**FIRST EMAIL**/Future of FRC - Sneak Peek [Archive]

View Full Version : **FIRST EMAIL**/Future of FRC - Sneak Peek

Beth Sweet

14-04-2008, 12:30

I'm actually kind of excited to see what this is...

----------------------------------------------

Greetings Teams:

Dean Kamen will be giving teams an exciting sneak peek of the future of FRC this Thursday, April 17th during the Championship. On Wednesday, we’ll send out an email with the time and location where teams traveling to Atlanta should gather for this announcement. We’ll also include the website address where teams not attending the Championship can watch a video of the Sneak Peek and find links to more information.

Go Teams!

--
FIRST Robotics Competition

(p) 1-800-871-8326 x 0
(f) 603-666-3907
frcteams@usfirst.org
www.usfirst.org
*

Joe Matt

14-04-2008, 12:33

As I said before, I bet Woodie/Dean would stand up at Champs this year and show everyone the new FIRST RC.

Hopefully it's not during the web hug/too late at night.

This does give us something to talk about on FIRSTcast though. :]

Boydean

14-04-2008, 12:33

Oh, its on!

Billfred

14-04-2008, 12:36

I wonder if we're going back to tethered robots...

Elgin Clock

14-04-2008, 12:44

Greetings Teams:

....On Wednesday, we’ll send out an email with the time and location where teams traveling to Atlanta should gather for this announcement...

Greaaat... the busiest travel day for most teams.
Awesome timing. :rolleyes:

Guess I'll be checking mobile web, or having people who are staying home keep an eye out for that announcement here, and linkin' me up.

Tom Bottiglieri

14-04-2008, 12:44

Guy Davidson

14-04-2008, 12:57

I can't wait to see it! This will probably be very, very exciting.

gam3fr3ak1

14-04-2008, 13:16

water game?!?!?! =D

Drew Hopman

14-04-2008, 13:19

water game?!?!?! =D

Ha....everyone knows its gonna be on ice next year.

Tottanka

14-04-2008, 13:20

it must be the new RC!
yea! are you ready to rumble?!

T3_1565

14-04-2008, 13:29

The essential information packet stated the following

Sneak Peak
-Curie Field
-Thursday 9 to 9:25am

Sneak Peak Team Training
-Room C102 Thursday and Friday
-Various times

Sneak Peak Mentor Training
-Room C102 Thursday
-6pm

Sneak Peak Demonstrations
-Practice Fields Thursday Friday Saturday
-Various times

where did you get this info, if you don't mind me asking, because if it's the new RC everyone is talking about, why woulds teams and mentors need to be trained on it now?? and demos of it all weekend?? I would think that the new RC won't be that fantastic to show off Demos (how would you demo this, sure put it on a robot, "yay robot runs!" *end of demo* lol :ahh: ) all weekend!

Brandon Holley

14-04-2008, 13:32

sounds awesome...cant wait to check it out

Billfred

14-04-2008, 13:36

where did you get this info, if you don't mind me asking, because if it's the new RC everyone is talking about, why woulds teams and mentors need to be trained on it now?? and demos of it all weekend?? I would think that the new RC won't be that fantastic to show off Demos (how would you demo this, sure put it on a robot, "yay robot runs!" *end of demo* lol :ahh: ) all weekend!

The info was on the Championship event information file--it's a 10-page or so PDF.

I could see the demos of a new RC based more around the technologies the system either enables or simplifies for teams. The training would be akin to teams receiving The Device Formerly Known As Edubot in advance of the 2004 season when the IFI controllers moved from BASIC to C, though I hope teams will have more of a chance to get familiar with it before January.

Greg Needel

14-04-2008, 13:53

I would also venture a guess to say that we will be seeing a preview of how the new KOP will work. Based on the survey they sent out a while ago and some communications I believe that could be as big of a change as the control system.

JimWright949

14-04-2008, 16:32

Ha....everyone knows its gonna be on ice next year.

Oh no no no. Think about this... Overdrive played with four Alliances of two robots each. Go go green alliance!

The third robot on the field was introduced one year after the last RC change we may be seeing four soon. For the Seattle Regional that would mean every robot in the queue or on the field at the same time. Just something to think about.

