|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
#31
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: TI and future Jaguars
I've separated the post because I changed topic:
One nice part about the modular solution is that we can keep reusing parts and if we want to include something complicated we can make that one part while leveraging the other. For example we could make a Jaguar compatible module with an electronically similar CAN interface as an interface to the high power module. We could also make a CAN module with a different interface then the Jaguar but still CAN. We could make a single PWM module that looks similar to a Victor, but can also have it's performance tweeked to have a wider response range or a different carrier frequency (one single PWM module different software personalities). If someone wanted to they could take an ARM9 and make a speed control with multiple high power modules (one interface multiple motors). When it comes to the interface modules not connected to the 'custom circuit module' we'll need someway to insure that the code FIRST approves is actually within the core of that module. Currently FIRST achieves this because the Victor is one time programmable and the Jaguar has it's FIRST firmware effectively checked. We could make it so that FIRST can check the firmware with a tool quickly (in-circuit programming would allow a quick comparison when the interface is PWM, we already do this with the CAN to some extent). We can make it so that the modules approved by FIRST are one time programmable. Then again we could encase the programming circuit mechanically to make it tamper evident. In any case we'll probably be required to provide this protection to keep the FIRST playing field equal. Last edited by techhelpbb : 19-04-2012 at 11:45. |
|
#32
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: TI and future Jaguars
In theory with a 'custom circuit module' you could connect the digital ports of the digital side car on the existing FIRST control system directly to the inputs. So if neither of the existing FIRST approved speed controls can handle 100% duty cycle we could make the 'custom circuit module' handle that by producing the maximum acceptable duty cycle instead of fully saturating the MOSFETs. We could also make the H-bridge module into a Spike relay like that.
We could give the 'custom circuit module' some other possible fixed pulse width settings as well. Those settings could be simply be turned on and off with a digital input. However, I'd like to avoid turning the 'custom circuit module' into an I2C/SPI/digital bus if possible. At some point it would defeat the purpose of a module for that specific purpose as well. Perhaps the fast, cheap and easy way to do this would be some solder pads close together on the 'custom circuit module' that represent binary. Someone could blob some solder over the pads to close them like they sometimes do on computer memory. Considering someone wouldn't have to use the 'custom circuit module' that might work out. I suppose you could also use dual row 0.1" header and just let someone solder a piece of wire between the pads for that header if they wished as well. Last edited by techhelpbb : 19-04-2012 at 11:02. |
|
#33
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: TI and future Jaguars
Quote:
--Len Last edited by Levansic : 19-04-2012 at 11:33. |
|
#34
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: TI and future Jaguars
Quote:
Maybe they need it or maybe they don't. So for example on the 'custom circuit module' they'll very probably need it for a safe enable/disable. However on a CAN enabled module they could sneak their checks in over the CAN so we don't always need more wire. I'm honestly not sure about the PWM (maybe they can sneak some one-wire over the power). Obviously CAN can be upgraded through the CAN bus but I'm not so sure you'd be able to firmware upgrade over just one-wire like you might be able to sneak with PWM. Between that and the option to walk up and test the firmware checksum on the otherwise unused 4 wire connector I would think that's pretty good diligence to the concern. (Could get crazy with it and actually make a inductive coupler and literally let them read through the case with the hand held tester.) Still if maybe we pour some industrial epoxy on the unpopulated in-circuit programming port pads up to that section of the MCU that might just be enough. If someone chips or melts it off it's DQed for FIRST use (still would work fine though we'd give them the in-circuit components anyway, maybe provide a service where they can swap for a FIRST module and we can QA and recycle). If we did the epoxy perhaps we can even stick a stamp like wax or little paper disc with the FIRST logo into it before it cures. Course that won't help with a firmware upgrade unless you swap the modules. Perhaps there's a way around the firmware upgrade when the in-circuit port is covered with the epoxy. It's possible with both AVR and PIC to use a boot loader. So basically most of the code can be upgraded through the 4 wire FIRST connector using some serial protocol and then the rest you'd need to remove the epoxy for. FIRST would probably be only able to verify the section of code you could write as well (because they couldn't access the ICSP port either) unless we put a bit of code in the bootloader to call into the uploaded code and then read back into the bootloader as well (sort of a section of code at an absolute memory address like a buffer overflow exploit). This has another added advantage because like this you probably won't be able to set the programming flags on the MCU. So they won't accidentally be able to put it in low voltage, watchdog, oscillator options or other modes that could induce hard to diagnose results via the FIRST port. If they really want to play with that they can just remove the epoxy. Makes sense or is clear as mud? You know if you make the 4 wire port for FIRST: enable/disable, RS232-RX, RS232-TX and ground. You could upgrade the firmware with a USB-RS232 adapter, an RS232 port or...if you're not using them for FIRST...you could put an RS422 adapter on them and program them from more than a thousand feet away if you like. In short that might be really handy to more than just FIRST (I have a picture in my head of a hundred of them connected to advertising or CNC machines with CAT5e split out to provide RS-485 for the control data and the 4 wires for the FIRST port...use the enable/disable for area wide emergency stop). Last edited by techhelpbb : 19-04-2012 at 12:48. |
|
#35
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: TI and future Jaguars
I should also point out that if the community endeavors to make these things it's always smart to find applications for it besides just FIRST. The more of these things you make the lower the costs are likely to be and the more likely the longevity.
