Now that we have version 2.9 and inertial primary control for the Z axis and soon to have it for X and Y axes as well it is necessary to take vibration dampening and isolation of the flight control board much more seriously.
Primary improvements can certainly be made by balancing the props and motors.
So far it seems that the more rigid the frame the better because frame flex introduces undesirable mechanical delay (hysteresis) in translating motor induced actions to the centrally located flight control board. (Do NOT shock mount the motor Arms).
It may be reasonable to somewhat vibration damp the motor mounts themselves because they are on one end of the mechanism.
However, primary damping gains will be made by vibration isolating and or dampening the flight control board itself.
So far we have undertaken this process simply by trial and error sticking on of Foam or Gel pads or using O-ring suspension of the board to outboard standoffs.
This has achieved (barely) acceptable results, but is certainly by no means optimum.
The crucial fact that we have not properly addressed is that the amount and type of dampening medium needs to be matched to the weight (mass) of the item we are trying to isolate.
In fact we are trying to isolate a flight control board that weighs under an ounce or less than 2 ounces in its case which is a very small mass.
Our current "solutions" are actually designed for much larger masses and are not nearly as effective for the light mass of our flight control board as they ought to be.
I have done some on line research which did fully verify this inadequacy.
Virtually all off the shelf solutions (either pad or stud type) basically require a suspended mass that would weigh at a minimum 5 to 10 times what an APM or PX4 / IO board(s) weigh or more for optimal effectiveness.
This includes all pre-made Sorbothane, Alpha gel, memory foam or other silicone or urethane gel or foam mounts including Lord Micro mounts.
However, Alpha Gel or 30 durometer Sorbothane or Kyosho Zeal Gel double sided tape do appear to be the best possible solutions at this time so long as you use small enough pieces of them.
Simply putting a double sided pad under the entire board as we normally do now is entirely inappropriate for maximum vibration isolation and it is amazing it works at all.
Optimally you would use pads of them smaller than 1/2" square (possibly even 1/4" square) on each corner of the board or APM enclosure box. (smaller for the bare board than the board in the box obviously).
You could also improve isolation somewhat by sandwiching the board / enclosure between pads on both sides in slight compression.
So far we have done a dismal job of approaching this like engineers, but the reality is that with the massive excess quantities of vibration absorbing materials that we are using versus the mass of the APM (or PX4) has produced better results than not using them, but no where near what could be achieved by using the proper weight and size of dampening / isolation material.
The basic solution is to reduce the actual isolation medium to the 4 smallest pads you can get by with on each corner and using the softest commercially available dampening materials you can find.
A further gain can be made by placing the item to be damped in 10 to 20 percent compression between 2 pieces of the dampening material.
Thickness of the dampening material does improve dampening and isolation but is not nearly as important as selecting the right material and the right size of the supports made from it.
I believe that Kyosho Zeal tape is 2/10 of an inch thick and that is probably plenty for our use and the frequency range we are trying to damp.
I would very much like to see 3D Robotics produce a APM (and PX4 / IO board for that matter) case with proper internal shock mounting of the board(s) with dampening data for it.
I actually suspected this result from the start of my investigation and a little thoughtful research has completely confirmed it.
Another significant gain in vibration isolation can be had by using a high flex wire and strain relief approach to all wires connected to the Flight control board (and using the minimum number of wires necessary as well.)
I have used the concept of vibration isolation and dampening somewhat interchangeably in this discussion.
Isolation is simple undamped (spring or rubber band support) which allows the movement of the isolated object largely separate from the containing object.
Dampening is the conversion of vibration into heat energy by a shock absorbing medium (car shock absorber for instance.)
Our ultimate goal here is to provide the most high and medium frequency reduction while still allowing low frequency actual board movement to take place with a minimum of delay.
So realistically our methods embody both Dampening and Isolation.
I have covered a lot of ground here, but this is at least a good start for designing some real world vibration solutions that are bound to work better for us than what we have done so far.
Please try your own experiments and kick in your own thoughts here, that's how we get better and this is just a launching point.
Here is an excellent link to some definitive research and testing that will help:
http://fpvlab.com/forums/showthread.php?4251-Vibration-Dampening-amp-Isolation-Solutions-Guide
Replies
I have to admit that my ships all use round tubes so the effect is less. I really don't feel sorry for those that use flat plates.
But, sometime, just to convince yourself not to get too caught up in professor math, hold a gram scale up under your prop when it's generating 1000g of thrust at about the same distance from the prop as the rotor spar and see what the scale reads. My scale has a large flat surface and it doesn't read much. Go figure? To get a really good idea, suspend a replica of your rotor spar between a fixed point on one side and your scale at the other. Then put your quad over it with one prop giving out a good props wash load for the full length of the prop (so you don't have to double the load shown on your scale). Let me know if you are surprised or if it backs up the professor math.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that rotor spars don't have drag. They do. But I prefer actual data to professor math any day.
I'll soon be able to confirm the 8ish% impact. That's huge! If anyone else has data, please let us know.
