Do you think MLVDS got some future?

Started by Sink0 October 6, 2010
I was making a research a few months ago to make a control system for
a robot and after a while I found MLVDS. It seems perfect to be used
as a network for communication inside a robot but I could not find
many ICs other than transceivers for it. I have found 2 articles of
its use for robotics application and nothing more (one is very new
actually, it is a NASA robot). I could not even find any article for
any other application. Is there any reason for this or I did not make
a good search? Does anyone have any experience with MLVDS? Do you
think it is suitable for local communication? Any suggestion on ICs
other than transceivers, or protocols that would be suitable over
MLVDS? Any suggestion of drivers?  Does anyone have any opinion about
the future of this technology?

Thank you!
On Oct 6, 6:13=A0am, Sink0 <sin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was making a research a few months ago to make a control system for > a robot and after a while I found MLVDS. It seems perfect to be used > as a network for communication inside a robot but I could not find
Nobody ever got fired for using MIL-STD-1553.
On Oct 6, 5:13=A0am, Sink0 <sin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was making a research a few months ago to make a control system for > a robot and after a while I found MLVDS. It seems perfect to be used > as a network for communication inside a robot but I could not find > many ICs other than transceivers for it. I have found 2 articles of > its use for robotics application and nothing more (one is very new > actually, it is a NASA robot). I could not even find any article for > any other application. Is there any reason for this or I did not make > a good search? Does anyone have any experience with MLVDS? Do you > think it is suitable for local communication? Any suggestion on ICs > other than transceivers, or protocols that would be suitable over > MLVDS? Any suggestion of drivers? =A0Does anyone have any opinion about > the future of this technology? > > Thank you!
My guess would be, other than maybe video, many 'robotic' functions don't require the data rate LVDS is capable of. I dunno, maybe system clock sharing/distribution.
larwe <zwsdotcom@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 6:13&#2013266080;am, Sink0 <sin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I was making a research a few months ago to make a control system for > > a robot and after a while I found MLVDS. It seems perfect to be used > > as a network for communication inside a robot but I could not find
> Nobody ever got fired for using MIL-STD-1553.
1 MBit/s is probaly a lot less of what Sink0 thought of... -- Uwe Bonnes bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de Institut fuer Kernphysik Schlossgartenstrasse 9 64289 Darmstadt --------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------
On Oct 6, 8:29=A0am, Uwe Bonnes <b...@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-
darmstadt.de> wrote:
> larwe <zwsdot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Oct 6, 6:13=A0am, Sink0 <sin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I was making a research a few months ago to make a control system for > > > a robot and after a while I found MLVDS. It seems perfect to be used > > > as a network for communication inside a robot but I could not find > > Nobody ever got fired for using MIL-STD-1553. > > 1 MBit/s is probaly a lot less of what Sink0 =A0thought of...
You know this? As usual no information about the application details. So it might be the best protocol ever devised, exactly matching his requirements, or it might be that he only needs to carry data from a couple of I2C temperature sensors sampled at 1Hz, and MLVDS is horrific overkill.
On Oct 6, 4:51=A0pm, larwe <zwsdot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 8:29=A0am, Uwe Bonnes <b...@elektron.ikp.physik.tu- > > darmstadt.de> wrote: > > larwe <zwsdot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 6, 6:13=A0am, Sink0 <sin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I was making a research a few months ago to make a control system f=
or
> > > > a robot and after a while I found MLVDS. It seems perfect to be use=
d
> > > > as a network for communication inside a robot but I could not find > > > Nobody ever got fired for using MIL-STD-1553. > > > 1 MBit/s is probaly a lot less of what Sink0 =A0thought of... > > You know this? As usual no information about the application details. > So it might be the best protocol ever devised, exactly matching his > requirements, or it might be that he only needs to carry data from a > couple of I2C temperature sensors sampled at 1Hz, and MLVDS is > horrific overkill.
I did not give any information about my application because the answer is not about the application, but about MLVDS itself... But for curiosity, i was thinking on something much faster than 1Mbps (but you had no way to know that as you described). But at that range i would probably use CAN. Any way, it would be an exoskeleton and not exactly a robot hehe. But anyway, the usual (the full one would be the double) system would use something like 8 EMG channels sampling at 2Ksps with 12 bits resolution (what is low for EMG). Probably 6 or 7 Brushless motors, 6 encoders (not the one used for the motor control) for position control, 5 to 8 3 axis accelerometer and gyro with 10-12 bits resolution. The system would have 1ms cycle time (the control routine). But the system itself is not fixed and any kind of actuator and sensor is possible to be used on it. But back to MLVDS.. any other comment? Thank you!!
Sink0 <sink00@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> But for curiosity, i was thinking on something much faster than 1Mbps > (but you had no way to know that as you described). But at that range > i would probably use CAN. Any way, it would be an exoskeleton and not
Hey, you mix electrical and logical protocoll... You can do CAN on MLVDS... -- Uwe Bonnes bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de Institut fuer Kernphysik Schlossgartenstrasse 9 64289 Darmstadt --------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------
On 10/06/2010 05:24 AM, larwe wrote:
> On Oct 6, 6:13 am, Sink0<sin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I was making a research a few months ago to make a control system for >> a robot and after a while I found MLVDS. It seems perfect to be used >> as a network for communication inside a robot but I could not find > > Nobody ever got fired for using MIL-STD-1553.
That you know of -- there's an absolute ton of electrical, software and even mechanical overhead for it which makes a lot of sense in a big ol' airframe but is absolutely stupid for something smaller in a controlled EMC environment. It's one of those interfaces that's absolute genius for what it was designed for (including IC technology), but it is by no means a universal 'best' comm system. -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com Do you need to implement control loops in software? "Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" was written for you. See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html
On 10/06/2010 03:13 AM, Sink0 wrote:
> I was making a research a few months ago to make a control system for > a robot and after a while I found MLVDS. It seems perfect to be used > as a network for communication inside a robot but I could not find > many ICs other than transceivers for it. I have found 2 articles of > its use for robotics application and nothing more (one is very new > actually, it is a NASA robot). I could not even find any article for > any other application. Is there any reason for this or I did not make > a good search? Does anyone have any experience with MLVDS? Do you > think it is suitable for local communication? Any suggestion on ICs > other than transceivers, or protocols that would be suitable over > MLVDS? Any suggestion of drivers? Does anyone have any opinion about > the future of this technology? > > Thank you!
Most LVDS specifications are just for the lowest slice of the phy layer, so it makes sense that you'd only be finding transceiver (phy) chips. -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com Do you need to implement control loops in software? "Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" was written for you. See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html
On Oct 6, 8:24=A0am, larwe <zwsdot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 6:13=A0am, Sink0 <sin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I was making a research a few months ago to make a control system for > > a robot and after a while I found MLVDS. It seems perfect to be used > > as a network for communication inside a robot but I could not find > > Nobody ever got fired for using MIL-STD-1553.
How do you know this? 1553 is a very old military standard designed for use in aircraft. As such it is optimized for different needs than would likely be useful in a robot unless the robot and is very large and has wings. The commercial aircraft use a different interface. It is also very expensive and bulky compared to what the OP is likely looking to use in a robot. Rick