Re: Updated document on kin&dyn API...

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, Pierangelo Masarati wrote:

[...]
> I have a question right from the beginning: why do you focus
> on lumped parameter systems?  
For several reasons:
- most applications in robotics (and control) don;t need more.
- infinite dimensional systems are quite a bit more complex, and
  tackling everything at the same time is too much for an open source
  project.
- there are other projects out there (such as yours :-)

> do you think deformable systems are out of scope, or do they
> represent too hard a challenge, or what?
Too hard. Not in principle, but in the robotics practice. And because
I don't know enough of them :-)

> Maybe if you don't consider them from the beginning you won't
> be able to cast them into your scheme.  So, what's your concern
> about deformability? 
Of course I have been thinking about deformability and about infinite
dimensional systems. But as far as I understand the problem, there
isn't a common theory and code base anyway, so infinite dimensional
systems will always be an 'add on', or a stand-alone thing.

In our own lab, we have a big noise and vibration research group,
which are also working on infinite dimensional problems; they work
closely with a big CAE company (LMS, a spin-off of our department) and
also they don't have a nice intregration between both domains (finite
and infinite dimensional systems).

In addition, many deformabilities in robotics can be quite well
described as "lumped". For example, a flexible robot joint. These
systems will be covered by the simple DAE approach, just be extending
the state space of the model.

Herman

-- 
  K.U.Leuven, Mechanical Engineering, Robotics Research Group
<http://people.mech.kuleuven.ac.be/~bruyninc> Tel: +32 16 322480