael Anderson <anderson@mbari.org>
Signed-off-by: Michael Anderson <anderson@mbari.org>
Signed-off-by: Michael Anderson <anderson@mbari.org>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You're showing off a little with those sick graphs, nice job! Shortly here I'll provide some test data from an at-sea deployment, it may be worth tuning to that at some point as the larger heat-sink of the ocean could be relevant. Also the usual behaviors at sea have a lower frequency content than the friction moves in the lab. Approved in any event.
Hah! plotjuggler deserves most of the credit ;-p |
Signed-off-by: Michael Anderson <anderson@mbari.org>
Signed-off-by: Michael Anderson <anderson@mbari.org>
The spring model was causing some jitter in the piston position, spring pressures, as well as the force-torque sensor. This was due to a discontinuity in pressures in the implementation of hysteresis in the spring. This agitation in forces occurred for very small velocities (based on changes of sign). A dead-band was added to checking velocity to fix this. Also, pressure now evolves continuously across the hysteresis rather than a step change.
Additionally, to better model the thermal decay of pressure at low speeds, a cooling law has been implemented within the velocity dead-band.