-Jim

Qbranch

14-04-2008, 16:48

Oh no... are there matches running during this time? :confused:

-q

whytheheckme

14-04-2008, 16:50

OoOoOoOoOoOoOoO I'm so excited!!!!!!!! :D :D :D

NEW RC DEMOS!!!!!!

dtengineering

14-04-2008, 17:36

The big surprise will come when we find the FTC and FRC controllers are the exact same thing. :yikes:

I have no inside information on that, by the way... but why not? (It is now, kinda...)

As Greg points out, with FIRST apparently severing relations with IFI :( there will likely be other KOP changes as well. The kitbot frame is one example.

Jason

P.S. My apologies... I don't think I've ever used TWO smileys in a post before! :ahh:

DonRotolo

14-04-2008, 17:40

Daniel_LaFleur

14-04-2008, 17:45

what can you do with a 11 Mb/s data stream for example?

.

On board video feeds?

dtengineering

14-04-2008, 17:48

- what can you do with a 11 Mb/s data stream for example?

Well, I know that I could crash the robot into a large object with even greater precision... but if you mean what could the kids do with it... yeah, they'd probably accomplish something creative and useful!

Of course if the data stream accomodated video... then there are all sorts of possibilities. Auto/hybrid could be replaced by "remotely operated" mode, where the drivers can't see the field, only a monitor.

Jason

JamesBrown

14-04-2008, 17:48

I also think we'll be seeing the new RC.

And, I predict*, its capabilities will wow the crowd. Care to speculate?
802.11 wireless - what can you do with a 11 Mb/s data stream for example?

Don

*Apologies to Looking Forward.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66020&highlight=new+control+system
There is a little speculation for you.

I am hoping that the sneak preview is the new control system/KOP but there is no guarantee.

As long as the new control system is something fairly powerful and still comparable to what is used in industry (ie not lego mindstorms) and it can be programmed in a fairly standard language I will be satisfied.

As a side note (and most likely unrelated) Dean has been very interested in robotic blimps, there will be atleast 2 different ones on display this year in ATL

Peter Matteson

14-04-2008, 17:55

Tottanka

14-04-2008, 17:56

Maybe Dean is going to present his infamous prosthetic arm?

fredliu168

14-04-2008, 18:18

I'm betting on 2 alliances of 4v4, with a larger field.

T3_1565

14-04-2008, 18:34

I'm betting on 2 alliances of 4v4, with a larger field.

and 4 balls each?!?! that would be nuts lmao!!:ahh: :ahh: :yikes:

Tom Bottiglieri

14-04-2008, 18:40

IFI has that patented so it's pretty much out of the question.
They patented a standard?

maxican

14-04-2008, 18:57

hopefully it has a wireless programing setup.

Dave Flowerday

14-04-2008, 18:59

And, I predict*, its capabilities will wow the crowd. Care to speculate?
802.11 wireless - what can you do with a 11 Mb/s data stream for example?
Keep in mind 11Mb/s would have to be shared with a number of robots. Given that 802.11b/g only has 3 non-overlapping channels (and given that most venues will be using at least one of these channels, many will use more), you're talking about having to share a single wireless channel with all the robots at an event.

There would be lots of complications with such an approach, and I hope if that's what FIRST has chosen that they've thought through them all. What's to prevent one team from stealing all the bandwidth and disabling all the other robots?

Oh, and if they do choose 802.11b/g, you'll probably never be allowed to use any kind of WiFi at a competition again! Goodbye wireless scouting networks, free WiFi for teams, etc...

Peter Matteson

14-04-2008, 19:08

They patented a standard?

No they patented the use of 802.11 as a means of controlling robots. It was in a press release during build season.

Alan Anderson

14-04-2008, 19:50

Oh, and if they do choose 802.11b/g, you'll probably never be allowed to use any kind of WiFi at a competition again! Goodbye wireless scouting networks, free WiFi for teams, etc...

