The Robotics Research Laboratory, tucked away in a corner of Coates Hall, tends to go unnoticed by most University students.

But out of this remote nook, Dr. S.S. Iyengar and two computer science graduate students hope to bring national recognition to the University through a new robot they have been working on for the past year and a half.

Iyengar, computer science department chair, Bharat Narahari and Jong Hoon Kim are making great strides in the robotics community by building a robot with technology that hasn’t been used anywhere else, Iyengar said.

The AgBot, powered by solar panels, includes features such as lawn fertilization, seed planting and security.

But Narahari, one of the creators of the AgBot, said he hopes the AgBot will be able to take on many different duties in the future.

“What we are imagining is, about five years down the line, suppose if you want to do a toilet cleaning job … buy a module and fit it inside the AgBot so it will clean your toilet,” he said. “And if you are out on a vacation for a month, and you need to guard and protect your house, so you go to some robot store, buy a security module, and just place it in the AgBot, so you have a full feature intrusion detection robot.”

Iyengar compared the robot to a cell phone. He said 10 years ago, a cell phone would just make calls, but today it has many different features. In the same way, he said, the AgBot is just a prototype that will be expanded to provide many functions as it is developed.

The AgBot, an invention Iyengar said could be worth a lot of money, is safely secured by the University. He said he didn’t want to give the idea to a large company because he didn’t want them to take the machine apart after buying it and make it into something completely different.

“I want LSU and the computer science department to make a niche here,” Iyengar said.

Some of the other projects being worked on by the RRL include a “pipeline robot,” which can inspect pipes for cracks and leakage, and a “maze robot,” which uses sensors to detect obstacles.

“All of it is built here,” he said. “And the very interesting thing is, [it was built] for probably a price of $2,000.”

The AgBot is being prepared for the commercial market, Iyengar said.

“We have proven the concept,” he said. “We have applied for patents, so now it is going to be ready for execution.”

Iygenar said he wants the robot to be available across the nation and be very cost-effective.

“We want to do it at a very cheap price,” he said. “If somebody wants the base of the robot only for doing a few things, that’s very cheap.”

Iyengar said he expects potential buyers to not only be homeowners but also golf clubs and baseball fields because the AgBot would cut back on lawn maintenance.

To see a video of the AgBot, click here.

ECS Student Robotics team members Rob Spanton and Chris Cross were among presenters showcasing their work to UK academics at a workshop discussing ‘Robotics in the Curriculum’.

According to Dr Su White, who organized the workshop, their enthusiasm and the success of their project was evidence of the many potential gains which students can experience when teaching with a robotics theme is included in the undergraduate curriculum. The Student Robotics challenge runs competitive activities in local sixth forms colleges and school.

‘Robotics in the Curriculum’ was convened by Su White of the ECS Learning Societies Lab in conjunction with the Higher Education Academy subject centres for Engineering and Information and Computer Science. Curriculum innovations from Southampton were showcased alongside contributions from engineering and computing colleagues from across the UK.

Student Robotics, which has won sponsorship from Motorola, demonstrates that there are accessible and low costs ways in which learning about engineering and electronics can integrate the theory with the practical and at the same time be challenging and enjoyable.

‘Robotics is an important part of the undergraduate curriculum in Southampton and demonstrates practical and exciting applications of computer science and electronics,’ said Dr White. ‘Student Robotics is a voluntary activity which involves students drawn from across our Faculty. Students also have options to study robotics formally at various levels of their degree course. We are particularly proud of the way in which our research and our teaching mutually benefit in this subject area. Rob Stanton has now progressed to PhD studies, and his supervisor Dr Klaus-Peter Zauner can clearly identify benefits which have resulted from the challenges our undergraduates have undertaken.’

Robots may soon be everywhere, in homes and at work. They could change the way humans live. If this happens, it will most likely raise many philosophical, social, and political questions that will have to be answered. In science fiction robots become so intelligent that they decide to take over the world because humans are deemed inferior. In real life however they might not choose to do that. Robots might follow rules such as Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics, that will prevent them from doing so. If the Singularity happens robots will be indistinguishable from human beings and some people may become Cyborgs, with some parts half biological and half artificial.

Economic impact

Given that in the next two decades robots will be capable of replacing humans in most manufacturing and service jobs, economic development will be primarily determined by the advancement of robotics. Given Japan’s current strength in this field, it may well become the economic leader in the next 20 years (part 1, part 2). Marshall Brain also discusses the emergence of robotic economy.

