On 2010-08-04, Pete C. wrote:

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" wrote:

"Pete C." fired this volley in news:4c596f58$0
:

Yes, however it is of little benefit on the RT, with the resolver on
the
servo shaft, where a given servo shaft position equates to some 90
possible RT positions. If the resolver were connected directly to the
RT
it might provide some benefit over and encoder, but not when mounted to
the servo. In this case I'd recommend Iggy just replace the resolver
with another encoder, and sell the resolver to someone who needs it for
a tidy profit.


I wonder if that might be a way to "remote" an encoder. Make the
resolver into half a SlowSyn pair, and mount the encoder on the other
one. ???

I still have reservations about the difficulty of extending that motor's
shaft.

One thought came to mind, Ig:

I know there's a scant 1/8" of shaft "showing" past the bearing, but
given the almost vanishingly small load that extension will be under, and
given the quality of modern metalworking adhesives, I wonder if you could
just make a short hub that fit snugly over the stub of shaft with the
bottom of the hole in the hub milled flat to aid in alignment, and was
secured with a permanent anaerobic adhesive.

LLoyd

I seem to be missing the thread with details on the current resolver
connection, but per the link I did see to the resolver it is a shaft
connected device, so if the resolver shaft is connected to the motor,
getting a shaft for an encoder connected to the motor should be simple
enough.

If the resolver is a $1,400 piece as the link indicates, I'm sure Iggy
can sell it for far more than the cost of the encoder and materials to
mount it.

Pete, it is too late, I already bought a converter. Both solutions are
not bad. The converter solution involves zero hardware modifications
to the rotary table, but costs $150 more. It is possibly slightly
sub-optimal, but it is very straightforward.

i