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
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
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. Lambtrontalk15:21, 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. Lambtrontalk15:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"incremental encoders do report position at higher rates and with lower latency" This is not an obvious fact to me. What is obvious empirically is that incremental encoders exist at higher resolutions, since the resolution does not depend on the number of "bits" the way it does for an absolute encoder. Note that for an absolute encoder with a binary (not Gray code) disk, the signal of the least-significant bit is just a pulse train the same as one of the channels of a quadrature incremental encoder. Resolution aside, conceptually an absolute encoder is _also_ an incremental encoder. Intellec7 (talk) 16:00, 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. Lambtrontalk15:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]