Nice job to help me get started. A little foggy about continuous rotation versus just changing position and stopping, but this gets me to where I can hook one up. Apparently, Uno can do PWM out of the box so the adafruit part he used is not needed unless you have more than six servos to control. Although it is nice, the Adafruit board is a little overpriced for what it would do for most applications
What happens if you go beyond the 0.9 and 2.1? like for example you input a full 5v cycle instead of max 2.1ms? Smoke? or Will the servo just do nothing? I ask cause I want to try and mechanically control a cnc spindle using a sg90 and a 3d print to attach to a potentiometer that controls the spindle RPM on a GRBL v1.1 with a 0ms to full cycle range.
Congratulations! Very clarifying video! I am looking for a circuit to be connected to a radio control instead of a servo to enable and disable the power of a camera (900mv x 11v). Do you know any product, or would you indicate a diagram for assembling a circuit?
Great vid man! Here's something I really like to do with my servo but don't know hot to acheive it. And I think there are many, many people out there, who might like to also know how to do it. Now here it is: I modded a servo, so it rotates continuesly. I can control with a servo tester how fast and in what direction it rotates. I can even stop it and I understand the principle. And I can even do all of that via my remote. But here's the thing I can't control but I'm so desperate to know how it can be done: I like to move a switch or a potentiometer on my remote control to a certain position and the servo will perform a definable amount of rotations and than stop. Do you know what I mean? What I like to do with that functon is to control a manual zoom on a camera lens. I built a gear, so the servo will move the zoom slowly but I can't get the servo to stop at a defined point. Thank you very, very much for your help!!!
It's been long-called the "WIDTH" (in ms) of the pulse, so I don't think YOUR comment is going to change this CONVENTION... BESIDES, even YOUR "correction" of suggesting that LENGTH be used to describe what is actually MOST-accurately termed a DURATION of time is also incorrect ;-) ...