Two link planar robot elbow errors in textbook (Inverse kinematics)

  • Thread starter Ineedhelpwithphysics
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Robot
In summary, the analysis of two-link planar robot elbow errors in the context of inverse kinematics highlights the challenges in accurately positioning the robot's end effector. These errors can arise from various factors, including joint misalignments and inaccuracies in the kinematic model. The study emphasizes the importance of understanding these errors to improve the robot's performance and ensure precise control in applications requiring exact movements. By addressing these issues, the reliability and efficiency of robotic systems can be significantly enhanced.
  • #1
Ineedhelpwithphysics
43
7
Homework Statement
The textbook is telling me this is elbow up but when I search on the internet it shows me something else.
Relevant Equations
law of cosines, law of sines, Pythagorean theorem
Textbook: vvvvv
1696949125870.png


Online: VVVV
1696949162406.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Which one is right?
 
  • #3
Ineedhelpwithphysics said:
Which one is right?
Could you explain your question a little more?
What force is animating this mechanism?
 
  • #4
This is strictly a matter of how these terms are defined by the text. The angles must correspond to the definitions provided. Possibly the book screwed it up: the illustrations and text are often done by different groups of people..This is why coordinate systems should be indicated explicitly..
 
Last edited:

FAQ: Two link planar robot elbow errors in textbook (Inverse kinematics)

What are common errors found in textbook examples of inverse kinematics for a two-link planar robot?

Common errors include incorrect joint angle calculations, sign errors in trigonometric functions, incorrect use of coordinate frames, and assumptions that do not hold for all configurations. These can lead to incorrect positioning of the end effector.

How do sign errors in trigonometric functions affect the inverse kinematics solutions?

Sign errors in trigonometric functions can lead to incorrect joint angles, causing the end effector to be positioned incorrectly. For example, using sin instead of -sin can result in the robot arm moving in the opposite direction.

Why is it important to consider multiple solutions in inverse kinematics for a two-link planar robot?

Inverse kinematics for a two-link planar robot often has multiple solutions due to the elbow-up and elbow-down configurations. It's important to consider both to ensure the robot can reach the desired position without encountering joint limits or obstructions.

What role do coordinate frames play in inverse kinematics calculations?

Coordinate frames are crucial in defining the position and orientation of the robot's links and joints. Incorrectly defining or transforming these frames can lead to errors in calculating the joint angles, resulting in incorrect positioning of the end effector.

How can one verify the correctness of inverse kinematics solutions in textbooks?

To verify the correctness, one can substitute the calculated joint angles back into the forward kinematics equations to check if the end effector reaches the desired position. Additionally, using simulation tools or physical robot models can help validate the solutions.

Similar threads

Back
Top