At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga.
Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus.
Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Get our expert's

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your **free** account and access **expert** answers to this and **thousands** of other questions.

I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!

Join Brainly to access

this expert answer

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

To see the **expert** answer you'll need to create a **free** account at **Brainly**

Can you help?

Are the solutions to hw 12 problem 2b correct?

I do get a pure rotation when I do gw^-1*ge*g6^-1

Ok well it sounds like you're getting the first three angles right then.

Does the position of the wrist change in the case you described?

I can easily make the program

Ok so the first 3 look right. Now you just need to get the last 2

Is linklen 1 and 2 combined or linklen 4 and 5? In our manipulator linklen 1 and 2 are combined.

It's up to you how you want to do it as long as it makes sense in your forward kinematics

Why do you think your first angle is incorrect? Seems to be correct to me

I don't understand that. Alpha1 only depends on xw and yw right?

Also why do you think your alpha3 is wrong?

I do not get the answer on Hw 12 problem 2b when I enter in the gi or gf as my end effector.

I do get a pure rotation when I calculate gw^-1*ge*g6^-1

Ok then most likely your 1,2,3 are right. gotta go

thanks later

That still ignores the possibility that one of the commanded angles is outside the alphalims right?

I don't understand what you mean. You cannot determine if a given angle is between -90 and 90?

No. I am working on what you said. One moment

I did not think of dismissing vectors of angles because one angle in that vector is out of range.

Yeah there will still be a few correct answers. Just pick one