@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ With both encoders, I can now plot my dubious encoder data against a known sourc
...
@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ With both encoders, I can now plot my dubious encoder data against a known sourc
If you look at the top (normalzied) and bottom (plotted against time) data you can see the importance of our reference encoder to really understand the accuracy of the system. The bottom plot is just the encoder readout plotted against time, and so there's a stretch at the beginning where I wasn't rotating the shaft + visible changes in pitch from my inadvertent speeding up or slowing down rotation. This is not at all going to be a sin-cos encoder, and instead looks much more like a piecewise triangle wave. I think this is a good thing, considering that more linear the data results in a more constant (and overall higher magnitude) encoder response for a given rotation angle. The caveat is that I won't be able to use the straightforward arctan trick to linearize my two signals, and instead will likely need to go straight to a lookup table off of a calibration.
If you look at the top (normalzied) and bottom (plotted against time) data you can see the importance of our reference encoder to really understand the accuracy of the system. The bottom plot is just the encoder readout plotted against time, and so there's a stretch at the beginning where I wasn't rotating the shaft + visible changes in pitch from my inadvertent speeding up or slowing down rotation. This is not at all going to be a sin-cos encoder, and instead looks much more like a piecewise triangle wave. I think this is a good thing, considering that more linear the data results in a more constant (and overall higher magnitude) encoder response for a given rotation angle. The caveat is that I won't be able to use the straightforward arctan trick to linearize my two signals, and instead will likely need to go straight to a lookup table off of a calibration.