Market evolution

Today’s market is not fully mature. One or more software compatibility layers have yet to emerge to allow the development of a rich robotics ecosystem (similar to today’s personal computers one). Microsoft is currently working in this direction with its new software Microsoft Robotics Studio. Other candidates to reach this goal might be Free Software solutions such as Player/Stage or cross-platform technologies such as URBI.

Timeline

Developments related to robotics from the NISTEP 2030 report :

• 2013-2014 — agricultural robots (AgRobots⁾.
• 2013-2017 — robots that care for the elderly
• 2017 — medical robots performing low-invasive surgery
• 2017-2019 — household robots with full use.
• ???’ — Nanorobots

Robotics in 2020

Robots may be commonplace: in home, factories, agriculture, building & construction, undersea, space, mining, hospitals and streets; for repair, construction, maintenance, security, entertainment, companionship, care.

Purposes of these Robots:

• Robotized space vehicles and facilities
• Anthropomorphic general-purpose robots with hands like humans used for factory jobs - Intelligent robots for unmanned plants - Totally automated factories will be commonplace.
• Robots for guiding blind people and home automation for the elderly and disabled.
• Robots for almost any job in home or hospital, including Robo-surgery.
• Housework robots for cleaning, washing, transporting etc - Domestic robots will be small, specialized and attractive (= cuddly).

Properties of these robots:

• Autonomous, with environmental awareness sensors .
• Self recharging, self diagnostic and self repairing.
• More sophisticated artificial brains, perhaps with ten thousand or more cells, combined with electronic circuits.

Legal rights for robots?

According to research commissioned by the UK Office of Science and Innovation’s Horizon Scanning Centre, robots could one day demand the same citizen’s rights as humans. The study also warns that the rise of robots could put a strain on resources and the environment.

Otto Voettiner’s hands shook slightly as he lined up his team’s robot and released it along a Lego-filled course. The robot, Billybot, had a seemingly simple mission: to cross the table, lift a red ring with its long, gray fingers and return to base.

The seconds ticked down. His eight teammates, all fourth- and fifth-graders from Mountain View Elementary in Haymarket, watched intently beneath furry hats bearing their school’s cougar mascot. The “future MIT student,” as his coach proudly called him, had completed the task correctly dozens of times. But something was off yesterday, and Billybot veered off course, crashing into a little Lego house.

Otto was cool about the crash and the resulting low score. “At least we have two more tries,” he said.

More than 200 students, ages 9 through 14, had three chances yesterday to show judges what their personally designed, built and programmed Lego robots could do at River Bend Middle School in Sterling. Statewide, about 2,400 students donned team T-shirts and funny hats and took their childhood toy to a new level of sophistication.

Turning Legos into robots, complete with sensors and computer hard drives, has become a popular weekend pastime for a growing number of young students in the Washington region and beyond. Ten years ago, the Manchester, N.H.-based educational organization known as FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology) joined forces with Lego to establish the FIRST Lego League competition. This year, 135,000 children were expected to compete in about 40 countries. The regional tournament leads to a state championship in December and a world competition in Atlanta in the spring.

Neighborhoods, home-school organizations, Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts all organize Lego League teams. Fairfax County has dozens, including seven from Oak Hill Elementary in Herndon. There’s interest for more teams but not enough volunteer coaches, said Martha Cosgrove, a third-grade teacher at Oak Hill, who has coached an all-girls team for seven years. Her daughter, a member of the first team, is a junior in high school and spent her summer at an engineering program geared toward young women.

Cosgrove’s goal is to reach out to students who are underrepresented in engineering and technology careers. That means going after more girls, Hispanics, African Americans and those who aren’t in gifted programs.

But if yesterday’s competition is any indication, the robotics competition, although growing, is still solidly a game for self-identified brainiacs. Most teams came from schools with gifted and talented centers.

Mountain View’s students were handpicked from an enrichment program, said coach and third-grade teacher George Lombardi. As one of his students explained, “You have to be one of the smartest kids in the class to do it.”

The students have eight weeks to put together robots and presentations. On competition day, they are evaluated on a range of objectives, including teamwork and the performance and design of the robots, a category that brought Mountain View a first-place prize.

In addition, the students had to research how technology could help address a real-world problem associated with climate change. The Cougars chose to study drought and came up with a poster-board presentation and a skit called “The Scoop on Drought.”

Some of the children already sounded like scientists.

Paige Payne, 9, presented on an ancient Peruvian irrigation system with three kinds of “raised bed systems,” including a “phreatic system, in which the systems are joined in areas where the groundwater table is close to the surface of the soil and there is a means for groundwater recharge such as an infiltration lagoon.”

