Subject:
|
Re: an idea, can someone tell me if this is possible/been done before/etc?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Tue, 2 Dec 2003 20:18:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1495 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
>
> > Ahh, yes. Not walking is an important part of the behavior :^)
> >
> > I'll probably have the third output control a pole reversor switch. Battery
> > power -> pole reversor -> RC racer motor (or two?) -> pumps. I want a
> > powerful compressor.
>
> Use a watchdog timer instead, if you want to stop don't send any outputs.
> Once the timer trips the bot stops.
>
> You still get your third sensor, you'll need it for a bump switch,
> otherwise you won't know when to turn/back-up.
>
> Each output is multi-state, use it.
What if we assume that each output drives a motor, through a differential which
drives a pneumatic switch and a compressor. The compressor does not care which
rotational direction it is driven, but the switch does. When we are mostly up
to pressure turning the compressor will be more work than flipping the switch.
When we reverse motor rotation, the switch flips, and then the compressor is
driven. In this way we do not need a sensor to know that the switch is flipped.
We can do this for two motor oututs (one for forward/backward plus compression,
and the other for turn/straight plus compression). If we drive neither output
then we don't go anywhere. Depending on which way we run the motors, we can
control all aspects of walking and turning without having used any sensor ports,
and still have a spare motor port.
Why use more outputs than you need?
Kevin
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
60 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
|
|
|
|