Already done. See the last page of the Essential Event Information (http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Community/FRC/Events/2008/Championship/08%20Essential%20Information%20Page%20-%20%20CMP%20.pdf) document.
Wireless Networks
Teams will not be allowed to set up their own wireless networks at the Championship. While we certainly appreciate the positive potential team-created wireless networks could represent, there is a chance such wireless networks could interfere with planned activities during the event.

(It might not be 802.11b/g/n Wi-Fi. It could be 802.15.4 Zigbee, also at 2.4 GHz.)

Dave Flowerday

14-04-2008, 19:55

Already done. See the last page of the Essential Event Information (http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Community/FRC/Events/2008/Championship/08%20Essential%20Information%20Page%20-%20%20CMP%20.pdf) document.
Right, what I meant was that ban will probably be extended to include ALL FRC events in the future.

And then, if they find out that 2.4GHz is more of a RF wasteland than they originally anticipated, they might have to start banning Bluetooth headsets, laptops, etc. from events as well. They may have to ask venues to shut down any WiFi in the arenas as well.

Greg Marra

14-04-2008, 20:24

No they patented the use of 802.11 as a means of controlling robots. It was in a press release during build season.

I did a quick Google patent search and couldn't find it. I did find that Dean Kamen applied to patent the 2003 game (http://www.google.com/patents?id=qQWWAAAAEBAJ&dq=%22innovation+first%22), though.

Whoops, that is 2003.

Corey Balint

14-04-2008, 20:28

Joe J.

14-04-2008, 20:28

fimmel

14-04-2008, 20:32

i certainly hope they will not use the 2.4ghz spectrum. why not use 5.8ghz? thats used by 802.11a its not widely used with many communication devices and it would not cause tons of headaches for people with b/g/n wifi networks. remember there is the public that attends these events and some may have wireless devices (bluetooth wifi etc) and it would be hard to enforce having everyone not use wireless. then theres robot demos, parades etc. (can you imagine not being able to demo your robot in an area with wireless internet? of course they could just build some failsafes into the wireless communication (possibly adaptive frequency hopping) now that may make it so our robots could co exist with everyone.

just my opinion

...forest

Tom Line

14-04-2008, 20:55

There are already a lot of of devices out there that use the 802.11 wireless spectrum but do not necessarily use the same channel set up.

Remember, that's the 2.4 gHz band. For instance:

http://www.spektrumrc.com/

Just because they use the same BAND doesn't mean that have to use the same format or frequencies. The spektrum system can have as many as 40 radios acting at the same time - and each radio uses 2 digital "channels" - even their 6 and 12 channel systems only use 2 digital channels.....

Heck, all we have now is 900 Mhz radio modems.

These radios from spektrumrc are used for jets, prop-planes, helicopters, and sailboats, all on the same fields with wireless networks etc etc etc. It's not an issue. It's all in the encoding. Futaba uses the same frequencies for their setup but they employ frequency hopping. Please understand - 2.4 gHz band does not need to mean noisey and dropped connections - it just happens that home networks are set up that way.

Joe Ross

14-04-2008, 21:09

No they patented the use of 802.11 as a means of controlling robots. It was in a press release during build season.

Here is a link to the press release: http://www.vexrobotics.com/docs/VEX-Mini-and-802.11.pdf

Patents 6674259, 7193384, and 7330776 cover the current control system, so it's not surprising that IFI would patent the new system.

dtengineering

14-04-2008, 21:36

I did a quick Google patent search and couldn't find it. I did find that Dean Kamen applied to patent the 2004 game (http://www.google.com/patents?id=qQWWAAAAEBAJ&dq=%22innovation+first%22), though.

I showed this patent application to my wife, who happens to write patents professionally, and she pulled up this file showing the "prosecution history". (It is publicly available from uspto.gov but you have to know how to get into PAIR and what to look for.) To summarize, all the original claims have been modified, new claims have been written and the process continues.

While my wife, as a Canadian, refrains from offering opinions on American patents or laws, she does offer one comment on this file. "This," she says, "is one EXPENSIVE file." At least, that is, assuming that normal legal fees are being charged. Dean must really want this patent.