While the audience of parents and teachers let the information sink in, she asked, “Do you have any questions?”

Between events, the Cougars marched two by two through the middle school hallways. “We keep our heads up high/For we are the Cougars of Mountain View/Our goal is to reach for the sky,” they belted out.

One second-grader followed, marching and singing along a step or two behind. Her mother, Laurie Payne, held her hand, and said that she wants to be on the robotics team someday, just like her sister.

GLENDALE — Student Boris Aguilar adjusted a robot’s movement using computer codes in preparation for a competition Saturday at the FIRST Lego Robotics Tournament at Roosevelt Middle School.

His team programmed the Lego Mindstorms NXT robot’s movements on a laptop computer, which through a wireless signal sent codes to the robot made out of Legos.

Seeing the robot perform as it was programmed came as a great relief to Boris and his teammates because they had been working on the robot for two months.

“It takes a lot of stress out,” Boris said.

Boris was a member of America’s Next Top Scientists Team, which represents Gage Middle School in Huntington Park.

About 22 teams of elementary and middle school students from Los Angeles County competed in the second annual tournament at the school.

But at least two teams couldn’t make the tournament because California Highway Patrol shut down several freeways due to fires in Sylmar on Saturday, said Teacher Randy Kamiya, who organized the event.

Seven or eight teams also were missing team members who were unable to make it to the tournament because of the freeway closures, he said. One group had only one student on the team, Kamiya said.

No Glendale schools participated in the event.

“Our students thought it wouldn’t be fair to the other teams to participate in the tournament because they were the host school,” he said.

The competition is a qualifying event in which 70% of the teams move on to another competition at Legoland in Carlsbad, he said. Teams that do well in the Legoland competition go to a national championship in Atlanta.

“It’s a blast,” Kamiya said.

Roosevelt Middle School automatically qualifies for the Carlsbad competition because it hosted the event.

But before the teams move on to other competitions, they had to meet qualifications in four categories in Saturday’s competition.

The theme of the robotics competition was climate change, so robots had to perform weather-related tasks, such moving a polar bear or picking up minerals and placing them in a coal mine.

“Robots are required to perform tasks on a 4-by-8-foot table,” Kamiya said. “They have two minutes and 30 seconds to complete as many tasks as possible.”

The highest score possible is 400 points.

Teams were judged on their presentation related to climate change, robot design, teamwork and performance, Kamiya said.

“All children must be involved in the entire process,” he said.

The Arcadia Girl Scouts Troop 238, who represent the LOL Comets, practiced six hours a week for two months for the event.

“It gives you the opportunity to be creative,” team member Audrey Chen said.

Coached by Melanie Tizon and Warren John Ong Pe, Grade 6 student Joseph Aldrin Chua and Grade 5 students Eldrich Chua and Dominique Sy, all from the Grace Christian Elementary School, bagged the silver medal with a certificate and a Lego trophy, beating 21 other schools.

This is the first time that the Philippines garnered a medal in the open category in the elementary level of the competition.

The students’ winning entry, entitled “Green Whiz Community and the G-Tech Robot Engineering a Better World,” features 12 robots doing various tasks to help save the environment.

The wiz kids’ robots aimed to show the urgency of saving the environment, emphasizing that technology can be used to stop the destruction of, and save the planet from, environmental degradation.

The featured robots include Next Gen Car, a lightweight hydrogen-powered car which consumes lesser energy; H2O (Water) Treatment Robot, which is designed to filter wastewater from factories for safe disposal; E-Sorter, a robot that sorts biodegradable and nonbiodegradable garbage using color coding of containers; Paper Recycling Area, a factory robot that recycles used paper into usable materials; Iced Sub-Zero Robot that makes melted ice in the polar region back into ice form; and Forest Surveillance Robot, which has a built-in camera that guards forests and waterfalls from illegal loggers and hunters.

Other robots used were AD Robot, which is perched on the top of a mountain and advertises the importance of planting trees in order to save the earth; Air Pollution Monitor Robot, designed to monitor the level of carbon dioxide and other pollutants; CO2 (carbon dioxide) Sequester E3K, designed to sequester carbon dioxide emitted by factories; E-Card, used to switch on and off household appliances; Heliostatic Mirrors are equipped with mirrors that follow sunlight and magnify it as an alternative source of light; and WM 123 are windmill robots that serve as alternative source of energy for the community.

Students from Benigno Aquino High School and the International School of Manila won certificates for winning the sixth place in the open category of the high- school and primary levels, respectively.