This is a public domain idea so hopefully if anyone is thinking about a trip down to a patent office someone will bother to look at this because it now belongs to everyone and anyone. The only money that might be possible to make of this for a private business (outside of manufacturing it directly) would be to make a private module that does something the community doesn't have a module for. Then they've contributed to an open source project and let this serve as notice they will be required to disclose the use of the collective community work as part of their dealings. Community in this case defined as anyone and everyone bundled into this project regardless of where it may communicate including Google Cache, TheWayBackMachine and these domains I bought in case we want them: EMCPROJECT.COM EMCPROJECT.NET EMCPROJECT.ORG EMCTURF.COM EMCTURF.NET EMCTURF.ORG OPENEMC.COM OPENEMC.NET OPENEMC.ORG I registered the alternate TLD (the last 3 letters) to prevent domain squatting. Whether or not all the ideas I've presented I have an exclusivity on is unclear to me currently. However, I am considering my ideas openly donated this this particular project and the community involved with it. Consider yourselves at the minimum GPLed .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_hardware http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License Anyone with an objection to that particular license or whatever else about what I wrote in this post make it known please (let's not have some lurker suddenly selling this thing next month with a manual full of quotes from this topic then screaming we can't make them because they did first). Also there's a Xen virtual private server (VPS) available to Linux host any or all of those domain if the community wishes it's currently empty. It's the same host that hosts: http://www.mort11.org/ It's my dime, however, if it goes that way assistance to maintain and develop is welcome always. Last edited by techhelpbb : 19-04-2012 at 14:24. |
|
#36
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: TI and future Jaguars
Also I think we should deploy a unique identifier with these units. This way we can create a database and track any manufacturing issues that might run from a certain assembly house or supply of components.
We don't need to etch it into the PCBs. but maybe we can get a patch on the silk screen. Maybe put a sticker on the units. Maybe engrave the cases, the PCBs, or some epoxy with a CNC mill. Maybe hide it in the FIRST firmware. I'm not sure if I want to put any company's name on this, unless the community elects to create an entity to promote it's interest. I don't need my company names on it. Last edited by techhelpbb : 19-04-2012 at 15:50. |
|
#37
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: TI and future Jaguars
Quote:
In patent terms, your declaration that this "now belongs to everyone and anyone" is pretty much ineffective. If someone takes what's been discussed here, adds something novel to it, and patents it, your declaration doesn't do any good. And if they don't add anything, then this thread represents prior art, and their claim is defeatable, declaration or not. You can't bind someone else with a unilateral declaration. Similarly with copyright, you can't tell people that the GPL applies to what they publish on ChiefDelphi. All posts on ChiefDelphi should be assumed to be copyrighted by their authors.1 You may be able to assert fair use or some other prerogative, but that depends on the circumstances of what you plan to do with it. Certainly don't expect that you could incorporate others' posts into the documentation that you distribute with the product. If you want to bind people to some licence, you have to have an agreement with them. It's not your forum, so you can't impose terms of use on the users. 1 It's possible for a post to be ineligible for copyright, but that's rare with any substantial content. |
|
#38
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: TI and future Jaguars
Quote:
To be clear even if I can only speak for myself as I've given away a bunch of things in here, actually several of them quite specific to form and function, I'm quite fine with it more addressing my contribution to the project than anyone else at the moment. If someone wants to try for a design patent using a modification of this idea then I wish them the best of luck. They don't have nearly enough to satisfy those requirements from what I've seen. I'd specifically like to avoid anyone claiming a utility patent on the ideas. I hope that I've conveyed that I have reduced my own copyright towards the community attempting to make this item. So that in effect I am agreeing not to pop up one day with a demand if you are a member of the community that supports this. Otherwise I perceive that by describing my ideas in such detail I risk making the idea less and less doable for the community. I've had people steal stuff from me before in forums on the Internet, then run down and patent them, and usually what happens is sooner or later I show up with the posts showing the dates as prior art and they decide they'll not enforce against me if I would kindly avoid taking apart their patent. It's surprising actually how many times their attorneys tell me that no one at all comes forward and challenges the patent during the initial time frames. So you end up with these patents that cover basically the entire kitchen and the sink that some patent examiner doesn't think all the way through. Someone may have a patent that directly incorporates something from my publicly listed idea that a patent examiner completely ignored (probably lack of experience in something exceedingly technical). Those would be those patents the patent trolls love...you know...it's a patent that means their IP is 'all cell phones ever created' because it's far too broad. However, you bring up a good point perhaps we should consider moving the venue for the legal implications beyond myself and make the other forum private behind a login that indicates acceptance of this license. I should think beyond that we would need to trade paper. More precisely beyond the legal specifics I was concerned that someone might utterly object to the licensing principal itself with regards to the project. Not just my legal hackery . So let's hope that they are seeing this very public exchange as fair warning as to possible legal implications of moving to our own site.Any specific concerns you can offer with the use of GPL in this regard? To be additionally clear, I am not suggesting I'm using anyone's posts in my documentation. I am suggesting that I worry that someone else could do that. Last edited by techhelpbb : 19-04-2012 at 17:11. |
|
#39
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: TI and future Jaguars
No problem; I just wanted to clarify that the scope of the protections were what you expected.
