Go to Post One of the many things I love about CD is how knowledgeable and passionate everyone is. - CMBrandon [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > General Forum
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Reply
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 4 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
  #166   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2011, 09:54
Ether's Avatar
Ether Ether is offline
systems engineer (retired)
no team
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Rookie Year: 1969
Location: US
Posts: 8,141
Ether has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Team Update #18

Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseK View Post
You're basically saying that it's OK to imply an assumption for the calculation and then ignore the assumption for the conclusions of overall system characterization.
Could you be a bit more specific? What "implied assumption" are you referring to?

The only assumptions used in the calculation were to ignore friction (which was explicit, not implied) and to ignore additional stored kinetic energy (rotational). These tend to cancel each other out. Over very short distances (such as 1/4"), the stored rotational KE easily overcomes friction, so it's actually a conservative assumption. You can demonstrate this for yourself, if you like: with the wheels raised, power your minibot with 12V and then remove the power. Observe how much the wheels turn after the power is removed.

If you have questions about the mecanum analysis I would be glad to discuss those, but not in this thread.


Reply With Quote
  #167   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2011, 10:00
JesseK's Avatar
JesseK JesseK is offline
Expert Flybot Crasher
FRC #1885 (ILITE)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Reston, VA
Posts: 3,735
JesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Team Update #18

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris is me View Post
Proximity sensors and light sensors are two common proposed solutions.

Personally, I don't see what's wrong with a photo finish here. Yes, "instant replay" is a dirty word, but it would clearly be the best.
1.) Proximity sensors may work, yet are subject to calibration and vibration for a single data point. If you're using the difference of two data points, you still have to either increase sampling rate or # of sample to prevent false positives. Thus, changing to proximity sensors could pose the same issues/risks of the current system, which means there's no reason to change to proximity sensors.

2.) Light sensors are subject to noise and calibration. These may work better than proximity sensors since the noise is most likely easy to isolate, yet the tolerances in spacing would have to be tight to ensure even the slightest movement of the plate triggers the sensor. The designers simply may not have the time to implement something so quickly across all of the regional events for this week or even next week. This one seems the most feasible to me from a technical perspective though.

3.) Any instant replay sets a dangerous precedent. There will always be those who make assumptions based upon what's happened before, regardless of what's stated in the manual and regardless of what's talked about at driver meetings. I think FIRST just doesn't want to go there unless there's more thought put into it. That desire is reasonable in the longer term just to simply avoid stress during competition. Yet assuming a photo finish for 1 specific aspect of every game could probably also open up the types of activities we'd perform in future games. So I'm with you on this one ... subject to that caveat.
__________________

Drive Coach, 1885 (2007-present)
2017 Scoring Model
CAD Library | GitHub
Reply With Quote
  #168   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2011, 10:10
JesseK's Avatar
JesseK JesseK is offline
Expert Flybot Crasher
FRC #1885 (ILITE)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Reston, VA
Posts: 3,735
JesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Team Update #18

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ether View Post
Could you be a bit more specific? What "implied assumption" are you referring to?

The only assumptions used in the calculation were to ignore friction (which was explicit, not implied) and to ignore additional stored kinetic energy (rotational). These tend to cancel each other out. Over very short distances (such as 1/4"), the stored rotational KE easily overcomes friction, so it's actually a conservative assumption. You can demonstrate this for yourself, if you like: with the wheels raised, power your minibot with 12V and then remove the power. Observe how much the wheels turn after the power is removed.
Alright, I did say implied and you were explicit about the friction. Yet it was still ignored in the conclusion without any explanation in the original posts. Ok, so there's the explanation, which I still don't think allows for a valid conclusion based upon the calculation. Your latest statement makes the implied assumption that the unloaded motors act identical to the real system during impact. Impact forces induce shock into the gearing which momentarily increases the friction in the gearing/bushings with a positive correlation to the amount of force applied to the plate. Impact forces induce friction in the bolts on the triggering mechanism, which may be bind on the plate if the impact causes a torque moement. Thus it may take 474 newtons at a specific instance in time to slow a minibot down without taking friction into account -- yet until we characterize the friction in the system we're making a dangerous* conclusion that "more than enough force is applied to moving the plate".

*dangerous because the process of coming to the conclusions would then be acceptable to use elsewhere.

