3 ms·
Actually higher degree of freedom arms with 6-7 DOF have simpler kinematics and are easier to program, in general. This is especially the case if you're using
by khawkins 8y ago
Actually higher degree of freedom arms with 6-7 DOF have simpler kinematics and are easier to program, in general. This is especially the case if you're using sensing and a lightly unstructured task.
An end effector pose has 6 DOF (3 translation, 3 rotation). A robot with fewer than 6 DOF can't physically reach all poses in its task space, so if sensing says go here, the kinematics will often say it can get close, but not exactly.
A robot with exactly 6 DOF can usually reach all poses in its task space, with a catch. Typically there are only a discrete number of joint configurations for a given pose (like 4 or 8). Thus, if you want to reach a certain pose but all joint configurations are in collision then you are in trouble. Adding just 1 more DOF, making it a 7 DOF arm, ensures that the arm can generally reach any pose with an infinite number of configurations, the last dimension used to plan avoiding collision.
If you use motion planning and sensing for all of this, instead of something like a teach pendant where you carefully set all of the desired poses manually, then higher DOF is easier.
- syntaxing 8y agoAre high DOF robot arms easier to program? Most of the ones I've seen are usually done through human "mirroring" where the arm is moved in a generic fashion (and fine tuned by surrounding sensors) by a user and recorded similar to the pendant method you mentioned. I totally understand that a SCARA arm has a lot less flexibility. But wouldnt a low DOF arm be beneficial for an application like this, where the parts being grabbed and placed are in a highly gridded configuration?