[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Paparazzi-devel] Wrong range for MPU60X0?

From: Christophe De Wagter
Subject: Re: [Paparazzi-devel] Wrong range for MPU60X0?
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:17:21 +0200

Dear Heinrich,

In most planes we have, saturation is a bigger issue than resolution. Vibrations are the biggest culprit as g-forces from turn rarely exceed 2g while a rigid carbon frame with an unbalanced prop can easily generate 10g, and on helicopters we measured over 100g frame vibrations easily. 

But since filtering is enabled, this saturation might not even be visible in the down-linked measurements so peak-tracking/saturation tests should be done with the internal sensor filtering off. 

Which peak values do you measure at full power in turbulence? We always measure raw unfiltered values of much more than 4g and through filtering it then becomes 2-3g too. 


On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Prof. Dr.-Ing. Heinrich Warmers <address@hidden> wrote:
Today we implemented and tested the temperature compensation for the MPU60X0.
It works fine.
By testing, we fond that the raw  value where  2000 for g  i.e. the range is +-16g.
If we want to correct the angel zero it would be much better   if the range  is +-4g is used since then the value is 8000 for g.
The resolution grows from 11 bit to 14 bit.
I think the default value should be set to +-4g. range.
Usually we have no higher values than 2-3g for our kind of aircraft.


Paparazzi-devel mailing list

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]