Capturing the gold medals for the open category were Malaysia, Taiwan and South Korea for the senior high-school, junior high-school and primary levels, respectively. In the regular category, South Korea received gold medals for the primary and junior high-school levels, while Sweden got the top prize for the senior high-school level.

South Korea obtained three gold medals, Singapore got one silver and one bronze, and Malaysia got one gold, one silver and two bronze medals in the entire event.

In the open category, student-contestants were tasked to create robots within the theme “Saving the Global Environment,” which were judged based on their appearance, uniqueness, interactive behavior, good engineering and stability. Team members showed the quality of the entry through successful demonstration, good explanation and projected high team spirit.

Science Education Institute Director Dr. Ester Ogena said the Philippine team’s triumph was proof that Filipino students are on a par with students around the world.

“Our students have shown their best and given more opportunities like these, we could tap more potential in the field of robotics,” she said.

Ogena vowed to increase more support in robotics as it takes the lead, together with Felta Multi-media, in preparing for the staging of the World Robotics Olympiad (WRO) in the Philippines in 2010.

“Preparations are under way for this grand event and we are very excited with the privilege that we would be hosting the WRO two years from now,” she said.

Ogena said the robotics olympiad is a good training ground for future engineers who would like to improve the way of living in the world through robotics.

“Our end goal in supporting the WRO is to entice our students to venture into science careers and beef up the critical mass of scientists and engineers our country needs,” she said.

Overal Design:

Fig. 1.A

Figure 1A shows a 3D graphical representation of the robot, where different parts can be clearly identified according to the following table:

For the detail explanation, please visit this page

Austin College became one of 28 high schools, colleges and universities in the nation to receive a grant to enhance computer science curriculum with robotics technology. The grant was provided by the Institute for Personal Robots in Education (IPRE) and a gift from Microsoft Research.

“Implementing robotics into computer science and other sciences makes the curriculum more interesting and interactive,” said Shellene Kelley, associate professor of computer science, who tested robots for the IPRE and attended a three-day faculty workshop at the Georgia Tech College of Computing during the 2008 spring term. “Hopefully this will help combat the U.S. trend of declining student interest in math and the sciences,” she said.

Kelley will be implementing the technology at Austin College during her fall 2008 Communication/Inquiry (C/I) course, “Computing with Robots: It’s all a BOT science,” where each student will explore ways to automate robot behavior through computer programming with their own personal robot. Kelley also will be utilizing the robotic technology in a 2008 Jan Term and in a 2009 spring term course.

“It’s much more fun to teach a robot to navigate around obstacles, perform a dance, or roam the halls taking pictures along the way than to write a program to solve a mathematical equation or search for information in a file,” Kelley said. “But the same logic and problem solving skills are needed to accomplish all these tasks. Students will not only learn to program robots but also learn to program computers to solve many types of real-world problems.”

Kelley said the C/I course, Austin College’s unique brand of freshman seminars, and Jan Term course utilizing the robots will be a way to attract undecided students and some non-science majors to the science and computer science field, aligning Austin College with the IPRE grant’s goal.

“Robots are a compelling way to stimulate students and spark their imaginations to consider the endless possibilities of careers in computer science,” said Dr. Stewart Tansley, senior program manager at Microsoft Research. “With these awards, we hope to accelerate the broad development of robotics programs, making computer science more immediate, relevant and significant for students and professors everywhere.”

The 28 recipients will share $250,000 and receive book-sized robots, called Scribblers, which are enhanced with special hardware technology and software. “IPRE’s efforts in developing this technology over the past two years makes it possible to put a robot in the hands of every student in the class for about the same price as a textbook” said Kelley. “This is key to encouraging experimentation and learning, both in and out the classroom environment.”

Grants were given to schools that met IPRE’s criteria for the technical quality of academic program, chances for successful implementation and matched IPRE’s mission to reinvigorate undergraduate computer science curriculum by delivering robotics technology tailored to education.

The IPRE applies and evaluates robots as a context for computer science education. IPRE was created in 2006 as a joint effort between Georgia Tech College of Computing and Bryn Mawr College sponsored by Microsoft Research.

The team — one of 50 in the nation and only four in South Carolina — was chosen to participate in a Green Machine competition to retrofit a robotic vehicle engine with a hydrogen fuel cell.

Nancy Zende, the Mauldin High team adviser, said the team’s acceptance into the competition is “a testimony to what we’ve been able to do in the past and to our willingness to take on additional challenges.”

The team has also taken on additional members, she said, almost doubling from last year to this year.