Jason

04-11-2008 Pre-Brief Appeal Conference decision 2
03-07-2008 Pre-Brief Conference request 7
03-07-2008 Status Letter Mailed to Applicant 2
03-07-2008 Transmittal to TC 1
02-28-2008 Notice of Appeal Filed 2
02-28-2008 Fee Worksheet (PTO-06) 2
02-28-2008 Status Letter Mailed to Applicant 2
11-29-2007 Non-Final Rejection 4
11-29-2007 Index of Claims 1
11-29-2007 Search information including classification, databases and other search related notes 1
10-12-2007 Request for Continued Examination (RCE) 3
10-12-2007 Transmittal to TC 2
10-12-2007 Amendment Submitted/Entered with Filing of CPA/RCE 1
10-12-2007 Claims 2
10-12-2007 Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment 7
10-12-2007 Fee Worksheet (PTO-06) 2
10-12-2007 Status Letter Mailed to Applicant 2
10-12-2007 Fee Worksheet (PTO-06) 1
08-14-2007 Final Rejection 6
08-14-2007 Bibliographic Data Sheet 1
08-14-2007 Index of Claims 1
08-14-2007 Search information including classification, databases and other search related notes 1
07-30-2007 Fee Worksheet (PTO-06) 1
07-09-2007 Amendment - After Non-Final Rejection 1
07-09-2007 Specification 1
07-09-2007 Claims 2
07-09-2007 Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment 6
07-09-2007 Claims 1
07-09-2007 Status Letter Mailed to Applicant 2
07-09-2007 Transmittal to TC 2
05-15-2007 Non-Final Rejection 5
05-15-2007 List of references cited by examiner 1
05-15-2007 Index of Claims 1
05-15-2007 Search information including classification, databases and other search related notes 1
05-15-2007 Bibliographic Data Sheet 1
04-17-2007 Examiner Interview Summary Record (PTOL - 413) 4
04-17-2007 Bibliographic Data Sheet 1
04-12-2007 Fee Worksheet (PTO-06) 1
04-12-2007 Index of Claims 1
04-05-2007 Amendment - After Non-Final Rejection 1
04-05-2007 Claims 2
04-05-2007 Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment 5
04-05-2007 Status Letter Mailed to Applicant 2
04-05-2007 Transmittal to TC 2
03-20-2007 Non-Final Rejection 4
03-20-2007 List of references cited by examiner 1
03-20-2007 NPL Documents 17
03-20-2007 Bibliographic Data Sheet 1
03-20-2007 Index of Claims 1
03-20-2007 Search information including classification, databases and other search related notes 1
01-19-2007 Request for Continued Examination (RCE) 3
01-19-2007 Fee Worksheet (PTO-06) 2
01-19-2007 Status Letter Mailed to Applicant 2
01-19-2007 Amendment Submitted/Entered with Filing of CPA/RCE 1
01-19-2007 Claims 3
01-19-2007 Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment 5
01-19-2007 Claims 1
01-19-2007 Fee Worksheet (PTO-06) 1
12-15-2006 Final Rejection 5
12-15-2006 Bibliographic Data Sheet 1
12-15-2006 Index of Claims 1
12-15-2006 Search information including classification, databases and other search related notes 1
10-13-2006 Notice of Change of Address placed in File Wrapper due to EBC Customer Number update 1
09-26-2006 Amendment - After Non-Final Rejection 2
09-26-2006 Claims 2
09-26-2006 Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment 3
09-26-2006 Fee Worksheet (PTO-06) 1
08-14-2006 Examiner Interview Summary Record (PTOL - 413) 3
06-27-2006 Non-Final Rejection 5
06-27-2006 Search information including classification, databases and other search related notes 1
06-27-2006 Index of Claims 1
06-27-2006 Bibliographic Data Sheet 1
04-12-2006 Communication - Re: Power of Attorney (PTOL-308) 1
04-07-2006 Supplemental Response or Supplemental Amendment 4
04-07-2006 Specification 1
04-07-2006 Claims 4
04-07-2006 Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment 1
04-06-2006 Power of Attorney 3
04-05-2006 Request for Continued Examination (RCE) 6
04-05-2006 Claims 3
04-05-2006 Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment 2
04-05-2006 Fee Worksheet (PTO-06) 1
11-08-2005 Final Rejection 5
11-08-2005 Bibliographic Data Sheet 1
11-08-2005 Index of Claims 1
11-08-2005 Search information including classification, databases and other search related notes 1
09-12-2005 Amendment - After Non-Final Rejection 1
09-12-2005 Claims 1
09-12-2005 Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment 3
09-12-2005 Fee Worksheet (PTO-06) 1
03-08-2005 Non-Final Rejection 7
03-08-2005 List of references cited by examiner 1
03-08-2005 Search information including classification, databases and other search related notes 1
03-08-2005 Index of Claims 1
03-08-2005 Bibliographic Data Sheet 1
01-03-2004 Transmittal of New Application 3
01-03-2004 Specification 24
01-03-2004 Claims 1
01-03-2004 Abstract 1
01-03-2004 Drawings-only black and white line drawings 3
01-03-2004 Oath or Declaration filed 1
01-03-2004 Application Data Sheet 1
01-03-2004 Fee Worksheet (PTO-06) 1
01-03-2004 Fee Worksheet (PTO-06) 1

lukevanoort

14-04-2008, 21:43

I wonder how you can get a "Final" rejection three times on the same patent...

EricVanWyk

14-04-2008, 22:40

I wonder how you can get a "Final" rejection three times on the same patent...

I know a guy who worked for a guy who would apply for patents that he knew would fail, just to be able to put "patent pending" on his products. Apparently it takes a few years to get rejected, so he considered the recurring application fee to be part of the advertising budget.

As a side note, 802.11n occupies spectrum in both the 2.4 and 5 GHz regions.

fimmel

14-04-2008, 22:42

As a side note, 802.11n occupies spectrum in both the 2.4 and 5 GHz regions.

right... i forgot that it was dual band
i stand corrected

...forest

BornaE

14-04-2008, 22:47

How can they patent that, a 802.11 rs-422 radio with the current RC would work.

chaoticprout

15-04-2008, 01:45

My only hope is that it's not NXT based.

JeffJ

15-04-2008, 02:22

Based on the troubling info we're learning about the FTC platform and questionable deals with Lego, it's starting to look like FIRST is selling all it's programs as markets to big companies. So if the rumors are true, I would guess Lego and their partners, Pitsco and Robolab will somehow have something to do with the new FRC system. If they're giving FLL and FTC away to companies as for-profit marketing springboards, they might as well throw FRC in. I would think having access to kids from elementary school through high school would be very appealing to companies wanting to control markets with as little or no competition as possible.
I guess I'm joking, I hope, since there's really no way for Lego, NXT or Robolab to be part of FRC. But nothing would really surprise with FIRST right now.

T3_1565

15-04-2008, 09:48

I hope its not NXT based as well... I kinda like the RC the way it is! If it ends up being like Lego Mindstorm I'm going to be angry:mad:

Although I highly doubt they would do that to us...:D

I'M AFRAID OF CHANGE!!! DON'T DO IT!!!:yikes:

whytheheckme

15-04-2008, 11:45

I really wouldn't mind change, as long as the new interface is highly customizable. Lots of inputs and outputs, of all kinds, and lots of onboard features. Language doesn't bother me too much.

In my mind, the current RC seems quite outdated. It looks the same as it did in 2001. Wireless, deployable sensor capabilities (bluetooth), direct support for Serial and USB devices, and higher bandwidth inputs and outputs are all things that are here and now, and would be a great teaching utility, not to mention it'd open lots of opportunities. Having the bandwidth of 802.xx and allowing for video feeds, off-board processing, real-time 3D modeling, etc, would be AWESOME, and really would not cost that much. If the price of the KOP had to go up $500 or $1000 for a super-advanced control system, I think it would be well worth the cost.

Jacob

JesseK

15-04-2008, 12:31

If the price of the KOP had to go up $500 or $1000 for a super-advanced control system, I think it would be well worth the cost.

Jacob

I disagree. There should be better technology at a lower cost for larger volumes of processing than there was a few years ago. Hence, there should be almost no reason for the KOP cost to go up just because a new RC has a few more widgets. We've already figured out some pretty advanced things to do for control of an FRC bot with a simple processor. Aside from 80-dimension closed-loop control systems whose backend processing most students can't comprehend until a couple of years into college, what else is there to do with an RC? There are only so many ways to tell a machine to move.

I know I exaggerated a bit, but NASA put a man on the moon with less processing than some FRC bots. Think about that for a minute.

Adam Y.

15-04-2008, 12:38

I disagree. There should be better technology at a lower cost for larger volumes of processing than there was a few years ago. Hence, there should be almost no reason for the KOP cost to go up just because a new RC has a few more widgets.
The increase in cost would be from making sure the thing works not the processing power. NASA puts stuff into space all the time with processing power less than computers from the mid 1990's and yet those processors cost more than your entire networth. Of course NASA is a really bad example of the cost inflation because getting electronics to work in space is not trivial.I guess I'm joking, I hope, since there's really no way for Lego, NXT or Robolab to be part of FRC. But nothing would really surprise with FIRST right now.
Why though? If done correctly you could theoretically come out with a great program. Out of the four kits the controller using the most advanced processor is the NXT.

whytheheckme

15-04-2008, 13:09

I disagree. There should be better technology at a lower cost for larger volumes of processing than there was a few years ago. Hence, there should be almost no reason for the KOP cost to go up just because a new RC has a few more widgets. We've already figured out some pretty advanced things to do for control of an FRC bot with a simple processor. Aside from 80-dimension closed-loop control systems whose backend processing most students can't comprehend until a couple of years into college, what else is there to do with an RC? There are only so many ways to tell a machine to move.

I know I exaggerated a bit, but NASA put a man on the moon with less processing than some FRC bots. Think about that for a minute.

I guess I was talking about packaging costs. For instance, the IFI RC currently uses the PIC18F8722 (http://www.ifirobotics.com/rc.shtml), which costs $8.36 apiece (bulk) from Digikey (http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Cat=2556109;keywords=PIC18F8722). The reason that the RC costs $449.95 from IFI is all of the design and testing costs and packaging costs associated with making the product.

Designing an interface with all of the features that I mentioned, plus more, would have huge overhead. Because the FIRST market is limited, the cost per unit would be high. Seeing as the Lego® NXT system is $250 (http://shop.lego.com/Product/?p=8527), assuming worst case scenario that the controller only is $150 dollars of that cost, that is still really expensive for something with such a broad market. Imagine if something of similar or greater complexity was designed for a market of 2000 units per year, instead of hundreds of thousands of units per year. Instead of $150 per unit, the cost could easily be near $1000 per unit, compared to the current RC, which is $449.95.

Could they build it for 450 bux a unit? Yeah. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't mind paying more for the features. If 200 bux meant the ability for use of bluetooth devices onboard, increased wireless bandwidth, and a USB controller, that's the best 200 dollars that our team has ever spent.

Jacob

Racer26

15-04-2008, 13:14

Corey Balint

15-04-2008, 13:17

I'm going to venture out on a limb and suggest that IFI would have a VERY hard time trying to make a patent on 802.11 as a means of controlling robots enforceable. It depends entirely upon your definition of a robot, and anyone else doing it, could simply say it was communicating to another computer (RC is a computer, which controls the robot). Problem solved.

I think IFI, if they wanted to, would have been smart enough to make it more specific and figure out any loopholes that they might have in their patent application.
If they wanted to block out FIRST from using the technology they helped develop/produce, I'm sure they would have taken every necessary step and made sure everything was very in depth in description.

Brandon Holley

15-04-2008, 13:41

I'm going to venture out on a limb and suggest that IFI would have a VERY hard time trying to make a patent on 802.11 as a means of controlling robots enforceable. It depends entirely upon your definition of a robot, and anyone else doing it, could simply say it was communicating to another computer (RC is a computer, which controls the robot). Problem solved.

Patents are pretty complicated documents. I have my name on a couple, and it confused the heck out of me the few times I was involved. There is a lot of room in the patent to cover up the "loopholes", not to say that there aren't any, but it appears that IFI has 3 patents on this kind of thing, so I am willing to bet they have a lot of those holes covered up.