| ??? 03/03/12 22:28 Read: times |
#186395 - by contrast ... Responding to: ???'s previous message |
This one had quadrature and an index. By contrast with the 2500 ppr version to which references was previously made, this one only had 512 discrete positions between the index sensor, encoded by quadrature, using 2 signals, Gnd, and an index.
It's not a trick question. 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? Floppy disks and hard disks of the '60's and '70's worked the same way, having a track-0 sensor and just direction and step signals. I still routinely use that approach for stepper-driven positioning mechanisms. RE |
| 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 |