The 40-plus team members also have more adult volunteers and business community mentors because of the project, Zende said.

The project, which began in September and will culminate in May during a competition in Cleveland, hinges on the team’s ability to master hydrogen safety and polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell construction, application and maintenance concepts.

Basically, the team will retrofit one of its battery-operated robots to run on a hydrogen cell, she said.

Most of the work now is research, but game design and construction phases are coming.

In January, the team will launch a six-week build period for its annual competition season.

Team members have an “amazing enthusiasm” for the project, she said.

As well as preparing for the actual competition, the team is focusing on how and how soon the technology can be accessed and used by the individual, particularly in commuter situations, she said.

“There may come a day within the lifetime of these students when they see hydrogen fuel cells as the main means of powering automobiles,” Zende said.

She added she has always viewed the Robotics Team as a means of preparing the students for jobs that don’t exist yet, and that this project emphasizes that opportunity.

This is a “significant opportunity to get in on the ground-floor level on what may turn out to be an important industry in this state,” Zende said.

“South Carolina is positioning itself to be a leader in the hydrogen fuel cell (industry).”

The Mauldin Robotics team will display one of its robots Oct. 11 at the Roper Mountain Science Center.

www.greenvilleonline.com

“With expectations running high for the growth of humanoid and medical-care robotic systems markets, semiconductor-fueled innovation is an extremely important field,” said Marco Cassis, Corporate Vice President and President of STMicroelectronics K.K., ST’s subsidiary in Japan. “By combining HRI’s globally renowned breakthroughs in robotics and ST’s highly advanced know-how in semiconductor technology, we are confident in our ability to accelerate technological innovation in humanoid robotics and medical-care robot systems. We are very pleased to announce the development of this robot, in addition to our cooperative relationship with HRI, the first that ST has established with a Japanese university.”
“Robotics Technology (RT) is expected to be a fundamental technology for the sustainable development of human society in the 21st century and is expected to be widely applied in manufacturing industries as well as in such industries such as nursing care and medical treatment as well as in industries confronted by food and environmental issues,” said Professor Shuji Hashimoto, Director of the Waseda University HRI. “HRI has been researching and developing advanced intelligent robots for the next generation through the integration of machine technology and information technology. The introduction of cutting-edge microelectronics technology is essential to the realization of such robots. We thus have high expectations that our cooperation with ST will accelerate our research. In addition, we will pursue a new model of industrial-academic cooperation through concrete cooperative activities with ST in education and research fields.”
The WV-1 is a two-wheeled robot on which a pole with weights is installed in an inverted fashion on a pedestal. A feedback system, controlled with the STM32, ST’s ARM(R) Cortex(TM)-M3 based 32-bit MCU and the LIS344ALH 3-axis digital acceleration sensor, allows the robot to move while maintaining its balance. The MCU rapidly computes the angle of robot body incline, angular velocity and other sensor data, enabling the motor to constantly generate optimum torque, which allows the robot to continue moving smoothly without tipping over. Potential applications for this inverted pendulum robot control technology include postural control functions for humanoids and other devices, realizing new means of mobility.
HRI received a grant from “the project for reinforcement of development technologies for robotics” from The Robotics Industry Development Council. The grant was used for the development of the WV-1. Additionally, HRI is now working on plans to commercialize the robot.

http://www.marketwatch.com

View the video from youtube.

I’ve build the second line follower robot using 7 photodioda sensor and microcontroller AT89S52… the movement is quite fast and running smoothly…

The third line follower robot has been built using 7 photodioda sensor, microcontroller ATMega8535 and motor driver L298N… already running OK but need suit DC motor to make the movement faster…

I have built 2 line follower robot and 1 firefighting robot just using modified motor servo… and great, the robot is very easy to be controled…

Here the my first line follower robot using modified motor servo (old picture):

The robot’s movement is very slow, added more voltage and increase the wheel’s size is very important to increase the robot speed.

Step by step of modifiying motor servo from societyofrobotics.com:

What is a servo? A servo, unmodified, typically has a rotation of some set amount. In other words, they cannot rotate continuously. This is because of the built in angle feedback control system. There is an internal potentiometer which is used to determine the angle which the servo is at. Pots, or variable resistors, cannot rotate continuously.

There is however a way to modify a servo so that they can rotate continuously. Why do this? Because although you lose position control, you gain speed control. Neat, huh? To do this, obviously the pot needs to be altered in someway. There is also a mechanical stop within the gears which needs to be removed as well.

