servos back to back to double strength

"pogo"

I've never seen such device, but I don't believe it would be too difficult
to make one. A small PIC with CCP + two timers would be enough. VCC and GND
could be drawn from the servo wires, and I believe you could use the
internal oscilator to save on parts.

Another alternative, which I don't know if its possible would be to hack the
servo and reverse its motor polarity (and possibly the internal pot as
well), so you don't have to deal with generating two complementar pwm
signals.

Cheers

Padu

This is a Y-cable with a servo reverser. Common finds at the hobby shop.

But, it's actually better and easier to provide separate signals. No two
servos are exactly alike, and it's helpful to be able to trim them in
software. Ganged servos tend to fight each other, so generally it's not
something you want to do unless you absolutely have to.

-- Gordon

Cool! I knew someone on here would know!
Thanks for the info, and the suggestion on separate signals is
noted.
Thanks again !
JCD

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:25:48 -0700, Gordon McComb


So very true. Not only are the servos not perfectly identical, but
your linkage is also likely to be slightly asymmetrical.

A much better solution is to use one servo that is twice as strong.

Alternatively, you might have the space to rig up a mechanical lever
system that can absorb small differences.

--
RoRo

    A linkage with some compliance won't help much; the servos will
draw power stressing the compliant element.

    Electrically, the right solution is to run both motors from
the same error signal.  If you're good at rewiring the interior
of servos, and you have ones whose electronics are able to
handle the extra load, let one servo unit's electronics do the control and wire
the other one as a dumb motor in parallel (reversed if necessary)
with the first motor.

                John Nagle

That's not what I meant. I am talking about what is essentially a
mechanical mixer, similar to what you find in the rotor head of a
helicopter with a Bell/Hiller system, only less complicated.

Maybe that's what pogo meant in the first place? I did not understand
what he meant by "pivot point". Maybe you could elaborate a little,
pogo?


You still could not be sure the two motors share the load evenly. If
the two motors are not perfectly identical, they will be unevenly
loaded and maybe even fight each other.

--
RoRo

     You mean a combiner gearbox or a differential?  That will
work, but those things are kind of bulky.  You only use that
for applications where you need to survive an engine failure.


     If they're running off the same error signal, they'll turn in
the same direction and will go to zero torque at the same time,
so they won't fight each other.  You're adding torque, which is
valid.

     This isn't perfect, because DC motors don't load-share evenly,
but it will probably do what the original poster wanted.

                John Nagle

Yes, but it would not necessarily have to be a gearbox. A simple lever
or bellcrank system like Curt describes would work in many cases.


It does not have to be. Look at model helicopters. They have two such
mechanical mixers on the mast to mix input from the servo and swash
plate with input from the flybar. Here's an example:

http://www.dream-models.com/eco/images/BHMzeropitch.jpg

The red lever is the mixer. The center is connected to the pitch
control arm, and the two ends are connected to the swash plate and
flybar, respectively.

--
RoRo

If you just hook the two servos through a linkage to a common point on the
device you are trying to move, you can easily create a mechanical load
balancing effect.  There are many simple ways this could be done depending
on the configuration needed.  For example:

   s1 ----------O
                |
                |
                O--------- load
                |
                |
   s2 ----------O


So s1 and s2 are a linkage coming from the servos and they are attached to
a common bar which is attached to your load.

If the application allowed it, you could use cord and pulleys (pull only).

For combining rotary motion, a standard differential configuration would
work just fine.  But if you only need the limited motion of a servo, then
there are probably easier ways to link them together with fixed links what
effectively work the same as the diagram above.

However, I can't really think of a reason it would ever make sense to try
and make two servos work instead of just buying one with twice the power.

--
Curt Welch                                            http://CurtWelch.Com/
curt@kcwc.com                                        http://NewsReader.Com/

    What the original poster wanted, I think, was a setup where he
had some object with a servo on each side of it, with the
servos working in cooperation.  At least I think that's
what he wanted.  There are times when that might be an
easier solution than building a heavy, stiff structure
and driving it from one end, or building a linkage.

                John Nagle