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

Re: Photovore Exhibition 2005

Expand Messages
  • J Wolfgang Goerlich
    ... Thank you, J Wolfgang Goerlich
    Message 1 of 15 , Jul 4, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      > Current issues to address in the next draft:

      Missed one:

      > 4) Size. I still recommend that you stick with 4 feet to a side
      > (cheaper, easier to handle and build).

      Thank you,

      J Wolfgang Goerlich
    • Tom Gray
      Hi, Wolf Tested your arena again for 20 minutes tonight. Tried having the bots start at the edge and go to a central light, which worked a bit better than
      Message 2 of 15 , Jul 5, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi, Wolf
         
        Tested your arena again for 20 minutes tonight.  Tried having the bots start at the edge and go to a central light, which worked a bit better than Sunday's tests.  Having them start at the centre with all lights on, just to get them heading outward, might work but I don't have the facilities to try that.  Ten minutes for each light did work better than 5 minutes, and the 500W bulbs were also better at 50 cm than the 250W for getting more action.  You might drop the light to 30 cm and make your walls only 20 cm high!
         
        Acrylic (don't have Plexiglas) sheet 10 cm from the bulb got hot but didn't melt.  But still, none of my six bots scored a single point during that half hour.
         
        These experiments led me to wonder if it wouldn't be better to open up the solar cell size.  Why limit it to a 3733 or equivalent size?  Your reason for doing that was probably that you based your draft on previous rulesets.  Maybe you're following the past too closely.
         
        Flexible solar cells, the ready availability of surplus silicon wafer cell chips, and other new products might be a worthy contribution to your stated goal of speedy little light-seekers. 
         
        If this is going to be an exhibition, rather than a competition, why not open the parameters? Go for 2" x 2" (54 mm x 54 mm)  2" x 3" (54 mm x 76 mm)  or even  3" x 3"  (76 mm x 76 mm, for a whopping 5776 mm^2), solar panel maximum!  A panel that size can easily run the motors with no need for a solar engine...but some extra storage might be useful for strategy...  IMHO you want a solar panel area big enough to open new vistas but  maybe small enough to still offer a challenge.
         
         But maybe this is a "Been there, done that" thing too.  Any comment from past Grand Masters?
         
        Keep BEAMing and dreaming
        Tom
         
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 7:15 PM
        Subject: [beam] Re: Photovore Exhibition 2005

        Current issues to address in the next draft:

        > 1) Banning masked solar cells.

        I agree with both the points Jason and Wilf bring up. I would like to
        hear from Gord, who requested the masking rule.

        > 2) The random shifting of the light pool may have an inherent
        > problem when ranking speed point performance if first arrival at
        > the center of the pool is used as the sole criterion. 

        Actually, I intended the scoring to be the first x robots into the
        circle. A Photovore would not need to make it to the center for the
        speed point, only cross the goal line.

        > Perhaps the speed point criterion can be modified: to earn a speed
        > point for moving between light pools, first  vore in the new light
        > pool goal would qualify only if that vore touched the goal area of
        > the last light pool within the previous 5 minutes.

        That's a step in the right direction. However, what if a Photovore
        leaves a goal circle, say goal 1, and heads for the new goal circle,
        goal 2. This unfortunate Photovore runs into an obstacle and gets
        delayed. Goal 3 becomes lit, and the Photovore turns away from goal 2
        and heads for goal 3. Under the speed point criterion above, this
        Photovore would not be eligible for the point.

        > 3) A lot of heat build ups under halogen lights.

        Change the lighting to lower wattage or incandescent? I also remember
        reading that turning on and off is easier on incandescent bulbs than
        on halogens.

        Thank you,

        J Wolfgang Goerlich


      • Dave Hrynkiw
        ... There *was* a maximum size, but I can t recall. I d have to go through my old archives to find an original ruleset. I think opening up the size will just
        Message 3 of 15 , Jul 5, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          At 10:29 PM 7/5/2004, Tom Gray wrote:

          >If this is going to be an exhibition, rather than a competition, why not
          >open the parameters? Go for 2" x 2" (54 mm x 54 mm) 2" x 3" (54 mm x 76
          >mm) or even 3" x 3" (76 mm x 76 mm, for a whopping 5776 mm^2), solar
          >panel maximum! A panel that size can easily run the motors with no need
          >for a solar engine...but some extra storage might be useful for
          >strategy... IMHO you want a solar panel area big enough to open new
          >vistas but maybe small enough to still offer a challenge.
          >
          > But maybe this is a "Been there, done that" thing too. Any comment from
          > past Grand Masters?