Hi Forrest,
You seem to use really tiny diameter arms, so your interference (since it is also a really tiny fraction of the circle that you are occluding at 1/2 flat plate area) will be really - Tiny.
As for the scale thing you really need to do that test in clear air where you are not getting the backwash and turbulence from a surface immediately below.
Further it is important to know that in an unducted prop wash, the lift disk diameter starts expanding immediately after the propeller and the bulk of the thrust / lift actually comes from the area furthest from the center.
The bottom line is that flat plate area is flat plate area and it's resistance is unavoidable and readily quantifiable.
If you occlude the entire down wash disk, you will get no lift, no matter how much power you put into it.
However much less you occlude it will be available to provide lift.
Another way to look at it :)
Arms on my ships are round and about 1/40ish of the prop area.
- .3" on a 6" prop
- .6" diameter tube on a 16" prop
- 1" diameter tube on a 30" prop
Thus one would expect about a 1ish% drop in efficiency (round tube).
I put a manometer under my props to understand props wash against the electronics platform. You will find that the greatest prop wash speed comes from about 1/3rd the way out to 7/8th the way out (fairly even). Some, however, peak in the middle.
It's not the airflow that provides the lift ... prop wash is only a byproduct of lift. It's the "for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction" (if air is forced down then something else must go up) plus and distortions in pressures below and above the blade that provides the lift (air velocity is higher under the blade so the pressure is less). So if you put a disk under the prop that is the same diameter as the prop (or larger), it depends on how far the disk if from the prop as to if there will be lift. And because the disk can't be inside the blade, there will be lift, albeit nothing I'd be interested in trying to fly.
But theoretically you are right about the occlusion. But now you know why I don't believe professors. They deal too much in assumption and theory. I only deal in actual measurements. Then I use physics to try to wrap my pea brain around it.
Do the gram scale test. It will blow you away.
I agree with everything you are saying, except one. There is nothing simple about the random turbulence created by a prop and its interactions with a vibrating motor spar.
Data ... we need data.
I never said the vibrations were simple, the net loss in efficiency is fairly simple, but the vibrations especially on a multicopter are anything but.
Among other things you have 4 completely non-synchronous props spinning at assorted speeds - simple does not come to mind.
Maybe simple for an appropriate deep learning program on the new Nvidia DGX-1 but otherwise, definitely not simple.
Of course I also understand what you are saying about lift is absolutely true, however, in a rotor lift system, thrust (prop wash) is produced as a byproduct of lift and if that thrust impinges on a fixed part of the copter it provides resistance against that lift proportionate to that resistance. (EG the motor support arms).
Paul Pounds actually did the physical implementation of his multicopter and did get real results relating both to the efficiency of the prop under versus over method as well as appropriate prop design for copters meant to operate most efficiently in hover.
Also although maximum velocity is produced nearer the center of the prop, the expanding diameter of the circle means that the outer portion of the prop wash actually contains more net energy.
And of course as the distance from the prop increases this effect increases.
Honestly Forrest, You do some really brilliant work, but it often seems to me that you are really not interested in hearing anything other than the validation of your own work, done by following your methods.
This was my Blog, so I continue to try and monitor it.
But I do not feel it necessary to experimentally validate already proven aerodynamic principals and simple physics although in this case there has been plenty of experimental and real life experience to validate it.
In any case, I think your vibration and control method of providing the damping interface at an optimal tuned point on the frame is a very good concept.
And I believe if you look back in my wiki pages on vibration and even in this blog you will find that I commented very strongly on finding the right damping medium (and scale) for the size mass you were trying to damp.
I converted to frames that featured a damped chassis subsection with the battery and flight controller mounted in the damped section of the frame in 2013. (Hoverthings FLIP FPV Pro).
I mounted the motors on top on the quad to have more space for the gopro. But I guess just for the fun of it I'll mount it below to see if there is any further reduction in vibration. But before that I'll make some intensive tests with the current setup.
Another advantage of mounting the props below is reduced noise.
Great ... the more folks we have testing this the better incase it is prop or other dependent.
If you can, do the tests indoors in as controlled of a comparison as possible.
Frantz, Thanks for the awesome tool! Would you mind updating the spreadsheet to process the new scale of thrust used by arducopter 3.4 beta? Here is the analysis of my tarot 680 hexa, using the 3d printed bed which 45degrees dampening balls.
What do you think?
Hey Thorsten - See ... I was serious!
Fernando -
What is your FCU? Pixhawk or one of its smaller brothers?
These results are interesting in that z starts off really good and then it's like something happened (nut loosened?) and z became tolerable, but not great. Any ideas?
I'm not familiar with the 3.4 beta new thrust scale. What is it?
Yes! :-)
Seems there are more and more dudes!
I'll perform some more tests and tuning next week.
So far they are all using FCUs that are hybrids of the Pixhawk, versus the actual Pixhawk. You definitely have discovered something that the community did not know. Now we just need to figure out what. Your FCU is on the way so maybe I'll have data in a few weeks.
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
-
11
of 37 Next