Lol You've been watching too much of the Simpsons

You cannot have too much Simpsons.
_________________
So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems

so true simpsons rock

Woudn`t Futurama suit us better!? It has robots!


Then again, I have always imagined Kryton holding a claw hammer representing us!
Saying nervously; "Sir, do you really think this is nesscesary?"
He could passively pick up a bot and caretakingly place a bot outside the combat arena!

Last edited by Giant Robo on Sun Nov 27, 2005 9:54 pm; edited 1 time in total

Can it Bender!
_________________
https://www.halfdonethings.com/

Hmmmm, the draft of the 2006 RFL rule are out and they have changed all referance of "walkers" into "non-wheeled" robots in an effort to increase the amount of interesting design ideas.

Actually, what does this sound like?

quote:

---

3. Mobility
3.1. All robots must have easily visible and controlled mobility in order to compete.
Methods of mobility include:
3.1.1. Rolling (wheels, tracks or the whole robot)
3.1.2. Non-wheeled (non-wheeled drive trains with no uninterrupted rolling or cam
operated motion in contact with the floor, either directly or via a linkage).
Linear-actuated legs and novel non-wheeled drive trains may qualify for this
bonus.

---

Looks like the only Mechadon and Snake qualify. Funny that,

sounds to me like they couldnt come up with any realistic definition of a walker and just said "non wheeled" as an after thought...
_________________
www.demon50s.com - Minimoto parts
http://www.youtube.com/user/HyzerGlen - Videoooozzz

Making rules to encourage walkers will never work until there is an advantage to actually having one in the arena.

Either that, or you run a "Walkers only - *NO* rotating parts allowed" class, which would be interesting technically, but probably boring to watch.

Its interesting that Nature never came up with the biological equivalent of the wheel, but I suppose organic slip rings, brushes and bearings would be kind of hard to do.

So, who thinks they can build an interesting combat machine with *no* rotating parts (including motors !) allowed ?

You would have to use air muscles, muscle wires, voice-coils and the equivalent

Anything else is just a well-disguised camshaft.
_________________
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people

It's all entirely up to the EOs interpretation of the rule but I believe that the phrase "no uninterrupted rolling or cam operated motion in contact with the floor, either directly or via a linkage" means that for a robot to be "non-wheeled" the drive must be either stopped/started or forward/reversed to get a continous forward motiton. This means (by the people who wrote the rules anyway) that some sort of "advanced" control system must be used to simply get the robot to move in any direction rather than a shuffling robot that simply runs on glorified wheels.
I do not believe (and never had) that the rules do not allow the use of any type of motor the gives a rotational output. That's just stupid.
_________________
Get Some!!!

Secretary of the Queensland Robotics Sports Club inc.

I just thought they were leaving a loophole for Mark and doing there best to make sure no one ever builds another one. There is nothing encouraging in that rule as I read it.

I agree, but I put it that way because I remembered a discussion Gary and I had..

In what way is a microprocessor driving a rotational motor backwards and forwards (powering a leadscrew or other conventional Linac) to drive a "real walker" leg, fundamentally any different to a camshaft ?

Its just effectively an invisible "software" camshaft. No different in principle to a cam shaped chunk of metal, except that its made of binary bits instead of steel.

If you are starting out with rotational energy from a conventional motor, it has to be converted into linear motion somewhere along the way by a cam-like device.

If people want to insist on bonuses for walkers over wheels, you either say fine, if you want the bonus, you can't have *any* wheels in your design !

Or you allow camshafts of some nature

Or you get caught in endless technicalities over what constitues a well-hidden enough camshaft, then you keep having to move the goalposts according to how clever the designer is at making a actuator that blurs the line between walking and wheels.

As has happened with nearly every attempt to pin down walkers through rules.

The biological thought was just inspired that we're trying to force-fit a non-rotating biological style output device (reciprocating legs) onto a mechanical style rotational energy source.
_________________
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people

Have to agree with the Kheeroos, I dont think the issue is rotating parts either its more banning cams because lets face it, theres a lot of people trying to exploit the rules to gain an unfair advantage.

The whole point is to encourage innovation not to build a hugely succesful winning machine.
Can anyone say Setrakian has wasted his time or does anyone think he really cares if he wins or loses with his walking robots, he didnt build them for that and am pretty sure he gets a buzz just controlling them.
Has anyone been bored watching his robots either, doubt it.

It still sounds like all u need is to get 2 DOF on each leg and it will be a walker. Simply copy the actions of a lizards leg for example.
Having 2 DOF means the cycle is interrupted between each DOF which conforms exactly to the definition.

example
Lift leg, move it forward, bring it down, pull it back. and repeat
2 linear actuators per leg, simple as that.

That is an interupted sequence that does not follow a circle which makes it a walker.
That same sequence can be misinterpreted as a shuffler if u choose to ignore the fact the lifting up and down is completely independant of the moving forward or back. Thats probably what confuses people.

Am sure people will disgaree but its the same thing I have been saying for ages and the new definition still supports that. The definition still seems rather clear to me.

They even clearly state, linear actuated legs qualify.

One way to break a circular sequence is to split it over 2 Degrees of Freedom, then it is not circular or cammed. It then has 2 independant pivot points, not on the same plane.
Obviously electronics are required but by definition walking is mechanical even though you need a brain to do it.
_________________
Bots that do not destroy you, only make you stronger.

Here is a picture that explains what I am saying, found this in a document online
http://www.robowars.org/forum/album_pic.php?pic_id=1092
sorry for the double post
_________________
Bots that do not destroy you, only make you stronger.

Yes, but nobody likes the "2 indepent Degrees of Freedom" idea, because it blows all the mechanical cam drive legs out of the running and requires multiple advanced servo-feedback speed controllers with a microprocessor brain to pull it off.. = Expensive.

Competitors seem to want bumpy wheels, or wheels with sticks attached to qualify as walkers so they can stick with their IBC's/Victors/Whatever.

I dont think any wheels vs legs battle is ever going to be fought on an even keel, since there arent many legs that will tolerate a wheeled mass hitting them at high speed and still keep walking.

And why bother with legs when the floor is flat ? Wheels are the perfect solution for a flat floor.. Traction, steering control, robust, fast and energy efficient.

To make having legs an advantage rather than a handicap, the terrain needs to reward legged bots, and even then, a tracked bot would probably do better.

Someone talked about an "anthropomorphic class" (did we already discuss that ?). Bots that have to use recogniseable form of animal motovation. Interesting idea, but probably not achievable by your average builder.
_________________
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people