A note to what will be tricky about this servo tutorial. There are many types of servos, and they all have variations in how the mechanics work. It will be too much work for a tutorial to cover all types, so I will cover the basic concepts instead. Fortunately, most servos made today are designed to be easily modified.

So the first step would be to open up the servo.
1) First make sure the servohorn is removed from the output shaft. The servohorn attaches to the main output gear (the biggest gear), so removing it helps keep the gears from all falling out when you open the servo up. Also, use a microcontroller to command the servo to rotate to 0 degrees, the point between the maximum and minimum angle the servo can rotate to. You may also do this step by hand, although it might not be as exact.

Note, if you are making The $50 Robot (or at least using the ATmega8 microcontroller), download this .hex file and upload it to your ATmega8. You dont need to compile anything, as I already did that for you. This program will tell the microcontroller to send a signal at 1.5ms, the signal your servos need to hold at the zero position.

2) Next unscrew the four really long screws in the corners. Be careful not to strip the screw heads.

3) Now open up the top half of the servo. There are two parts that will open. The bottom half has the circuitry and wiring - make sure that remains closed. The top half contains the gearing. When opening, be careful not to have all the gears fall out. Memorize the gear locations just incase they do, so that you can reassemble everything. Make sure all the gears remain with the main part of the servo, with the exception of the large gear connected to the output shaft. Be careful not to contaminate the servo grease, as that would lead to an increase in gear wear.

4) Now you need to find the pot. It is connected to and under the largest gear. You must pull off the main gear to find it.

5) Next we need to center the servo. Do this by plugging it in to your controller and send the signal required for it to go to 0 degrees. You should probably see the gears rotating without stopping. Now rotate the pot head (no, not that type of pot head) so that the gears stop rotating. It will probably be very sensitive so take your time. It is very important for this to be perfect. Get some superglue and glue the pot head to make sure it remains in place.

6) Now while the glue is drying, try to find the mechanical stop on the main gear. It will be something protruding that prevents the gear from rotating continuously when the gearing is assembled. Metal gears usually have a protruding metal pin, pull it out. Plastic gears have a protruding plastic peice that you need to cut off. Get a pair of snips and carefully cut it off. You might also have to file it down if your trim was not perfect. Rarely will it be. Don’t damage the gear teeth during this process.

7) Attached to the gear that was connected to the pot is a little slot for the pot to fit in. Remove the slot from the gear. Chances are you can just pull it right out with a flathead screwdriver. This slot is so when the gear rotates, the pot will rotate with it. Keeping the pot in a fixed location tricks the servo to think it is at the same location.

Reassemble everything. Make sure the output shaft rotates continuously. Then send PWM to the servo. You will notice that by telling the servo to go to a particular angle, instead it will rotate at a particular speed. Neat, huh?

Not Working?
I just finished this tutorial but I’m having problems! Help!

Well you aren’t alone. Try these forum posts:

http://www.societyofrobots.com/robotforum/index.php?topic=4400.0
http://www.societyofrobots.com/robotforum/index.php?topic=507.0
http://www.societyofrobots.com/robotforum/index.php?topic=1732.0
http://www.societyofrobots.com/robotforum/index.php?topic=1350.0

NewsChannel 19’s Barry Hiett Reports:

Planning ahead for the future. It won’t be long before a new Robotics Center will be calling the Calhoun Community College campus home.

And faculty members here want to make sure that students who participate in the program are well trained before they enter the high tech work force.

“This particular facility really highlights robotics and automation software and that is just…what they tell us it’s an absolute have to do. And the governor is responding to that with this facility,” says Ed Castile who is with Alabama Industrial Development Training.

His company recruits, screens and trains employees.

He realizes a lot of college students are well versed with computers which fits in perfectly with the new Robotics Center.

“Very computer savvy. They know how to maneuver a computer and wade through all the issues so how can we take that fun and interest and excitement to the manufacturing sector? This is the pathway,” says Castile.

It was widely believed the new Robotics Center would work hand in hand with the new Volkswagen plant had VW officials decided to build a plant in north Alabama instead of Chattanooga.

Still, Calhoun President Dr. Marilyn Beck is not too concerned.

“We were disappointed about VW.   I think anyone would have been.  It’s such a great company but we have many businesses and industries in our region who use robots,” Beck says.

And that’s what, Beck says, will make graduates of the Robotics Center so attractive to potential employers.

There’s already a big marketplace here in north Alabama for their soon to be talents.

Dr. Beck says more than 100 businesses in north Alabama already use robots.