Quote:
The GPL is also quite software-focused, so some of the terms are a little strange in the context of hardware (or hardware designs), or artistic/non-technical works. I haven't reviewed it in detail, but I suspect it should work fine for this purpose nevertheless. The Creative Commons licences don't have those restrictions/optimizations. They'd probably be fine too. |
|
#40
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: TI and future Jaguars
Back to the next MC topic.
I think the only realistic way to make this work is if some "large" vendor steps in and manufactures this product as a charitable donation to FIRST. Realistically there is no way a community effort can support KOP/FIRST needs. Remember kids need to use these products, we cannot have a gazillion of modules/combinations. Today we have two: a Vic or a Jag and just these two is confusing everybody and creating a huge debate :-) Vics and Jags are sub $100. There is no way one can build this for less unless you are a large volume manufacturer - way larger than the FIRST market. Vics and (to a much lesser extent) Jags have had multiple generations of fine tuning. If we design our onw in the next few months - will it work just fine ??? I think some vendor needs their arm twisted to take the donated IP of the Jag and improve on it in an incremental fashion. We've all witnessed some really good suggestins on how improve a Jag. With some of these implemented I think the new Jag will be a fine product for FIRST. This is not rocket science and it doesn't evolve much anymore, so we just need a stable product and ride down the cost curve asap. I can imagine the New-Jag in a Vic format for < $50. What our community effort can do is to act as an advisor to the benevolent manufacturer. Maybe FIRST can orchestrate this and there ought to be prizes and recognition for those that contribute a lot. Dean |
|
#41
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Re: TI and future Jaguars
Quote:
Using this logic why not manufacture an integrated control system why commit to making anyone think about the details? FIRST has a commitment to diversity in their kit of parts they made that clear in my discussion with them. To me that means that they support the idea of a community motor control even if they can source the Jaguar still. Quote:
More importantly if the pockets on that side are so deep who insures that they don't reduce the options down to their gospel and lock out the other vendors? Please review the RFQ there's a quite specific note about that towards the end obviously because often such deep pocket interests don't have an interest in co-existence but market dominance. Something like earlier you wrote: Quote:
Quote:
I have some doubts we can build a perfectly operational PID implementation unless we mimic the ideal PID loop of the Jaguar. However, we can not ignore that the ideal PID loop of the Jaguar (even when it's implemented properly) is not the only form of PID loop and it doesn't work perfectly in all applications. I'm not sure I want to do what the Jaguar PR does in effect and claim that we are providing you 'the PID loop' of choice. As many have found it's just not adequate in many situations. I already stated clearly that as I don't feel this is designed to force the market closed on the Jaguar, there is no absolute need to finish before next season it would be fine to finish the season after. As far as bugs, you will quickly find that you have bigger problems then you think with the Jaguar no matter how deep your pockets. Let the community project worry about what it needs to worry about, we already saw what big companies did with the Jaguar who is to say what the community project does...it's without precident for an electronic motor control (but AndyMark and others prove that it can be done as a business). The Jaguars made little effort to show how they fit into the target market. A fair representation of their upsides and downsides was left to the community. To some extent telling people to read the manual is a learning exercise. When it exceeds the content of the manual then it's reverse engineering with no evidence you can forward port it to the product. If you argue that you support reverse engineering you're defying the even playing field goals of FIRST. Many teams can't even solder. Now you ask them to troubleshoot this? That's one of the reasons more veteran teams use the Jaguars with CAN than the newer teams. The community project isn't going to be locked out of testing anything, to changing anything, the quantities will be smaller and every step of the design process there to review. A very large company generally does not have any interest in finding faults in their very expensive by quantity product. They also have little interest in creating diversity. If you knock out a few hundred thousand of those Jaguar PCBs right now I'm quite sure you'll be making an error if your goal is to remove the problems. On the plus side if you provide the Jaguar to FIRST you only reduce the initial burden on the community project. Quote:
My goal isn't to harm the Jaguar. My goal is to do something I feel is very important to the longevity of FIRST. To find a way to navigate to community solutions from FIRST itself and put those up against the other options. What I have to wonder is: why would you even need the community if all the bugs are well known already here? Why would the massively deep pocketed company not just offer it's service to FIRST, absorb, collate the information and manufacture? What does the community need to do if the bugs are already so fleshed out? Quote:
