|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spockie-Tech
Site Admin
Joined: 31 May 2004
Posts: 3160
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
Making rules to encourage walkers will never work until there is an advantage to actually having one in the arena.
Either that, or you run a "Walkers only - *NO* rotating parts allowed" class, which would be interesting technically, but probably boring to watch.
Its interesting that Nature never came up with the biological equivalent of the wheel, but I suppose organic slip rings, brushes and bearings would be kind of hard to do.
So, who thinks they can build an interesting combat machine with *no* rotating parts (including motors !) allowed ?
You would have to use air muscles, muscle wires, voice-coils and the equivalent
Anything else is just a well-disguised camshaft. _________________ Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people
|
Mon Nov 28, 2005 9:42 pm |
|
|
|
|
Spockie-Tech
Site Admin
Joined: 31 May 2004
Posts: 3160
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
I agree, but I put it that way because I remembered a discussion Gary and I had..
In what way is a microprocessor driving a rotational motor backwards and forwards (powering a leadscrew or other conventional Linac) to drive a "real walker" leg, fundamentally any different to a camshaft ?
Its just effectively an invisible "software" camshaft. No different in principle to a cam shaped chunk of metal, except that its made of binary bits instead of steel.
If you are starting out with rotational energy from a conventional motor, it has to be converted into linear motion somewhere along the way by a cam-like device.
If people want to insist on bonuses for walkers over wheels, you either say fine, if you want the bonus, you can't have *any* wheels in your design !
Or you allow camshafts of some nature
Or you get caught in endless technicalities over what constitues a well-hidden enough camshaft, then you keep having to move the goalposts according to how clever the designer is at making a actuator that blurs the line between walking and wheels.
As has happened with nearly every attempt to pin down walkers through rules.
The biological thought was just inspired that we're trying to force-fit a non-rotating biological style output device (reciprocating legs) onto a mechanical style rotational energy source. _________________ Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people
|
Mon Nov 28, 2005 10:35 pm |
|
|
Nexus
Experienced Roboteer
Joined: 17 Jun 2004
Posts: 903
|
Have to agree with the Kheeroos, I dont think the issue is rotating parts either its more banning cams because lets face it, theres a lot of people trying to exploit the rules to gain an unfair advantage.
The whole point is to encourage innovation not to build a hugely succesful winning machine.
Can anyone say Setrakian has wasted his time or does anyone think he really cares if he wins or loses with his walking robots, he didnt build them for that and am pretty sure he gets a buzz just controlling them.
Has anyone been bored watching his robots either, doubt it.
It still sounds like all u need is to get 2 DOF on each leg and it will be a walker. Simply copy the actions of a lizards leg for example.
Having 2 DOF means the cycle is interrupted between each DOF which conforms exactly to the definition.
example
Lift leg, move it forward, bring it down, pull it back. and repeat
2 linear actuators per leg, simple as that.
That is an interupted sequence that does not follow a circle which makes it a walker.
That same sequence can be misinterpreted as a shuffler if u choose to ignore the fact the lifting up and down is completely independant of the moving forward or back. Thats probably what confuses people.
Am sure people will disgaree but its the same thing I have been saying for ages and the new definition still supports that. The definition still seems rather clear to me.
They even clearly state, linear actuated legs qualify.
One way to break a circular sequence is to split it over 2 Degrees of Freedom, then it is not circular or cammed. It then has 2 independant pivot points, not on the same plane.
Obviously electronics are required but by definition walking is mechanical even though you need a brain to do it. _________________ Bots that do not destroy you, only make you stronger.
|
Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:35 pm |
|
|
|
Spockie-Tech
Site Admin
Joined: 31 May 2004
Posts: 3160
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
Yes, but nobody likes the "2 indepent Degrees of Freedom" idea, because it blows all the mechanical cam drive legs out of the running and requires multiple advanced servo-feedback speed controllers with a microprocessor brain to pull it off.. = Expensive.
Competitors seem to want bumpy wheels, or wheels with sticks attached to qualify as walkers so they can stick with their IBC's/Victors/Whatever.
I dont think any wheels vs legs battle is ever going to be fought on an even keel, since there arent many legs that will tolerate a wheeled mass hitting them at high speed and still keep walking.
And why bother with legs when the floor is flat ? Wheels are the perfect solution for a flat floor.. Traction, steering control, robust, fast and energy efficient.
To make having legs an advantage rather than a handicap, the terrain needs to reward legged bots, and even then, a tracked bot would probably do better.
Someone talked about an "anthropomorphic class" (did we already discuss that ?). Bots that have to use recogniseable form of animal motovation. Interesting idea, but probably not achievable by your average builder. _________________ Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people
|
Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:21 am |
|
|
|