Calhoun’s Robotic Center should be completed at the end of 2009.

h bridge schematics

DC Motors which need high current and high voltage usually give high velocity and high torque. For small robots like line follower robot or fire fighting robot, I think IC motor driver L298 (up to 2A total current) is better choice. While for large and heavy robot, you need high current DC motors also H-Bridge suit to your DC motor.

This article sould be useful for you to build high  current H-Bridge. H-Bridge schematics provided…

============================

The H-Bridge is the link between digital circuitry and mechanical action. The computer sends out binary commands, and high powered actuators do stuff. Most often H-bridges are used to control rotational direction of DC motors. And unless you buy a potentially expensive motor-driver, you need an H-bridge to control any robot with a motor.

This is a quickly sketched H-Bridge circuit with supporting circuitry.

First lets talk about what a transistor is. These nifty chips revolutionized the electronics industry and you would be hardpressed to find something electronic that does not have at least a few thousand of these in them. So what do they do? They can control a flow of electrons by applying a voltage to them. The plumbing equivalent would be a water valve. By rotating the valve, a very large flow of water can easily be controlled.

There are several types of transistors, such as the PNP and NPN, but for sake of making your life easy I will only talk about a MOSFET (Metal-Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor). These neat things have only been around for a decade or two, but are way better than the more traditional transistor. First they are more efficient. They are easier to calculate mathwise. Plus they usually have built in protection diodes so you don’t need to add them in later. They even have PWM (explained later) optimized MOSFET’s.

So to operate a MOSFET, you apply a voltage to the gate (from your microcontroller), and suddenly a current of electrons passes through the other two pins. Connect a motor (M) in line with one of the pins and your robot is set to go. In the above schematic you will notice the letters A and B. These are your two control lines which you apply this logic voltage to. Since you have two pins, and only a binary control, there are four possible things that can happen.

A=0 B=0 : Nothing happens, the motor is turned off
A=1 B=0 : Motor rotates clockwise
A=0 B=1 : Motor rotates counterclockwise
A=1 B=1 : Your circuit explodes into pretty sparks

Here is a ghetto visual graphic of the H-bridge logic chart:

So now lets talk about how to operate the MOSFET’s. Basically all you need to do is attach the gate to your digital output of your controller. When the digital output is turned on, 5V will be applied to the gate, turning the MOSFET on. However it is better to amplify that 5V to a value higher and I will explain why. The gate voltage controls the MOSFET internal resistance. Zero voltage makes the resistance too high for it to work. A very high voltage has a very low resistance. Resistance leads to loss of energy thermally. This means your MOSFET will heat up and possibly burn out. Take a look at the MOSFET picture above and you will notice my finger print in it. That is what happens when you touch a hot MOSFET - pain! So although you do not need to amplify the gate voltage, it is best to do so. You should also put a heat sink on it.

Ok so what if you want speed control, and not just an on/off switch? PWM! Pulse width modulation. PWM is when you send a square wave at a certain frequency to control the MOSFET as shown above. Basically you are telling your controller to turn on and off the motor at very high rates. So through inductance the motor is neither fully on or fully off, but somewhere in between. Such as at a slower speed. Also a note that motor torque, under PWM, remains the same whether fully on or only a percentage on. However, varying voltage for speed control reduces torque. So with PWM you have maximum torque yet slower speeds! You will have to experiment with wave length for both on and off periods, as well as frequency, to optimize your speed control. But a guess usually works.

Make sure the MOSFET you have has built in protection diodes. If not, install them on your circuit as shown. This is to prevent back currents from your DC motor. Also do not forget to put a small capacitor across the leads on your motor to reduce electronic noise and increase motor life. You might also want to refer to the tutorial on robot power regulation to help you design a better power source for your H-bridge.

It is also recommended to put a slow blow fuse after the power supply, resistors of a few 100 ohms on the gate logic, and the additional capacitors on your circuit as shown. This will prevent melting, large voltage surges, and high frequency emission.

taken from societyofrobotics.com

The motors as actuator device is very and very important to understand. There are many things need to be calculated… velocity, torque, motor voltage and motor current. There is nice post from societyofrobotics about DC Motors. The most important one is about torque… I’ve so confused about choosing DC motors for my robot and now I am figuring that DC motors must have enough torque for running smoothly…

Here the nice article about DC motors:

=============================

From the start, DC motors seem quite simple. Apply a voltage to both terminals, and weeeeeeee it spins. But what if you want to control which direction the motor spins? Correct, you reverse the wires. Now what if you want the motor to spin at half that speed? You would use less voltage. But how would you get a robot to do those things autonomously? How would you know what voltage a motor should get? Why not 50V instead of 12V? What about motor overheating? Operating motors can be much more complicated than you think.

