Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: R: [beam] Re: feedback

Expand Messages
  • Bruce Robinson
    ... There is no question that the motors, electronics, and physical environment form several feedback loops that affect how far the motors turn. However,
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 8, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Giorgio De Nunzio wrote:
      >
      > The walker encountered an obstacle and could not overcome
      > it at first. Then it tried again by lifting one leg some
      > more, so trying a higher step (the central "waist" motor
      > rotated some more,

      There is no question that the motors, electronics, and physical
      environment form several feedback loops that affect how far the motors
      turn. However, electronic feedback within the circuit usually plays a
      small (sometimes non-existant) role. Mechanical feedback is the major
      factor. Interestingly enough, none of the electronic feedback loops can
      have any effect on the motion of the walker by themselves. They come
      into play as part of bigger feedback loops that always include
      mechanical factors (geometry, weight, motor orientation, springs, etc.).

      As I said, a lot of these affects in early robots were due to good luck,
      not deliberate design. A well-balanced walker with motors that are just
      powerful enough to shift the weight will adapt to varying conditions.

      > ... see a similar scheme at
      > http://bestiary.solarbotics.net/2503_walker_3mot.html).

      That's quite a different circut, however. It's for a six legged walker
      with the motor on the upper left lifting three legs and lowering the
      other three. The remaining two motors shift the "corner" legs forward
      and backward. Sparky's Hexapod uses this circuit, except the 74HC139 has
      been replaced with a 74HC086 which performs exactly the same function.

      > ... Eventually the walker succeeded in putting its foot on
      > the obstacle and it could pass by.
      >
      > I explained to myself this behaviour by (of course) a feedback
      > from the legs and motors (current absorption). Isn't this one a
      > good explanation?

      Yes feedback is involved. Has to be. But it isn't simply a signal sent
      from the motors to the circuits.

      A single motor driving a leg has several feedback loops (6 of them, at
      least) at work. Some are always there, some are rarely significant. As
      soon as you put two or more motors together on a body, you double the
      number of feedback loops per motor. In other words, a simple two motor
      walker has at least 24 feedback loops, and that's with no sensors!

      When a well-designed walker is moving over a uniform surface, these
      feeback loops eventually establish a balance and the walker moves with a
      uniform gait. When you disturb the "environment" (place an obstacle in
      front of the robot, for example) some of the feeback loops are disturbed
      and have to establish a new equilibrium. In doing so they disturb the
      other feedback loops, so the whole system has to re-balance. This can
      take quite a while so the robot gives the appearance of "trying" to
      overcome the obstacle. There is no guarantee the feeback loops will
      re-balance in a way that is useful to the robot; they may actually
      establish a new pattern that gets the robot thoroughly stuck. We tend to
      overlook the times a robot gets stuck because its what we expect; when
      the robot manages to establish a pattern that gets it out of trouble,
      that's when we sit up and take notice.

      So, yes, feeback explains the behaviour of a walker adapting to its
      environment. However, it's a very complex feedback system and not easy
      to analyze or predict.

      Interestingly enough, the reason so many digital walkers don't adapt
      well to unexpected conditions is because the designers are so intent on
      controlling everything, they end up breaking most of the feedback loops.
      You can design precisely-controlled analog robots that are just as
      incompetent as digital designs but it takes a lot of extra work :) You
      can also design digital robots that are just as adaptable as many analog
      robots but that takes extra work as well.

      Bruce
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.