|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
Our little arm controller
25-02-2004 22:19
uvabrad825so is that used to control your arm during the match? or simply as a mini mock up of your arm?
25-02-2004 22:23
nuggetsyl|
Originally Posted by uvabrad825
so is that used to control your arm during the match? or simply as a mini mock up of your arm?
|
25-02-2004 22:26
Max Lobovskyso you actually control the real arm by moving the model arm? Do you use encoders or what to measure its placement?
25-02-2004 22:31
mightywombat
Pots are most likely used. We did the same thing last year and it works sooo nice, as long as you have the time to tune the code to react correctly to the movement in the model. I am curious. How did you guys do it? Is it as simple as finding the difference between the actual and the requested pot values, dividing by a constant and adding the signed int to 127? I'm still working on code for a model, right now we are using joysticks and probably will for competition but its a project of mine.... How do you do it?
25-02-2004 22:31
nuggetsylwe use pots to mesure where the robots are is
shaun
25-02-2004 22:33
Ryan Foley
that is one of the coolest things I have ever seen. Great job 25!
25-02-2004 22:34
nuggetsyl|
Originally Posted by mightywombat
Pots are most likely used. We did the same thing last year and it works sooo nice, as long as you have the time to tune the code to react correctly to the movement in the model. I am curious. How did you guys do it? Is it as simple as finding the difference between the actual and the requested pot values, dividing by a constant and adding the signed int to 127? I'm still working on code for a model, right now we are using joysticks and probably will for competition but its a project of mine.... How do you do it?
|
25-02-2004 22:47
pras870
I must say, that is a genuine idea. I thought about making a potentiometer to create a control for our elevator and/or arm elbow, but it was not nearly as engenious as this. Reminds me a lot of a boat throttle now that I look at it 
25-02-2004 22:48
Sscamatt
i saw one of those last year...i thought it was like the coolest thing...great job! (i want one)
25-02-2004 22:55
nuggetsyl|
Originally Posted by Sscamatt
i saw one of those last year...i thought it was like the coolest thing...great job! (i want one)
|
25-02-2004 23:03
Nick FuryI would like to see a wiring diagram of your controller if you happen to have one.....perdy please?????
25-02-2004 23:18
nuggetsyl|
Originally Posted by Nick Fury
I would like to see a wiring diagram of your controller if you happen to have one.....perdy please?????
|
25-02-2004 23:25
Greg Needel
we have a control for our arm also that uses pots to control height.....ours is a little simpler as in we are using 1 knob but we have stops at the common heights ie. top of the goal, hanging height....so it takes the guess work away from the drivers
26-02-2004 13:52
Rich Wong
|
Originally Posted by nuggetsyl
that is how we control the arm that way it makes it easier for the driver. Trying to drive this arm with a joystick would be toooooooooo much.
|
26-02-2004 17:11
Bharat Nain
|
Originally Posted by mightywombat
Pots are most likely used. We did the same thing last year and it works sooo nice, as long as you have the time to tune the code to react correctly to the movement in the model. I am curious. How did you guys do it? Is it as simple as finding the difference between the actual and the requested pot values, dividing by a constant and adding the signed int to 127? I'm still working on code for a model, right now we are using joysticks and probably will for competition but its a project of mine.... How do you do it?
|
26-02-2004 21:44
Adams High ManYea, i was origionally going to make a mini-arm to control ours, but then i decided to write inverse kinematics code! Unfortionatly, we ran out of time to actually TEST our robot, but it looks very hopeful. This way, we can control our 3 joint arm using 1 joystick. We can tell it to go anywhere in x-y space.
It was interesting to write, because i had to make my own integer trig library.
27-02-2004 16:23
Alaina814 did the same thing last year with their stacking arm.
We won leadership in controls at Sacramento for it.
27-02-2004 16:56
KenWittlief
so whos car is now missing its headlight switch and knob? it looks like its off a VW.
27-02-2004 18:09
Aignam|
Originally Posted by KenWittlief
so whos car is now missing its headlight switch and knob? it looks like its off a VW.
|
28-02-2004 01:15
eugenebrooks|
Originally Posted by mightywombat
How did you guys do it? Is it as simple as finding the difference between the actual and the requested pot values, dividing by a constant and adding the signed int to 127? I'm still working on code for a model, right now we are using joysticks and probably will for competition but its a project of mine.... How do you do it?
|
28-02-2004 01:51
Mike Schroeder
|
Originally Posted by Aignam
Shhhhhh. Big Mike hasn't noticed yet...
|
(good thing this is a joke or else i would be pretty mad my cars headlight knob was gone)
28-02-2004 08:36
Aignam|
Originally Posted by eugenebrooks
We control a single rotating arm with a similar setup. The drive
to the motor is derived from the difference of the values returned by the pots. This produces a torque on the motor that is proportional to the error. The result, if you increase the gain to get good precision, is a harmonic oscillator. If you run in to that, you add a damping force derived from speed of the arm, calculated by reading its position on two (or more) successive radio packet cycles between the OI and the RC. The arm then behaves as a damped harmonic oscillator. With well chosen damping it won't oscillate at all. Use quality pots that do a good job of maintaining continuity as they are turned. |
28-02-2004 10:34
steven114You wouldn't believe how many pot jokes were flying around while we were making our arm controllers... 
28-02-2004 10:36
Bharat Nain
Sometimes, we even forgot which pot was hooked up to which part, and we used to upload the code and wonder what went wrong. Thank God for the "Kill Switch" 
28-02-2004 10:44
Swan217
|
Originally Posted by steven114
You wouldn't believe how many pot jokes were flying around while we were making our arm controllers...
![]() |
|
Originally Posted by Big Mike
oh i have noticed, its just that my car is so pathetic that needing a pair of pliers to turn my headlights on doesnt change much (good thing this is a joke or else i would be pretty mad my cars headlight knob was gone)
|
28-02-2004 10:47
steven114Yeah, we actually did smoke one of them. I accidentally hooked the wires up backwards, so that ground and power were next to each other (that's what I get for not having the right colors of the thin wire I was using!)
When I turned it all the way to one side, it started to glow red and smoke came pouring out. We quickly pulled the power 
Amazingly, it still worked for a while, then it crapped out.
28-02-2004 11:09
Joe Ross
I think team 308 was the first to do an arm about this, all the way back in 2000. Here is a thread about it: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=10706 Unfortunately, I can't seem to be able to dig up any pictures of it.
28-02-2004 19:16
eugenebrooks|
Originally Posted by Aignam
Funny story about this. The team was at the Bristol-Myers Squibb shop, and I kept hearing the programmers on our team and the BMS tradesmen talking about "pots", and I couldn't count the times I heard them make references to the "pots", since we were programming the arm. It took me most of the day to figure out that "pots" were potentiometers. Then everything started making sense. Alas, clarity.
|
28-02-2004 20:05
Pierson
|
Originally Posted by steven114
You wouldn't believe how many pot jokes were flying around while we were making our arm controllers...
![]() |
28-02-2004 22:58
Arefin Bari
|
Originally Posted by nuggetsyl
wow which team had one
|