PTZ Camera Legal?

[taichichuan]

Hi Everyone,

I'm just curious about the legality of a pan-tilt-zoom IP camera on the robot? The PTZ feature is accessible via IP. But, internally, my guess would be that they use servos to control the direction of the camera. I seem to recall that there's a rule about all servos being controlled by the cRio. Would such a camera be legal?

TIA,

Mike

[Mark McLeod]

I would say not legal.

R[50] All electrical loads (motors, actuators, compressors, electric solenoids) must be supplied by an approved power regulating device (speed controller, relay module, or Digital Sidecar PWM port) that is controlled by the cRIO on the Robot.
b. Servos must be directly connected to the PWM ports on the Digital Sidecar. They must not be connected to speed controllers or relay modules.

R[60] Every relay module, servo, and PWM speed controller shall be connected via PWM cable to the Digital Sidecar and be controlled by signals provided from the cRIO via the Digital Sidecar. They shall not be controlled by signals from any other source.

Essentially, I think it must be disabled, by being controlled by a disable-able output, when the robot is Disabled to be legal (along with fitting the maximum servo power specs).

R[48] L. an unlimited number of COTS servos with a maximum power rating of 4W each at 6V.

[Alan Anderson]

The CMUcam was permitted to drive pan/tilt servos directly in at least the first year it was in the Kit of Parts (2005). It was not considered an actuator. Some teams took advantage of this to seek out the vision tetras while the robot was disabled prior to the start of the match. My opinion: there's enough greyness and precedent for it to be worth asking the GDC for their opinion.

[taichichuan]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

The CMUcam was permitted to drive pan/tilt servos directly in at least the first year it was in the Kit of Parts (2005). It was not considered an actuator. Some teams took advantage of this to seek out the vision tetras while the robot was disabled prior to the start of the match. My opinion: there's enough greyness and precedent for it to be worth asking the GDC for their opinion.

Hi Alan,

I assume that you ask questions of the GDC on FIRST Forum. But, do you have a link that you can provide so I make sure I post the question in the right place?

TIA,

Mike

[Jon Stratis]

Post your question to the official Q&A using your team account:

http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...c/game-q-and-a

there's a link to the Q&A on that page, as well as a how-to guide.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Alan,
Remember that the camera servos were considered to be part of the camera assembly that year (the camera, mount and actuators were provided in the KOP). As such they were not subject to the rules on motors and servos. In the absence of a Q&A answer, I would agree that this type is illegal.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Alan,
Remember that the camera servos were considered to be part of the camera assembly that year (the camera, mount and actuators were provided in the KOP). As such they were not subject to the rules on motors and servos. In the absence of a Q&A answer, I would agree that this type is illegal.

It sounds like the "PTZ Camera" under consideration does have its servos as part of the camera assembly, which is why I think it's an open question. Of course, unless there's advice to the contrary from Q&A, it's your opinion that matters right now.