          There *was* a maximum size, but I can't recall. I'd have to go through my
          old archives to find an original ruleset. I think opening up the size will
          just make for more active robots (good thing).

          ---------------------------------------------------------------
          "Um, no - that's H,R,Y,N,K,I,W. No, not K,I,U,U, K,I,_W_. Yes,
          that's right. Yes, I know it looks like "HOCKYRINK." Yup, only
          2 vowels. Pronounciation? _SMITH_".
          http://www.solarbotics.com
        • Juan A Cubillo
          Hello Group, Some days ago I was asked for help on the Not-So-Dummy Walker. Someone asked me if there was any way to add a reverser to this walker. I tried to
          Message 4 of 15 , Jul 6, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello Group,

            Some days ago I was asked for help on the Not-So-Dummy
            Walker. Someone asked me if there was any way to add a
            reverser to this walker. I tried to design a simple
            circuit that would require the least amount of
            modification on the original walker.
            The reverser I designed is attached.
            Could anyone please verify if the circuit will work
            correctly?

            ,Thanks


            =====
            Juan Cubillo
            CostaRican Beamer!!!
            http://costaricabeam.solarbotics.net/



            __________________________________
            Do you Yahoo!?
            New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
            http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
          • Jason Fay
            Juan Your circuit drawings look great - clean lines and good colors. What do you use to draw them? Jason ... Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail -
            Message 5 of 15 , Jul 6, 2004
            • 0 Attachment

              Juan

               

              Your circuit drawings look great - clean lines and good colors.  What do you use to draw them?

               

              Jason


              Do you Yahoo!?
              New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
            • J Wolfgang Goerlich
              Hello Tom, ... Appreciate you taking the time to test this. Was this on a simulated 4 x 4 or 8 by 8 arena? The basking and shadow protection circuits will
              Message 6 of 15 , Jul 6, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Hello Tom,

                > Tested your arena again for 20 minutes tonight.

                Appreciate you taking the time to test this. Was this on a simulated
                4' x 4' or 8' by 8' arena?

                The basking and shadow protection circuits will come in handy here.
                As currently conceived, the exhibit begins with a pre-match period
                with all four lights on. After the exhibit opens, the Photovores
                should be moving from an extinguished pool of light toward an active
                pool of light. Thus, the robots have the chance to bask charge up
                super-caps in both the starting configuration and the running
                configuration.

                As soon as I finish a couple other projects, I will build a Bug 'n'
                Bots Fred and try this out. I have two mini 1F Aerogel caps (SB
                CPAG1.0F) that I can use for the shadow protection circuit. I will
                also try out a "mosher" shell.


                > Why limit it to a 3733 or equivalent size?

                Actually, we doubled it to two BP3733's. But, yes, we may need to
                increase it some more.


                > Your reason for doing that was probably that you based your
                > draft on previous rulesets.

                In addition, I would not want this to become a money event. That is,
                the competition being dominated by those who can afford to cover
                their Photovores from head-to-toe (PD to wheel?) in space-age solar
                cells.

                J Wolfgang Goerlich
              • Wilf Rigter
                Hi Juan, Your circuit looks fine. I have attached a small simplification and enhancement. You get one less 4.7K resistor and some free gates but it does take
                Message 7 of 15 , Jul 6, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Juan,
                   
                  Your circuit looks fine. 
                   
                  I have attached a small simplification and enhancement.
                   
                  You get one less 4.7K resistor and some free gates but it does take away some of the symmetry of your design. 
                   
                  Note the 4.7K resistor normally grounds  the 10uF reversing cap but is isolated when the walker is reversing. This causes a "snappy" return to forward motion as the cap rapidly discharges when the reverse delay times out.    
                   
