Subject:
|
Re: robotic rovers
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Wed, 25 Aug 1999 15:43:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
822 times
|
| |
|
|
"Ian Warfield" <ipw47@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, Jack Perdue writes:
> > FWIW, here's what I came up with given a couple of weeks:
> >
> > http://www.cs.tamu.edu/people/jkp2866/cpsc643/explorerbot.html
> >
> > There are some aspects I was happy with (e.g., easy removal of the RCX,
> > transmission range of upward pointing RCX, durability of frame)
> > and others I wasn't (e.g., I didn't have a second differential
> > to build Leo's adder/subtractor). The report provides more details.
> Something I thought of when reading your report: do you suppose that, in
> addition to providing out-of-range notification for the PC and indicating that
> the datalog is ready for upload, the ping routine could provide a source for
> the proximity sensor reflection data?
Sure. I had mine detect overhead objects since that is the way
the RCX was pointing.
> In my experience I haven't had to mount
> the RCX pointing straight up (it can still receive messages even facing away
> from the tower), so hopefully I can use the RCX IR in conjunction with the
> light sensor.
I found I had a longer range with the RCX pointing up
instead of away from the IR tower. In theory, the ping
routine will turn the RCX towards the IR tower when it
gets out of range, so it really shouldn't matter too
much in a small area. I was just trying to get the
maximum range... the trade-off being that the proximity
detector only detected overhead objects (which was neat,
but rather useless).
One suggestion I have for your latest design is slapping
some vertical reinforcement beams around your drivetrain.
For example, next to the left wheel towards the back...
you've got two horizontal beams seperated by two plates.
A couple beam connector pegs and a three hole beam should
slide right in there between the wheel and the frame (looks
like there's a spare hole there). That will help hold
the differential together. Securing your motors will take
a bit more thought.
I mention it because one of the biggest problems I had was the
motor/gears working themselves apart over time. Using
the vertical beams[*] prevented that.
jack
j-perdue@tamu.edu
[*] see the 3-hole beam next to the motor and behind the wheel on
the outside of the frame at:
http://www2.txcyber.com/~si_slick/fromtamu/legos/ex2-200dpi-side.jpg
there's another 3-holer on the inside of the frame behind the motor
which you just see the end of (it supports the clamped horizontal
beams) in the top right of:
http://www2.txcyber.com/~si_slick/fromtamu/legos/ex1-200dpi-side.jpg
those, coupled with the special plate that goes in the notches on
the sides of motors (see the motor frame in the RIS Constructopedia),
provided a pretty tight package.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: robotic rovers
|
| (...) Perhaps you could compromise - mount the RCX facing forward for proximity detection and point the IR transmitter downward - say, suspend it from a ceiling fan ;). I'm still going nuts over that ping routine you came up with - a stroke of (...) (25 years ago, 27-Aug-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: robotic rovers
|
| (...) One word: wow! Jack, you certainly came up with a substantial amount of information, especially considering that you only had a short time for your project! You have a lot of good theory on your site that I'll have to study, especially your (...) (25 years ago, 23-Aug-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
15 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
|
|
|
|
