New wheels / floor and encoders for position.

[martin417]

It is great that First included encoders and the ability to mount them to the gearbox. It's too bad that combination will be effectively useless this year. With the limited traction, there will be so much wheel spinning, as well as lateral sliding, that gearbox encoders will not give any useful information about where the bot is, and what it's doing.

<R06> talks a great deal about what wheels can be used for traction, and that no devices may be used to increase traction. What about a high traction wheel that touches the ground, but does not affect traction? Say, a wheel with an encoder attached? The way I interpret the rule, this would be acceptable.


Any disagreement?

[Ty Tremblay]

The thing you would have to ensure is that the wheel can offer no resistance when pushed sideways (which is pretty hard). Even a caster design would offer some form of resistance until its direction was changed.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by icdumbpeeps305

The thing you would have to ensure is that the wheel can offer no resistance when pushed sideways (which is pretty hard). Even a caster design would offer some form of resistance until its direction was changed.

Actually, a caster was what I had in mind. I believe that any resistance from the caster will be at least an order of magnitude less than wheel friction, so in engineering terms is "negligible", therefore can be ignored.

[BenB]

If the wheel was mounted so the axis of rotation was fixed, it would provide lateral traction. Even if the wheel was mounted so it could swivel, it would provide an instantaneous amount of traction while the wheel swiveled to its new position. The only way I can see this feasible is if you mounted a sphere in the middle, like the ball for an old mouse. Even then you would have to prove to FIRST that it provided no additional traction. Unfortunately, I don't think they would accept this.

You could mount a wheel that was not powered. As long as you have good bearings that provide negligible friction in the axle, it won't slip. An encoder could be attached to the axle. The issue with this is that you loose precious traction with each wheel that touches the ground that is not powered. If your willing to go this route however, you could mount a wheel in a perpendicular direction to receive encoder values for both the x and y axis. The wheels have such little traction, a wheel in the perpendicular direction won't resist motion provided by the other wheels.

[Russ Beavis]

Why couldn't you use encoders with slipping wheels? The sensors will certainly tell you actually how fast the wheel is spinning. Maybe you can use that information with an expected PWM signal vs. speed curve for traction control?

For example, if you observe that the wheels suddenly start spinning from a low speed to a higher speed, assume that slippage is occurring and reduce the drive signal.

Cars are really starting to take advantage of traction control. Maybe FIRST robots can learn from them?

Russ

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by martin417

It is great that First included encoders and the ability to mount them to the gearbox. It's too bad that combination will be effectively useless this year. With the limited traction, there will be so much wheel spinning, as well as lateral sliding, that gearbox encoders will not give any useful information about where the bot is, and what it's doing.

<R06> talks a great deal about what wheels can be used for traction, and that no devices may be used to increase traction. What about a high traction wheel that touches the ground, but does not affect traction? Say, a wheel with an encoder attached? The way I interpret the rule, this would be acceptable.


Any disagreement?

Not quite correct
<R06>
ROBOTs must use ROVER WHEELS (as supplied in the 2009 Kit Of Parts and/or their equivalent as provided by the supplying vendor) to provide traction between the ROBOT and the ARENA. Any number of ROVER WHEELS may be used. The ROVER WHEELS must be used in a “normal” orientation (i.e. with the tread of the wheel in contact with the ground, with the axis of rotation parallel to the ground and penetrating the wheel hub). No other forms of traction devices (wheels, tracks, legs, or other devices intended to provide traction) are permitted. The surface tread of the ROVER WHEELS may not be modified except through normal wear-and-tear. Specifically, the addition of cleats, studs, carved treads, alterations to the wheel profile, high-traction surface treatments, adhesive coatings, abrasive materials, and/or other attachments are prohibited. The intent of this rule is that the ROVER WHEELS be used in as close to their “out of the box” condition as possible, to provide the intended low-friction dynamic performance during the game.

R06 does not stop you from increasing traction, it just prevents you from using anything else to provide traction

Originally Posted by martin417

Actually, a caster was what I had in mind. I believe that any resistance from the caster will be at least an order of magnitude less than wheel friction, so in engineering terms is "negligible", therefore can be ignored.