                  It should be possible to further simplify the reverser by just reversing the voltage A/B  across both feedback pots and not reversing the 245 inputs.  Seems to also minimize changes to the original circuit you asked for.
                   
                  Reversing the voltage with A/B across LDRs would change the behaviour during reverse. 
                   
                  regards
                   
                  wilf
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 12:16 AM
                  Subject: [beam] I need a ''Working circuit'' confirmation!!!

                      Hello Group,

                  Some days ago I was asked for help on the Not-So-Dummy
                  Walker. Someone asked me if there was any way to add a
                  reverser to this walker. I tried to design a simple
                  circuit that would require the least amount of
                  modification on the original walker.
                  The reverser I designed is attached.
                  Could anyone please verify if the circuit will work
                  correctly?

                      ,Thanks


                  =====
                  Juan Cubillo
                  CostaRican Beamer!!!
                  http://costaricabeam.solarbotics.net/


                             
                  __________________________________
                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
                  http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


                • Wilf Rigter
                  Hi Juan, Please ignore my suggestion below: Anyone who has build the NSDW will know that the pot wiper voltage has to match the motor direction (negative
                  Message 8 of 15 , Jul 6, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Juan,
                     
                    Please ignore my suggestion below:
                     
                    Anyone who has build the NSDW will know that the pot wiper voltage has to match the motor direction (negative feedback) or it will lock up (positive feedback). 
                     
                    Still trying to eliminate the 240.
                     
                    wilf  
                     
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 5:50 AM
                    Subject: Re: [beam] I need a ''Working circuit'' confirmation!!!
                     
                    It should be possible to further simplify the reverser by just reversing the voltage A/B  across both feedback pots and not reversing the 245 inputs.  Seems to also minimize changes to the original circuit you asked for.
                  • Wilf Rigter
                    Hi Juan, Well this reversing NSDW circuit should work and reduces the chip count by replacing the HC245 with a AC240. wilf ... From: Wilf Rigter To:
                    Message 9 of 15 , Jul 6, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi Juan,
                       
                      Well this reversing NSDW circuit should work and reduces the chip count by replacing the HC245 with a AC240.
                       
                      wilf
                       
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 10:33 AM
                      Subject: Re: [beam] I need a ''Working circuit'' confirmation!!!

                      Hi Juan,
                       
                      Still trying to eliminate the 240.
                       
                      wilf  
                       
                    • Wilf Rigter
                      OK, this final Not So Dummy Walker with Reverse comes back full circle to Juan s original circuit but uses two spare HC14 inverters as the phase reverser (wilf
                      Message 10 of 15 , Jul 6, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        OK, this final Not So Dummy Walker with Reverse comes back full circle to Juan's original circuit but uses two spare HC14 inverters as the phase reverser (wilf mux). 
                         
                        Note the subtle detail:  by reversing the left motor instead of the right motor,  the top 74HC14 inverter becomes available for the reverser. The "wilf mux" uses a few more passive parts compared to the matt mux but eliminates the extra 74HC240 chip.
                         
                        regards
                         
                        wilf
                      • GrantM.
                        Very nice, just one little thing your table is inverted, should go like this: A C D 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 The other mux follows this
                        Message 11 of 15 , Jul 6, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Very nice, just one little thing your table is inverted, should go like this:

                          A C D
                          0 0 1
                          0 1 0
                          1 0 0
                          1 1 1

                          The other mux follows this pattern as well

                          I gave it a quick test to verify it. Neat though it may prove useful to use
                          a single inverter as a switchable mux but the discreet part count is a bit
                          high.

                          GrantM.

                          At 02:39 PM 7/6/2004, you wrote:
                          >OK, this final Not So Dummy Walker with Reverse comes back full circle to
                          >Juan's original circuit but uses two spare HC14 inverters as the phase
                          >reverser (wilf mux).
                          >
                          >Note the subtle detail: by reversing the left motor instead of the right
                          >motor, the top 74HC14 inverter becomes available for the reverser. The
                          >"wilf mux" uses a few more passive parts compared to the matt mux but
                          >eliminates the extra 74HC240 chip.
                          >
                          >regards
                          >
                          >wilf
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.