You did not try hard enough.
You have the wrist singularity when a4 and a6 are parallel.
Do a inverse kinematics and you will find that point.
I think that every robot manufacturer keeps his strategy secret.
Yeah my last resort is to check multiple points on a path if their a4 and a6 are parallel. Assuming only one singularity point exists in a path, it becomes a finding local maxima problem. Just wondering if there is a better solution.
I am planning to implement joint space interpolation method to pass through the wrist singularity area of a six-axis robot arm.
But here comes the first question: How to check if a path passes through its wrist singularity? If it does, where does it start and end? Only with these information, I can further plan multiple joint motions between the singularity area.
If it is a SCARA robot, to check if a straight line path passes through its hand singularity is pretty easy, as it is happening in a 2D space.
What about six-axis robot? I am wondering if there is a magical math equation that is able to find out the singularity entry and exit point for a path happening in a 3D space.
I have found plenty of methods to deal with passing through singularity, but not one is to determine where the singularity it is. Or did I not try hard enough
. Any thoughts are appreciated!
Don't know when VAL was introduced, but I used BOSCH robots (nowadays they don't exist anymore) in early 80's.
I am the newbie here for sure. Cant imagine how would programming a robot in 80's feel like.
You guys are great! Have shown me quite a few angles to view this matter. "Unfriendly to advanced programmer -> a more profitable business model." is a new idea to me!
Thanks for the feedback! I think we all agree that this system is kind of ancient, yet it will cost too much to change after all these years. Just have to get used to it. Or... is there any plug-in or some kind of feature available on the offline programming software that can save much trouble from "not knowing a particular position data's corresponding number" that I may not know?
BTW adding a description could be a good way to understand what the position is, but I reckon if it does any help to referring any point while programming, after all when I try to move the robot to a point "Home", I still need to know what data number of "Home" is.
Hi everyone, FANUC robot newbie here. I am looking into how to program a FANUC robot. I am wondering why FANUC chooses to define position data by numbers but not by names like KUKA/ABB which should make much more sense to me. Is there a good reason behind it? Or do we share the same thought that KUKA/ABB's way is more user-friendly?
Really hoping you guys to share some ideas with me. Cheers!