Negligible traction is still traction.

Originally Posted by Russ Beavis

Why couldn't you use encoders with slipping wheels? The sensors will certainly tell you actually how fast the wheel is spinning. Maybe you can use that information with an expected PWM signal vs. speed curve for traction control?

For example, if you observe that the wheels suddenly start spinning from a low speed to a higher speed, assume that slippage is occurring and reduce the drive signal.

Cars are really starting to take advantage of traction control. Maybe FIRST robots can learn from them?

Russ

Traction control and accelleration control will be key this year to winning alliances. IMHO

[MrForbes]

It looks like now is a great time to start programming! Traction control and robot position/velocity/acceleration information could really help a team control their robot.

Those of us who don't have to drive on icy roads are probably at a disadvantage....oh well....

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by squirrel

Those of us who don't have to drive on icy roads are probably at a disadvantage....oh well....

I think this is the 1st time I've heard that driving in icy conditions is an advantage

[paulcd2000]

We've been exploring intelligent slip-prevention systems, and that would be quite the challege even without trying to use the camera to track and shoot balls at a target... we're probably going to try but it will be tough.
As to the idea of providing another wheel which would be measured with the encoders, perhaps a trans-wheel? it would have extremely low friction when moving sideways, and trans-wheels are not "wheels, tracks, legs, or other devices intended to provide traction"

[MrForbes]

How about using and old ball type computer mouse? it's a sensor...so it's not intended to provide traction. I wonder if they're still available COTS?

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by squirrel

How about using and old ball type computer mouse? it's a sensor...so it's not intended to provide traction. I wonder if they're still available COTS?

My guess is (for official rules wait for the FIRST Q&A forum) that if it contacts the floor it will be illegal.

How about a IR mouse? It doesn't need to contact the surface.

[paulcd2000]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

My guess is (for official rules wait for the FIRST Q&A forum) that if it contacts the floor it will be illegal.

How about a IR mouse? It doesn't need to contact the surface.

I don't know how optically "interesting" this floor will be. namely, is there going to be a visible difference between one spot on the floor and another? it might need something as precise as a laser mouse. it's an interesting idea.

[EricVanWyk]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

How about a IR mouse? It doesn't need to contact the surface.

I was part of a group that used optical mice as encoders. It was a bit of a pain in the neck to start, but worked well once it worked at all.

One idea I'm fiddling with is measuring the current to the motors to approximate torque. A 20% difference between slip and grip should be measurable. I wish we had CAN this year, since the Jag's have that feature built in.

[Dick Linn]

Originally Posted by squirrel

How about using and old ball type computer mouse? it's a sensor...so it's not intended to provide traction. I wonder if they're still available COTS?

I just tried placing my optical mouse on top of a round marble ball and scooting it around. Seems to work, and provides no traction. COTS - Came Out of The Scrap. I'll bet something like that would be legal.

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by BlackBird11891

not really it be really easy with a piece like this

Look at a rear caster and you'll see the axle is located significantly away from the vertical axis of rotation, meaning the wheel 'trails' the vertical axle. Look up the automotive term "Caster" to see where the name came from...

Originally Posted by mluckham

Anti-lock brakes in cars use accelerometers plus wheel encoders to detect wheel slip.

No, only wheel speed is needed for ABS - the derivative of the wheel speed is monitored and any decelerations in excess of a 'known' amount (slope) means the wheel is locking up. Accelerometers are not used for traction control either, where the undriven wheel speeds are compared to the driven wheel speeds to address the effects of excess acceleration. ESP control uses accelerometers.

Originally Posted by Dick Linn

I just tried placing my optical mouse on top of a round marble ball and scooting it around. Seems to work, and provides no traction. COTS - Came Out of The Scrap. I'll bet something like that would be legal.

I think that an optical mouse, 1/16 - 1/32" off the surface, might work well. Doppler radar or some similar method would be pretty cool - can that be done with light or ultrasonics? Or just get a radar gun (Ramsey Electronics sells a kit for $60) and point it at an angle to the floor.