I can't characterize the friction with numbers or equations, which I will concede. Interestingly, that's the very specific reason we [industry] do shock testing for our real world complex systems. The equations simply don't match the results of the real implementation.
__________________

Drive Coach, 1885 (2007-present)
2017 Scoring Model
CAD Library | GitHub

Last edited by JesseK : 17-03-2011 at 11:01. Reason: clarity
Reply With Quote
  #169   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2011, 10:23
Unsung FIRST Hero
Karthik Karthik is offline
VEX Robotics GDC Chairman
no team
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,348
Karthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Team Update #18

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Copioli View Post
... or Karthik.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.
I'm counting the days down until Waterloo. Get your popcorn ready.
__________________
:: Karthik Kanagasabapathy ::
"Enthusiasm is one of the most powerful engines of success. When you do a thing, do it with all your might. Put your whole soul into it. Stamp it with your own personality. Be active, be energetic, be enthusiastic and faithful and you will accomplish your object. Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm" -- R.W. Emerson
My TEDx Talk - The Subtle Secrets of Success
Full disclosure: I work for IFI and VEX Robotics, and am the Chairman of the VEX Robotics and VEX IQ Game Design Committees
.
Reply With Quote
  #170   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2011, 10:30
Ether's Avatar
Ether Ether is offline
systems engineer (retired)
no team
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Rookie Year: 1969
Location: US
Posts: 8,141
Ether has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Team Update #18

Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseK View Post
I still don't think allows for a valid conclusion based upon the calculation.
I think the calculation allows a valid conclusion. Even if the gearbox were to completely lock up, the only effect it would have for purposes of this calculation would be the resulting friction between the (locked) wheels and the pole. Compared to 474 Newtons, such friction can reasonably be ignored for purposes of the conclusion, which is simply that a 3lb minibot traveling at 7fps which is decelerated to zero speed in 1/4" is exerting much more than 4 Newtons on the plate.


Reply With Quote
  #171   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2011, 10:33
Cory's Avatar
Cory Cory is offline
Registered User
AKA: Cory McBride
FRC #0254 (The Cheesy Poofs)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: May 2002
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 6,825
Cory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Cory
Re: Team Update #18

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireties View Post
If the specs are not written clearly, it is ALSO our responsibility to request clarification or we risk NOT getting paid (or tripping the sensor).
I don't feel the specification was unclear. There is a force given in the rules. The original tower used limit switches.

Logically one would think that a setup using limit switches would be momentary-ie not having to be triggered for some finite time period.

We should have foreseen that there was not enough real world testing done to show how robots hitting the towers would affect the response of the triggers?

In the future I guess when we see things like this you're saying we should assume FIRST will not be able to implement them properly and as such we should ask way more questions than necessary to ensure that everything works right?
__________________
2001-2004: Team 100
2006-Present: Team 254
Reply With Quote
  #172   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2011, 10:42
Racer26 Racer26 is offline
Registered User
no team
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Beaverton, ON
Posts: 2,229
Racer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Team Update #18

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris is me View Post
I think Cory's point is that FIRST shouldn't be let "off the hook" every time they do something at the expense of teams just because it's a volunteer organization. We do still pay to compete, after all.
...I've been chastised for championing this point for years.

So the refs, judges, and staff at the events are VOLUNTEERS. According to the people who don't see it my way, they should be forgiven any and all shortcomings, because they're VOLUNTEERS. Everyone claims that a cornerstone of the FIRST program is the tenet of GRACIOUS PROFESSIONALISM. To me, doing your job poorly, or worse, outright incorrectly (as in 2008 SVR Finals Match 2), is UNPROFESSIONAL. Not only that, but each and every team has mentors. All of whom are, themselves, VOLUNTEERS. The mentors are expected to know and follow the rules, because if they don't, and their teams robot doesn't comply with the rules, they don't get to play.

This isn't even what this argument is about, though. FIRST HQ is NOT run by volunteers. Many of the staff at FIRST HQ take a salary, paid for by our entry fees, and the sponsorships provided by industry. They are being paid to provide the teams with a product, a competition.

