![]() |
paper: Modular Sub-Processing
|
Re: paper: Modular Sub-Processing
The setup described in the paper is interesting, but seems to violate custom circuit rule R59 (2006 rules) which says that custom circuits may not "Directly affect any output devices on the robot, such as ... supplying a PWM signal to a speed controller..."
We had a custom circuit (PIC) to monitor the rotational speeds of the ball shooter motors, but the hard part was figuring out a communication mechanism back to the RC so that it could make the PWM changes if the speed was too slow or too fast. If we could have had the PIC control the speed directly, we would have had much better control. As it was, the RC just got 2 bits for each motor, which it interpreted as {too fast, just right, too slow, unused state). The RC then adjusted the motor controlling PWM directly (thus in compliance with R59), based on the input from the custom circuit. |
Re: paper: Modular Sub-Processing
I think it would be prudent to put a big warning in this document that the device you describe is illegal for use in a FIRST competition.
*Well, we don't know for certain that it is illegal this year, but I'd be willing to bet money on it. It is a safety issue, plain and simple, to have a custom circuit device "in between" the RC's PWM output and the speed controller. It will totally defeat IFI's robot disable functionality. |
Re: paper: Modular Sub-Processing
Quote:
|
Re: paper: Modular Sub-Processing
Quote:
|
Re: paper: Modular Sub-Processing
I also believe the unit, as configured, would be illegal under FRC rules. However, it would be simple to return the calculated output speed to an analog port, rather than produce a pulse for the PWM directly. The RC would then read this and adjust the PWM output accordingly under software control.
Jon Mittelman Mentor Team 236 |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:51. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi