Subject:
|
Re: Land mine robot
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Jan 2003 16:32:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
784 times
|
| |
|
|
In article <3E22E6EB.8010100@sciatl.com>,
Pete Hardie <pete.hardie@sciatl.com> wrote:
> Why even use sand at all? If the challenge is for mine detection,
> use a flat surface, and have the mines be attached to the underside.
Why underneath? A flat surface with paper discs taped down to
represent mines would be fine. Then the light sensor could be used to
detect them. After all, the point is really to find them without
rolling over any while searching. You'd need to be able to see whether
it has "set off" any mines during the process.
--
DON'T PAY MORE FOR WEB HOSTING THAN WHAT YOU WANT TO PAY
At Full System, Inc. you invent the package *and* the price!
Point your browser to http://custom.fullsystem.com/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Land mine robot
|
| (...) I specified underneath to make it unlikely that the robot would detect them by either optical means (because I assumed that the challenge was for a non-visual method), and to prevent any cheating by a team using some form of IR flash to inform (...) (22 years ago, 13-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Land mine robot
|
| (...) Why even use sand at all? If the challenge is for mine detection, use a flat surface, and have the mines be attached to the underside. This allows for very simple drive systems, and no surface clues to show for the mines, or possible bias by (...) (22 years ago, 13-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
12 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