While I might be able to be convinced to forgive the shortcomings of a ref based on the "volunteer" argument, I will never be able to be convinced to forgive FIRST HQ for shamelessly doing things at the expense of their customers, the teams.
Reply With Quote
  #173   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2011, 11:19
JesseK's Avatar
JesseK JesseK is offline
Expert Flybot Crasher
FRC #1885 (ILITE)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Reston, VA
Posts: 3,735
JesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Team Update #18

Does a standard scale, such as the ones used to inspect the robots at competition, give us the weight or mass of the robot? In other words, is the number we see equal to mass*[accel due to gravity] or equal to only mass?

Using a direct weight-equals-mass calculation, I get 0.586 feet stopping distance and 488N for stopping @ 1/4".

Dividing by the acceleration of gravity, I get a stopping distance of 0.060 feet (~3/4") and ~50N to stopping @ 1/4".
__________________

Drive Coach, 1885 (2007-present)
2017 Scoring Model
CAD Library | GitHub
Reply With Quote
  #174   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2011, 11:40
Ether's Avatar
Ether Ether is offline
systems engineer (retired)
no team
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Rookie Year: 1969
Location: US
Posts: 8,141
Ether has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Team Update #18

Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseK View Post
Does a standard scale, such as the ones used to inspect the robots at competition, give us the weight or mass of the robot? In other words, is the number we see equal to mass*[accel due to gravity] or equal to only mass?
The scale measures force.

If you measure something on Earth, then you can use that force to calculate the mass, as follows: kilograms = pounds * 0.4535924

If you use the same scale on the Moon, you will get a force reading about 1/6 of what you got on Earth, even though the mass is the same.



Reply With Quote
  #175   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2011, 11:49
jspatz1's Avatar
jspatz1 jspatz1 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Jeff
FRC #1986 (Team Titanium)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Lee's Summit, MO
Posts: 836
jspatz1 has a reputation beyond reputejspatz1 has a reputation beyond reputejspatz1 has a reputation beyond reputejspatz1 has a reputation beyond reputejspatz1 has a reputation beyond reputejspatz1 has a reputation beyond reputejspatz1 has a reputation beyond reputejspatz1 has a reputation beyond reputejspatz1 has a reputation beyond reputejspatz1 has a reputation beyond reputejspatz1 has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to jspatz1
Re: Team Update #18

Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseK View Post
Does a standard scale, such as the ones used to inspect the robots at competition, give us the weight or mass of the robot? In other words, is the number we see equal to mass*[accel due to gravity] or equal to only mass?

Using a direct weight-equals-mass calculation, I get 0.586 feet stopping distance and 488N for stopping @ 1/4".

Dividing by the acceleration of gravity, I get a stopping distance of 0.060 feet (~3/4") and ~50N to stopping @ 1/4".
In imperial units, a scale measuring pounds gives the weight of an object, not the mass. The imperial unit of mass is slugs, which is equivelent to approx. 32 lb-mass. When doing Newtonian calculations in imperial units, you must use the units slugs, lb-force, feet, and seconds. This yields the results you mentioned first, .586 ft and ~480 N (107 lbs).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #176   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2011, 11:58
jspatz1's Avatar
jspatz1 jspatz1 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Jeff
FRC #1986 (Team Titanium)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Lee's Summit, MO
Posts: 836
jspatz1 has a reputation beyond reputejspatz1 has a reputation beyond reputejspatz1 has a reputation beyond reputejspatz1 has a reputation beyond reputejspatz1 has a reputation beyond reputejspatz1 has a reputation beyond reputejspatz1 has a reputation beyond reputejspatz1 has a reputation beyond reputejspatz1 has a reputation beyond reputejspatz1 has a reputation beyond reputejspatz1 has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to jspatz1
Re: Team Update #18

Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseK View Post
, yet the whiners haven't proposed a solution.
I wouldn't say I'm a whiner, but I did propose a solution: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...57#post1040957
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #177   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2011, 12:07
pfreivald's Avatar
pfreivald pfreivald is offline
Registered User
AKA: Patrick Freivald
FRC #1551 (The Grapes of Wrath)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Naples, NY
Posts: 2,306
pfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Team Update #18

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1075guy View Post
Not only that, but each and every team has mentors. All of whom are, themselves, VOLUNTEERS.
I am paid a coaching stipend, so technically I am not a volunteer.

