Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

Not at all. Why would teams design for a suspension bar when they could design for the very standard, has to be there hanging bar instead? Making a different "suspension bar" size was stupid.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

I like the idea of the dead man switch. What about if the dead man switch kept a power switch open on the minibot, and when the dead man switch falls out, the circuit is closed, and the minibot powers on?

I agree. And at the same time, teams should construct their minibots such that they dont have any oddities that may hinder deployment by some systems such as curved faces; they may not work with certain implementations of a push deployment


I believe that minibots should be designed such that they are deployment-mechanism-agnostic, be it by pushing, swinging, or something else, because teams will end up having to make different deployment mechanisms based on how the rest of their robot is designed

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

I propose the name of: MIND: MINibot Deployment


It is a ramp that is essentially drawbridge, that deploys at 30 inches (at the line) and emulates deploying at base level. Other than that, there must be 12*12*12 space inside the robot to store minibots.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

I think there are 2 things to be standardized.
1) Minibot activation.
2) Minibot-pole transition device.

#2 is the simplest. The drawbridge or a platform device is simple: move ramp/robot to either the base or the pole and let it do its thing. Telling it when to go could be as simple as a bar across the end that when released turns the minibot on or lets it go.

#1 is harder. NXT device, pure mechanical, non-NXT... Ideally, the start trigger is contained on the minibot and is "running" when the minibot is loaded onto the hostbot.

The 30" height might be tricky--it depends on whether the minibot is allowed to be above the line. But substitute your favorite height in there as you need to.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

Probably the best way to even be unintentionally compatible with most minibots would be to have a 12x12x12 (or a little more for comfort. Bots have feelings too) box with one side open that the minibot comes out of. On the closed sides of the box would be containment bars to keep the minibot from moving. The open side would have a gap in the bars that allows them to go around the pole. When launching the bot slides out of the box with the top open and climbs

An internal limit switch that detects the pole would probably be enough, and would work with almost any design (triggers nxt program to start, closes circuit to a motor, etc)

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

Quick question, one to (perhaps) get people thinking:

Are you allowed to use an IR Receiver with a minibot?
(does this qualify? http://unlimited.syraweb.org/NewFTCkits.htm)

How easy is it to distribute a software module, an IR Led and some wire, and perhaps a button to teams at your regional? Will that be too much weight on their robot? How difficult will that be to install on a generic robot?


That's probably the best way I can think of to get it going. Let me know what you think.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

Why are we specifying exactly how teams must deploy the robots? What about just standardizing that all minibots fit some X size requirement and some Y shape requirement and accept activation by some A,B, or C method and leave the rest up to individual team design? Lets not say 'All minibots must work with this drawbridge deployment mechanism' and rather leave it to everyone to create minibots that dont depend on a single deployment mechanism. Not all teams are going to use such a deployment method, so why limit the standard to just those teams?

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

We're trying to pick a system that will work with a variety of minibots to get them to the pole here. If teams put a 12"+ cube on their robots, with some form of platform that gets a minibot to the pole, it seems that that has the largest potential to accept any random minibot. That leaves activation up to the minibot users, but standardizing activation methods would be nice too.

If you standardize minibot activation on the minibot, teams have to design for that. If you standardize a deployment that can accept any minibot, and have activation be automatic on the minibot, that's easier to do.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

Perhaps a Bayonet - type of mounting where your robot has a delivery system,
eg a 1" square tube with a right angle end that actuates out, you can then provide a female connector to a partner team to mount on their mini-bot and make it compatible.

Bad thing is probably the need for re-inspection of the mini-bot in this case if it's done on-the-fly.

Ideally your mini-bot could be launched electrically using a Digital input or closed switch arrangement or have its own internal detection of pole contact.

Nothing says you have to make arrangements for the bot deployment at the competition, you could agree with some partner teams locally to create a regional standard.

Teams can build their bots to intentionally be traded off at the regional for the additional points any time it scores.

That's co-oper-tastic.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

What if all the standard was would be a 12x12x12, and each minibot had to include its own deployment mechanism?

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

This may seem stupid but how will they stop the program from running on the mini bot? I mean a simple limit switch type device would work to activate the programming for the mini bot. I had an idea of it being on the inside of the bot and once it hits the pole it just takes off. Then once we get a confirmation about if the robot can come back down just plan around that also.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

As long as the deployment mechanism was contained in the 12" cube, that'd be fine.

It's when the deployment mechanism goes outside, or when the robot's docking area isn't where the deployment mechanism needs to be to deploy right that there's a problem.

W/R/T stopping the minibot from running, I was thinking a switch at the pole as well. Activate it, and the minibot turns on. Biggest problem is the hostbots that expect the minibot to move out on its own onto the base--but another switch with a "standardish" mounting area set and a servo on the robot to activate it would probably work.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

My idea was to use a drawer type bearing to shove the mininbot out to the pole. For the minibot, I hat the thought of haveing three wheels, arranged in a triangle, with the "tip" of the triangle on the robot side of the minibot (away from the pole). As the bot was deployed, the one wheel would be pushed back and it would mechanicly grip the pole. Once all three wheels were on the pole, the unpowered wheel would somehow trigger a switch that would tigger the other two wheels to turn on. They would stay on for 10 seconds, stop for 10 seconds, then reverse at half speed for 15 seconds.

I'm sorry in advance if it makes no sense, but I'm just throwing an idea out there...

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

I feel there has been some discussion on standardizing the minibots. Some people, donrotolo and darist, have expressed a desire for somebody to take the initiative in coming up with an open standard minibot. We want everyone to have freedom within the one foot cube, but we want to be able to expect some common way to mount the minibot to the host bot in a way it can be delivered on a pole.

Building on the comments by caffel I believe these could be the four criteria we need to keep in mind

1) Box/envelope/open top

2) Delivery platform (minibot doesn’t fall out of host bot)

3) Delivery (because currently it appears that our robot and minibot will be in contact with the pole the max hight of deployment is 18in)

4) Attach/ launch

We at 1712 would like to propose the acronym for the standardization, CLIMBS (Committee Leading the Initiative for MiniBot Standardization). Post fast we only have 10 seconds to the top

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

I'm working on something right now, I'll post in a bit with what I get.