suppose not but couldn't you get a picaxe controler to activate servo switches that control the various actuators. ie push stick forward, code in picaxe chip


activates servo1 for 2 seconds,deactivate ,activate servo2, servo2 active for 2second,deactivate,servo1 active in opposite direction for 2 seconds,deactivate,servo2 active in opposite direction,deactivate goto line one and start over again.

only problem is if you wanted to stop quickly or turn you couldn't because it would need to run the course of the code to beable to walk with out triping on its face

would the picaxs be capable to do this kind of codeing or is this to advanced for them?
_________________
For West ausies interested in robotics email me at: theoneshrug@hotmail.com
OR
dragoonarie@gmail.com
best quote ever:: "Those Gas-Turbine style warehouse heaters arent illegal, and neither is remote controlling one as far as I know."

I finally asked the question about what the rules actually mean on the RFL forum and that is the first time I've seen Judge Dave use bold lettering in a post. I didn't realise my question made me sound stupid.

My question

quote:

---

But about your rule changes. There have been many arguments here because none of use can figure out what the rules mean. There is one group who say to be a walker it just need something other then wheels or tracks, making decent shufflers ok, while others are saying you are not aloud any rotating parts at all in the drive, limiting to hydraulic or pneumatic. Its simalar to the arguments about aeroplanes and convayors on this forum. The wording just makes us more confused and causes arguments.

---

quote:

---

Both groups are incorrect. The wording will be improved to reduce (and hopefully eliminate) eliminate confusion, but in the mean time let's review what it actually says in the current draft:

3.1.2.
Non-wheeled (non-wheeled drive trains with no uninterrupted rolling or cam operated motion in contact with the floor, either directly or via a linkage).


So, what do we have here?

Non-wheeled , so wheels are right out.
no uninterrupted rolling or cam-operated motion in contact with the floor either directly or via a linkage.

" Uninterrupted " is the magic word. Cams, tracks, and shuffle mechanisms driven by a continuous rotary motion are out , no matter how clever the linkage. The motion is continuous if the motor can continue turning in the same directoin to produce motion in a single direction. Simply stopping the motor periodically doesn't qualify.

Electric motors powering mechanisms that must stop and reverse direction to accomplish controlled movement are ok. So servo-powered legs, electric actuators, electric-powered lift-and-slide mechanisms, etc. are all OK.

Mechanisms in which the rotary motion is not transferred directly to the floor are fine, too - like gyroscopic precession, compressor-powered pneumatics, etc.

---

Sorry, I didnt mean that the current RFL rules required you to not have any rotating parts..

Just that in my opinion (theres those bold letters again , a walker ought not to have any rotating parts in, since the whole point of walking is to reproduce a biological motion, and the reason biology uses recpiprocation rather than rotation is rotation is hard to do with biological systems.

Theres still the issue that a piece of software reversing the direction of a rotational motor is *in principle* no different to a mechanical camshaft, its just hidden in the electron sized mechanisms, but they'll probably throw rocks at you if you point that out.

When you get down to it, if you build a walker that looks cool and is a genuine attempt at walking, and not just an attempt to exploit the rules to gain a weight bonus for extra weapons or armour with a thinly disguised camshaft, then an EO will probably ask the other competitors if they would like it to compete (i would) .

If its something like Mechadon, the answer would most likely be yes, if it was Son of Whyachi, the answer would probably be no. Thats why its always left up to the EO.
_________________
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people

I dunno about anyone else, but to me the RFL dude's
following comment makes sense to me.

quote:

---

Electric motors powering mechanisms that must stop and reverse direction to accomplish controlled movement are ok. So servo-powered legs, electric actuators, electric-powered lift-and-slide mechanisms, etc. are all OK.

---

In my opinion I think you have it a bit wrong.
No one is saying that if u use an electric motor then its not allowed to turn, thats ridiculous.
You are missing a major element in their wording and thats (Electric motors powering mechanisms) Its the mechanism thats the key not the motor.
They also clearly state electric actuators are OK so how can u have a threaded rod that u are not allowed to travel past the first thread. Makes no sense.

Mechadons legs are powered using actuators which are powered by electric motors turning. I am pretty confident to say that each of the motors in its leg would be spiining a complete revolution if u take into account a gear ratio of about 30:1, think about that for a moment. The motor shaft spins 30 time to the gearbox shaft spinning once.

The complete rotation bit is to eliminate people useing a cam.
The cam is the illegal mechanism not the motor.
Motors are allowed to turn, thats their purpose but if u where to attach a cam directly to the output shaft of a motor then it would be illegal as then the motor does not have to change directions for the robot to go in a straight line and it becaomes an uninterupted sequence which is banned.

The cam is a seperate mechanical component and does not move on its own.
It still needs something to power it so lets stop blaming the poor dc motor for what the nasty cam has been up to.

You have questioned the motor and then mentioned micro controllers but u have left out all the stuff in between, which is the area the rules are talking about..

It is not impossible to make a walker that does not have micro processors.
Thats the challenge of it.

THats just my 2O cents worth.
_________________
Bots that do not destroy you, only make you stronger.

I think a threaded rod type actuator would be aceptable as it does have to recripacate to shift the atached component fowards or backwards .the lenght of the rod can basicy be simulated to 180 degres if you atached a rod and a crank shaft mech to demonstrate the action you could get 360 dergress if the crank went over center so my guese is a worm drive could be used as an actuator as it can push and pull a component ..it wouldbea bit of a waste of energy and weight to get a linear actuator to move a component in a full arc when the motor powering it could do thesame thing much easier .