(I was asked to itemize it out this year because we're doing budget negotiations and it looks like the admins are trying to cut compensation for extracurricular advisors, so I did the math and discovered that when it comes down to brass tacks I get paid about $0.07/hour if we keep it to only one summer project, but still...)
__________________
Patrick Freivald -- Mentor
Team 1551
"The Grapes of Wrath"
Bausch & Lomb, PTC Corporation, and Naples High School

I write books, too!
Reply With Quote
  #178   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2011, 12:20
Racer26 Racer26 is offline
Registered User
no team
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Beaverton, ON
Posts: 2,229
Racer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Team Update #18

@pfreivald: ok, so maybe not ALL the mentors on FRC teams are 100% volunteers, but my point is still valid since you're in the overwhelming minority.
Reply With Quote
  #179   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2011, 12:30
pfreivald's Avatar
pfreivald pfreivald is offline
Registered User
AKA: Patrick Freivald
FRC #1551 (The Grapes of Wrath)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Naples, NY
Posts: 2,306
pfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Team Update #18

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1075guy View Post
@pfreivald: ok, so maybe not ALL the mentors on FRC teams are 100% volunteers, but my point is still valid since you're in the overwhelming minority.
I EARN that seven cents an hour, dag-nabbit!

(I hope you realize I was just playing with you.)
__________________
Patrick Freivald -- Mentor
Team 1551
"The Grapes of Wrath"
Bausch & Lomb, PTC Corporation, and Naples High School

I write books, too!
Reply With Quote
  #180   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2011, 12:32
Matt Krass's Avatar
Matt Krass Matt Krass is offline
"Old" and Cranky. Get off my lawn!
AKA: Dark Ages
FRC #0263 (Sachem Aftershock)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 1,187
Matt Krass has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Krass has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Krass has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Krass has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Krass has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Krass has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Krass has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Krass has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Krass has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Krass has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Krass has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Matt Krass
Re: Team Update #18

Quote:
Originally Posted by pfreivald View Post
I am paid a coaching stipend, so technically I am not a volunteer.

(I was asked to itemize it out this year because we're doing budget negotiations and it looks like the admins are trying to cut compensation for extracurricular advisors, so I did the math and discovered that when it comes down to brass tacks I get paid about $0.07/hour if we keep it to only one summer project, but still...)
For those 7 cents I expected more from you!

Just kidding.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris is me View Post
Proximity sensors and light sensors are two common proposed solutions.

Personally, I don't see what's wrong with a photo finish here. Yes, "instant replay" is a dirty word, but it would clearly be the best.
The biggest problem I see with a 'photo finish' is something still needs to trip the camera. Taking constant video of the poles at a frame rate of 29.97fps may work, but close minibots will still be very close there, it may be hard to determine accurately. I'm not saying it isn't possible, but it's certainly something to think about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory View Post
I don't feel the specification was unclear. There is a force given in the rules. The original tower used limit switches.

Logically one would think that a setup using limit switches would be momentary-ie not having to be triggered for some finite time period.

We should have foreseen that there was not enough real world testing done to show how robots hitting the towers would affect the response of the triggers?

In the future I guess when we see things like this you're saying we should assume FIRST will not be able to implement them properly and as such we should ask way more questions than necessary to ensure that everything works right?
Logically a computer system can only sense a condition that exists for a finite period of time related to the sampling rate. Since no specification was given regarding how long the force must be sustained, nor the sampling configuration of the system, it was an incomplete specification. Also, the force specification given appeared to be a rough estimate of the minimum required, not a clear definition of what we had to attain. I believe, as other posters have stated, you're hung up on that number.

Real engineering specifications are pretty explicit, I'm working on a project here at work that has an entire page explaining that the power LED must turn on when I apply power to the system. It even states how fast the LED must turn on when power is applied. The 'spec' we got from FIRST, if you can even call it that, was most definitely incomplete, and yes we should have foreseen complications from a lack of real world test data. I stand by my original argument, both the teams and FIRST are responsible for this.

Matt
__________________
Matt Krass
If I suggest something to try and fix a problem, and you don't understand what I mean, please PM me!

I'm a FIRST relic of sorts, I remember when we used PBASIC and we got CH Flightsticks in the KoP. In my day we didn't have motorized carts, we pushed our robots uphill, both ways! (Houston 2003!)
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 19:43.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi