Hall Sensors - Alternate mount - On the flange

You need to look at my sketch. Each dirextion is locked on a pot. Alternate angles are not even an issue.

We both understand that. One sensor measured z-axis (pitch) rotation, and the other measures x-axis (roll) rotation. The problem you're going to run into is that each of the angles that have been locked to the pot to is not dependant on one motor only.
Each motor has the ability to affect both the x-axis rotation, as well as the y-axis rotation, but since each sensor only measures one of those, each motor will only be getting feedback from one axis of rotation. Unless you lock each motor to one axis as well, your feedback signals will not yield the correct positional output.

I understand what you mean now. You are correct. I still believe this could be handled in the software. I have seen similar setups when there is a center pivot and a motor mounted on the side and the back vs. 2 on the rear.

there is some error in the sketch that makes all these arguments and you requested not to judge you ...
you just mounted the fixed base where the pot body should be fastened to the same rotating part where the pot axis should pick the motion .

And generally , IMHO if a motor will affect the other motor's position " where a leakage of motion [ stress ] to the other pot can not occur " ... the other motor should hold its place unless commanded to move ... it is a closed loop PID for each motor Gentlemen ...

I meant on the skill of the sketch. I really just dont like the added sensor on the side of the motor. I want a cleaner way to mount them over an l bracket.

May be like this ... the pot axis is fixed to the other U-joint half .

Oh my ...
the other pot will be broken .



Thinking mode ON

There was me thinking that you knew something I didn't? Had me scratching my head and ultimately thought I must be misunderstanding.

Gotcha ...

I've tried it the other way and it still going to break too ...

OK this is working good ... and the only way it is going to work is like the original concept description of @shannonb1 by drilling a hole into the center yellow cross for the pot axis ...

It could 100% be handled in software, you're absolutely right. In this case you'd need to take your current pitch/roll angles on each axis, and translate them into known motor positions (each combination of pitch/roll angles corresponds to one combination of motor positions, so you can do some geometry and find an algorithm to tell you which corresponds to which).

You're 100% right, this could absolutely be done in software provided you have something with DAC capability.

The problem isn't so much the fact that the movement from one motor would affect the position of the other one, it's more the fact that the feedback signals from the pots are now some linear combination of the two motor positions, instead of just one. To get the loop to run properly, you'd need to take the X and Z rotational position signals from each pot, run an algorithm on them to extract the left/right motor positions from the combination of the two rotation signals, and then calculate the desired position output set points for each motor based on current pitch/roll position, as well as desired pitch/roll position. Finally from there you'd take these new desired setpoint signals and use the DAC on your arduino/microcontroller (I don't know if a JRK has DAC capability) to send these signals to the feedback ports on the JRK. I can post a diagram later on if you want . This is how I'd do it anyways, there might be a way to do it entirely in software but I'm not sure.

You might as well use a analog output accelerometer (X-Y). Then no problem with mechanical restrains.

No need for diagram, what you say makes sense, I get it.

I like you, youre smart.

Aww shucks haha, you're too kind. This is kind of stuff is actually what I'm currently studying in school right now, so I'm more than happy to contribute anything I can to helping the forum/it's members

Well it's too bad in sketchyphysics that we cannot get a servo motor feedback and test such concept with @value1 's model and see what type of response that we'll get ...
https://www.xsimulator.net/category/diy-tutorials/

Proof it can work, just seen this posting.... Has anyone made Jack Screw a Motion Simulator?
At 2:00 minutes into the video you can see that he's using two linear transducers for motion feedback on the U-joint. It also looks like there's a couple of small limit switches that I guess are to protect against over travel? It's a slightly larger U-joint than I guess you had in mind but at least proves the concept!

switch the side of the flange its connected to