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
Gary, about those adjustable shocks.
I had some designs at an early stage incorporating RC car shocks like these.
Vince
- Put one shock onto a scale
- Tare the scale
- Orient the shock so you can press downward on the shock
- Compress the shock by 15% to 20% of it's throw.
- Read the scale.
- Weigh the camera and gimbal
- Divide the camera/gimbal weight by the scale reading
- That is how many shocks you need.
- These shocks need to be placed at at 30ish degree angle to prevent x/y wobble
Because they are adjustable, you can tune the above math. If you do the above math and the answer is 2 shocks, then they are too stiff.
Thanks Gary.
I was doing many 'tuning in' flights when when the things all went missing. Its a laborious process doing flights, adjusting and trying again but things were showing good promise.
Do you remember my octa that used silicone o rings. They could be easily adjusted by number and tension but I wanted a neat modular folding machine. The electronics unit (ok, lunch box) could be removed and powered separately
Fortunately I do have all the design files for this 7kg quad but nothing before. Will soon be building another.
Vince - OMG ... was wondering what happened to you. Sorry about the loss. As Paul Harvey used to say ... "Stay tuned for the Rest of the Story." Can't wait to hear what happens to the perpetrator.
Impressive setup time and beautiful ship. Glad you are back.
Do you mind if I forward your video to a company in Singapore?
Hi Donka,
all parts are custom cut including the motor mounts. I'll post more details the next weeks.
any chance when you swap out the FCU that you can do a before and after without making any other significant changes?
That will tell us if the smaller board (maybe 8x stiffer) is solving vibration issues. If not, it's back to solving the mysteries of Thorsten's frame.
Donka, not sure what cheap is. But Drotek and CSG shop provide good products. The results I presented a while back at http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/gps-positional-accuracy-iii are based on GPS from these companies.
And for sure you have to be careful setting up a small copter since interference of the components can be problematic.
I got my M8 at www.drotek.fr (xxl version, excellent product: did a one mile long mission with a landing within one meter of planned waypoint. Maybe some luck too)
I think there can be a stability problem with the soft "balls" when you fly in acro mode at high speeds with flips or rolls. In most other cases they seems to be a good solution.
What would also be interesting is the effect on vibrations when mounting the motors on the arms or below the arms. Normally, I mount them below as shown in the image. This should reduce at least some additional vibrations - apart from a small increase in efficiency.
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
of 37 Next