Quote:
You might even get some flexibility from FIRST about that RFQ's demands. Course you've sort of stuck them with the TI Stellaris, the cases, and to some extents the current limits. Wait why did the last benevolent manufacturer leave behind a requirement in a FIRST RFQ? Last edited by techhelpbb : 20-04-2012 at 13:57. |
|
#42
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: TI and future Jaguars
Here's what's not in the interest of a large company selling the Jaguar:
To teach sufficient process to compete with them. To explore prototyping. To teach electronics. A community project touches on all of those points in a way that would be almost financially irresponsible to a large company. Sure even the community project won't be a level playing field for you if you can't solder. However, it won't also encourage those who can solder to sit around slapping the only choice on the robot because they are not welcome to do otherwise or you might have dusty stock. The fact that the current 2 choice community feels the need to polarize on a choice means that too many people feel they can find sufficient weakness in the Jaguar product to advocate over it what is basically a large RC car speed control. The core reason to replicate the Jaguar, cause it's already here and you don't have to think too much (in fact if the community does the reverse engineering and fixing a very few people will have to think cause only they will get the prize). What's the prize of deciding what you want to learn worth? To me it's worth getting the community project going even if it's not big business. No one can ignore that I've already started putting my money where my mouth is. If the Jaguar is worth so much to those who walk that path don't tear us down when *we* are part of the target market, just go prove that's it's so easy for the big business and do it. Maybe tearing us down is easier than getting big business to do this? Last edited by techhelpbb : 20-04-2012 at 00:36. |
|
#43
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: TI and future Jaguars
Honestly,
As a team we'd just want a speed controller that can do this: -Something incredibly robust -Small -Doesnt' Break -Nice linear control like the jags. -Doesn't break! -Sealed! Somewhere between $70 - 100 would be great. Cheaper it is, the more we'd buy most likely. -RC |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: TI and future Jaguars
One of the motor controllers that I have used in the past had a language on it that you interfaced to it with. This allowed you to do the basic things like set voltage and stuff, or to do the crazy stuff like custom control loops. The language was basic-like, and pretty simple. This makes it so teams could do whatever they want at the lowest level (1khz custom control loop ftw!), but the kill signal would always be respected.
|
|
#45
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: TI and future Jaguars
Quote:
I was thinking that the power board would be situated directly below the fan along with, at minimum, that board's power connection (high current so less connectors and trace length the better) sitting beyond the fan's perimeter when looking straight down at that fan. I was thinking to put the control or 'interface' module directly below that power module. If you were using the 'custom circuit interface' I was thinking that your custom circuit would be the lowest level of the stack. For prototyping one could use ribbon cables to essentially unstack the modules horizontally. The fan would blow directly on the parts most likely to generate heat. If necessary a much smaller secondary fan could be put on the side of the stack to move air between all the modules. I was also thinking that a piece of cold laminated aluminum foil or copper foil could be stuck between each module as an RF barrier if one desired. That item being light, somewhat rigid and most importantly with a surface that's not conductive. It's like the foil in an Apple computer it could be sort of folded to something like a shield. This would also help with swarf besides sealing all the boards and possibly putting it all in a suitable box. I realize that the the cheaper the unit is, the more would be bought, but Dsirovica is correct above that a community project in the early stages will be cash strapped without benevelent benefactors of faith. I can throw around a few thousand dollars out my pocket. However our initial bottom line ability to ram down the price will depend on whether the near production prototypes make FIRST drool during the approval and whether someone else comes along and opens their pockets as well. I hope that as things advance and we crystalize on basic business functions and tangible work; we acquire not just community hands but some community contributors. I can respect deeply that as of this moment the economy is a very tough place for seed money which is why I pulled out my wallet and my production resources and offered to help. I have faith in you all to deliver...if not this year...then perhaps next. Last edited by techhelpbb : 20-04-2012 at 11:21. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|