# Autonomous Manipulator of a Mobile Robot Based on a Vision System
## 3 Results
### Testing the Positioning System on the Basis of the Vision System  
The last tests concern combining the operation of both systems. A positioning test was carried out for the assumed base position. The manipulator should be in the same position every time. The vision system has a greater impact on errors, and its accuracy varies with the distance and angle of inclination to the panel. Table 4 shows the positions relative to the manipulator's base coordinate system reached by the end effector and the actual distance from the panel. During these tests, the flexible suspension of the robot was stiffened so that the movement of the entire robot did not affect the position of the manipulator effector. The set base position was 170 mm from the panel. This test allowed us to evaluate the positioning accuracy based on the vision system. The manipulator reached positions with an error of several millimeters, and this is due to the different initial positions from which the vision system made the measurement. As shown by previous tests, the greater the measurement distance and the greater the angle of the camera relative to the marker, the more inaccurate the measurements. The actual distances from the panel were measured using the laser sensor di-soric LAT 51 M 500 IG3-B5. Figure 5: The dependence of the measurement error on the distance from the marker. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Reference Angle** & **Vision System** & **Absolute Error** \\
**Deg** & **Deg** & **Deg** \\ \hline  
\hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Measurement of rotation around the \(y\)-axis by a vision system. Another test was performed to determine whether the task to be performed was successful, i.e., switching the switch. In this case, the position was measured after pressing the switch. Moreover, in this case, the reference position was read relative to the manipulator's base coordinate system. During the tests, the markers were detected at each point in the sequence. The operation of the system was also checked when it was impossible to calculate the correction. The results are given in Tables 5 and 6. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Position Reached in \(x\), \(y\), \(z\)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Absolute Error for the \(x\), \(y\), \(z\) Axes**} \\  & **mm** & & & **mm** & \\ \hline
705.5 & \(-\)266.5 & 568.4 & 41.6 & 4.4 & 24.3 \\ \hline
760.3 & \(-\)261.3 & 487.9 & 13.2 & 0.8 & 56.2 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Measurement of the position when switching the switch in the case of covering the markers during the work. The reference position is 747.1, \(-\)262.1, 544.1 mm. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Position Reached in \(x\), \(y\), \(z\)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Actual Distance from the Panel**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Absolute Error**} \\  & **mm** & & **mm** & **mm** \\ \hline
577.1 & \(-\)319.0 & 587.4 & 162.1 & 7.9 \\
590.0 & \(-\)312.0 & 575.7 & 153.6 & 16.4 \\
575.1 & \(-\)324.4 & 587.5 & 161.2 & 8.8 \\
566.6 & \(-\)334.8 & 593.0 & 166.5 & 3.5 \\
552.9 & \(-\)334.0 & 599.1 & 175.2 & 5.2 \\
560.3 & \(-\)337.2 & 593.3 & 170.1 & 0.1 \\
562.4 & \(-\)336.3 & 593.9 & 171.3 & 1.3 \\
558.1 & \(-\)334.2 & 596.2 & 175.1 & 5.1 \\
559.3 & \(-\)341.5 & 595.0 & 170.2 & 0.2 \\
570.0 & \(-\)324.5 & 590.4 & 165.8 & 4.2 \\
571.7 & \(-\)325.2 & 589.8 & 164.7 & 5.3 \\
566.7 & \(-\)328.0 & 593.1 & 168.3 & 1.7 \\
576.6 & \(-\)318.8 & 586.9 & 161.5 & 8.5 \\
559.5 & \(-\)335.7 & 596.9 & 171.3 & 1.3 \\
560.4 & \(-\)335.8 & 598.4 & 171.5 & 1.5 \\
567.3 & \(-\)330.6 & 594.0 & 168.3 & 1.7 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Measurement of the distance from panel to the manipulator in the base position obtained by the manipulator for a given distance of 170 mm.