Talk:Incremental encoder

Robotics B‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RoboticsWikipedia:WikiProject RoboticsTemplate:WikiProject RoboticsRobotics
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology B‑class

	Technology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Interface of encoders, vs encoder transducer

The introduction mentions the interface of incremental and absolute encoders, discussing the latency of an interface and the appropriateness for high-speed or real-time applications. I think this confuses the fundamental distinction between an incremental encoder and absolute encoder, so I removed it, but it been added back: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Incremental_encoder&diff=next&oldid=975107173 Intellec7 (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Intellec7. The intent was to contrast multi-turn encoders (which typically use serial interfaces), but "multi-turn" was omitted to avoid confusion with linear encoders. Lambtron talk 15:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the main contrast should be between incremental and absolute encoders, regardless of the kind (single- or multi-turn) of absolute encoder, so it should be possible to sidestep any conversation about the kind of absolute encoder, and the logical interface of any sensor. I see no need to talk about serial interfaces. Intellec7 (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may be best to discuss the myriad absolute/incremental differences in rotary encoders. However, I think it's worth pointing out here that in applications that track position over long distances -- which applies to incremental encoders and multi-turn absolute encoders -- incremental encoders do report position at higher rates and with lower latency. Lambtron talk 15:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Intellec7: why did you put a cn tag on The resulting, very low latency of incremental encoders allows them to monitor the positions of high speed mechanisms in near real-time? It seems like an obviously true statement to me. Lambtron talk 15:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we agree it is important to contrast absolute encoders, but I do not agree the contrast has anything to do with latency, interface, or appropriateness for real-time and/or high-speed applications. That is why I deleted the paragraph. You added it back, so the cn tag was a way to have a more productive way to collaborate on this page. If a citation has an opinion one way or another, then we can talk about it. Intellec7 (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we seem to be on the same page. However, this sentence states an obviously true aspect of incremental encoders and doesn't even mention (or imply reference to) absolute encoders -- and therefore doesn't deserve a cn tag. Lambtron talk 15:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]