The wording of the rule has been revised for those of us who need bold letters.

quote:

---

3.1.2 Non-wheeled: non-wheeled robots have no rolling elements in contact with the floor and no continuous rolling or cam operated motion in contact with the floor, either directly or via a linkage. Motion is “continuous” if continuous operation of the drive motor(s) produces continuous linear motion of the robot. Linear-actuated legs and novel non-wheeled drive systems may qualify for this bonus.
[Contact this event with questions on weight bonuses to see if your robot may qualify. Robots are classified as "non-wheeled" at the sole discretion of the Event Organizer, and are not subject to appeal.
]

---

That reminds me of an altercation between one of us other "trouble making" aussies and a certain organisation

I guess the problem with Robot Wars, is that so many of the wanna-be builders are young boys with very few social graces and a habit of asking annoying questions, that EO's, Admins and other people get a bit tetchy after a while, since they have to field them so often..

Especially on touchy subjects like weight bonuses Don your Asbestos Undies before asking questions on those type of subjects.
_________________
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people

Okay. I've sat back long enough in this walker debate... Time to throw my $10 worth in...

Problem1: People with wheel robots don't want walkers getting weight bonuses, because they are scared they will get beaten too much.

Problem2: People look at the 'possible' weight bonus and look at how they can cheat the rules to get more weight into there big assed weapon. (Son of Whyachi! GUILTY! Anarchy, not guilty)

Problem3: People don't understand legs properly

I'm gonna stray all over this topic, so plug your seat belts in. First thing I remember was the huge 'eternal walker' debate at the NSW Annihilator 2004 on the Saturday night. People were saying you need 3 DOF legs and actuators and fuzzy logic microprocessors.

I decided to look at things from another angle. For something to walk, it needs legs. Now. What is a leg? It has a several joints (Hip, Knee Ankle) and supporting structure between those joints? WRONG! The definition in the dictionary for a Leg is as follows:

quote:

---

Leg

n 1: a human limb; commonly used to refer to a whole limb but technically only the part between the knee and ankle 2: a structure in animals that is similar to a human leg and used for locomotion 3: one of the supports for a piece of furniture

---

quote:

---

Just that in my opinion (theres those bold letters again , a walker ought not to have any rotating parts in, since the whole point of walking is to reproduce a biological motion, and the reason biology uses recpiprocation rather than rotation is rotation is hard to do with biological systems.

---

Because you want a weight bonus for *your* type of machine so you dont have to play by the same rules everyone else does.

Can I ask for extra weight for a spinner, because a reliable spinner is so hard to do ? Some extra heavy duty bearings would help stop things from breaking against those evil bricks you know.

How about an actuated arm ? thats much more complex than a spinning disc, surely it deserves a weight bonus ? Tracks are much harder to do, so they must deserve one too.. Perhaps a bonus for anyone using lead acid batteries ? Oh, and titanium is expensive you know, people who use just steel should get a bonus too..

See, the "I did something special, I deserve an exemption" game is very hard to draw a line and see "the bonus stops here", which is why its such a contentious issue. If everyone agreed to play by the same rules, there would be no problem. You want a bonus, you have to justify it.

The biological issue is just me asking *why* people think legs are cooler than wheels, when wheels are so obviously the right solution for environment.
_________________
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people

Legs are cooler than wheels because they are different and not seen much.

Plus there is the respect factor for building something that is harder to do, much like George and his tracks, I think they are very very cool even if they might not be the best option for our smooth flat floored combat (though with lots of rubber that remains to be seen!)

Its always good to see someone try something new or different, whether or not it turns out to be more effective.

maybe in an alternate dimension there is all of us arguing over a "wheels bonus" as all the robots are legged!

I agree that legs are cool, which is why there is an exemption clause for the EO to make an exception for someone who has genuinely done somthing cool.

Putting it in writing however enables people seeking a competitive advantage to violate the spirit of the rule, while still adhering to the letter of them.

Like I said before, show any EO plans for something that looks and works cool and they will find a way to justify it competing, and the other builders probably wont object. Especially if you can show that you need the extra weight *purely* for the drive system.

Build something that is an obvious attempt to gain yourself some extra kilos for weapons or armour, and despite what the rules say you will get shown the door..

If tracks really did offer more traction, dont you think Nitro Dragsters would be using them ? They dont even need to go around corners, and have to put 5000+ hp to the ground through a square meter or two, and they still use wheels.
_________________
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people

Well, I think robots are a little different to a dragster.

we can easily spin our robot wheels when pushing another bot, so if you can build a track that lets you have enough traction to stall the motor then you are getting more power to the ground.

A dragster doesnt have to push against another dragster at near stall motor conditions

Interestingly things that do, such as a bulldozer etc often use tracks. (though there is a variety of other bonus's for the tracks then)

Personally for a robot i would be inclined to use wheels with greater surface area, like Glen bolting two red bunnings wheels side by side, but tracks are cool looking and make a robot fun to drive around outside

quote:

---

Because you want a weight bonus for *your* type of machine so you dont have to play by the same rules everyone else does.

---

I dont think there is any way to make a walker competitive with a weight bonus anyway.

Battlebots offered a 50% weight bonus, and one of the best builders in the sport couldnt even win a match with it. Other than shuffle-bots, there is no way to build a leg that is going to survive a high speed ram from a machine weighing even half what the walker does.

Double the mass and you double the energy.. double the speed and you have 4x the energy. No walker is ever going to move as fast as a wheeled bot on a flat floor, so how is a walkers leg supposed to handle a machine carrying that much more KE smashing into it ? What walker would survive even a few moments in an arena with any half decent rammer ?

The only sort of "leg" that is going to survive that *isnt* going to look like a leg.

The only thing that makes sense to me is a walker only class, or an environment that benefits walkers.
_________________
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people