Distributor Comment by Dany Thivierge on January 24, 2012 at 9:25pm

Quite nice idea... reduces/remove high frequency vibrations... would it introduce low frequency ones? 

what about when the cables are connected, does it tilt the APM 2 in the cable direction? 

Also wondering if the top plate on top of the GPS would not reduce a bit the GPS signal quality... 

I would love to try it... if only mine could be ready for shipping! 

Dany

Developer Comment by Max Levine on January 24, 2012 at 9:29pm

I don't use the top plate, so gps have clear sky, cables have no effect. 

I'll test later what it dose to vibrations :) 

Comment by Ian Garcia on January 24, 2012 at 9:59pm

That's got to be terrible for dynamics.

Comment by Ellison Chan on January 24, 2012 at 10:04pm

Is that mostly for anti-vibration or are the holes on the frame not a good match for the APM2?

I just created an adapter mounting plate to allow those who had mounting holes customized for the APM1 to convert to APM2:

And another special mount for AeroQuad, which uses standard Arduino boards:

3D Robotics Comment by Chris Anderson on January 24, 2012 at 10:19pm

Ian: Why? This is exactly the correct way to mount an autopilot, and the way that's recommended by the other autopilot companies, such as Fyetech. It decouples vibrations from the frame and avoids high-frequency aliasing. 

Comment by Ellison Chan on January 24, 2012 at 10:30pm

Well, I can see how this setup could cause a lot of jostling around of the APM.  Depending on how tight the bands are, it could introduce a lag between acceleration of the drone and the APM following suit.  This is vibration isolation rather than dampening. Ideally the the APM could be tightly coupled to the drone frame, and just block transmission of frequencies related to motor vibrations vibrations.

Comment by Ian Garcia on January 24, 2012 at 10:34pm

Well, this will introduce phase lag for sure. It's possible that if the rubbers are very tense, and given that the autopilots are very light, it works out in the end. Back in the day working on these guys

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2009/10/07/4351338-xombie-rock...

we had to bend over backwards to avoid exactly this type of lag. Bad memories...

3D Robotics Comment by Chris Anderson on January 24, 2012 at 10:39pm

Ian: It's just the opposite. You want as much mass as possible to introduce inertia to decouple the vibration from the frame. A heavier board is better than a light one in this instance. The actual movement of the frame in space is much slower than the induced vibration from an out-of-balance prop. It's the latter that we need to decouple. 

Developer Comment by Max Levine on January 24, 2012 at 10:48pm

The board sits tight, and can't move free of the frame. I'll try to find some copper plate to add some weight to the board, but as is it should work fine. I not seeing any problems so far on indoors testing. 

Comment by Ian Garcia on January 24, 2012 at 10:52pm

Hahaha, this is so interesting. So different to the dynamics I am used to.

So you do want to introduce lag then, on purpose, because you are more worried about high frequency vibration, yet you are not worried about what the lag will do to the controls. Those gotta be some nasty vibrations then...

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 7
• Next ›
• Page