Voltage
You probably know that DC motors are non-polarized - meaning that you can reverse voltage without any bad things happening. Typical DC motors are rated from about 6V-12V. The larger ones are often 24V or more. But for the purposes of a robot, you probably will stay in the 6V-12V range. So why do motors operate at different voltages? As we all know (or should), voltage is directly related to motor torque. More voltage, higher the torque. But don’t go running your motor at 100V cause thats just not nice. A DC motor is rated at the voltage it is most efficient at running. If you apply too few volts, it just wont work. If you apply too much, it will overheat and the coils will melt. So the general rule is, try to apply as close to the rated voltage of the motor as you can. Also, although a 24V motor might be stronger, do you really want your robot to carry a 24V battery (which is heavier and bigger) around? My recommendation is do not surpass 12V motors unless you really really need the torque.

Current
As with all circuitry, you must pay attention to current. Too little, and it just won’t work. Too much, and you have meltdown. When buying a motor, there are two current ratings you should pay attention to. The first is operating current. This is the average amount of current the motor is expected to draw under a typical torque. Multiply this number by the rated voltage and you will get the average power draw required to run the motor. The other current rating which you need to pay attention to is the stall current. This is when you power up the motor, but you put enough torque on it to force it to stop rotating. This is the maximum amount of current the motor will ever draw, and hence the maximum amount of power too. So you must design all control circuitry capable of handling this stall current. Also, if you plan to constantly run your motor, or run it higher than the rated voltage, it is wise to heat sink your motor to keep the coils from melting.

Power Rating
How high of a voltage can you over apply to a motor? Well, all motors are (or at least should be) rated at a certain wattage. Wattage is energy. Innefficieny of energy conversion directly relates to heat output. Too much heat, the motor coils melt. So the manufacturers of [higher quality] motors know how much wattage will cause motor failure, and post this on the motor spec sheets. Do experimental tests to see how much current your motor will draw at a desired voltage.
The equation is:

Power (watts) = Voltage * Current

Power Spikes
There is a special case for DC motors that change directions. To reverse the direction of the motor, you must also reverse the voltage. However the motor has a built up inductance and momentum which resists this voltage change. So for the short period of time it takes for the motor to reverse direction, there is a large power spike. The voltage will spike double the operating voltage. The current will go to around stall current. The moral of this is design your robot power regulation circuitry properly to handle any voltage spikes.

Torque
When buying a DC motor, there are two torque value ratings which you must pay attention to. The first is operating torque. This is the torque the motor was designed to give. Usually it is the listed torque value. The other rated value is stall torque. This is the torque required to stop the motor from rotating. You normally would want to design using only the operating torque value, but there are occasions when you want to know how far you can push your motor. If you are designing a wheeled robot, good torque means good acceleration. My personal rule is if you have 2 motors on your robot, make sure the stall torque on each is enough to lift the weight of your entire robot times your wheel radius. Always favor torque over velocity. Remember, as stated above, your torque ratings can change depending on the voltage applied. So if you need a little more torque to crush that cute kitten, going 20% above the rated motor voltage value is fairly safe (for you, not the kitten). Just remember that this is less efficient, and that you should heat sink your motor.

Velocity
Velocity is very complex when it comes to DC motors. The general rule is, motors run the most efficient when run at the highest possible speeds. Obviously however this is not possible. There are times we want our robot to run slowly. So first you want gearing - this way the motor can run fast, yet you can still get good torque out of it. Unfortunately gearing automatically reduces efficiency no higher than about 90%. So include a 90% speed and torque reduction for every gear meshing when you calculate gearing. For example, if you have 3 spur gears, therefore meshing together twice, you will get a 90% x 90% = 81% efficiency. The voltage and applied torque resistance obviously also affects speed.

Control Methods
The most important of DC motor control techniques is the H-Bridge. After you have your H-Bridge hooked up to your motor, to determine your wheel velocity/position you must use an encoder. And lastly, you should read up on good DC Motor Braking methods.

Three Laws of Robotics are a set of three rules written by Isaac Asimov, which almost all positronic robots appearing in his fiction must obey. Introduced in his 1942 short story “Runaround”, although foreshadowed in a few earlier stories, the Laws state the following:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first passage in Asimov’s short story “Liar!” (1941) that mentions the First Law is the earliest recorded use of the word robotics. Asimov was not initially aware of this; he assumed the word already existed by analogy with mechanics, hydraulics, and other similar terms denoting branches of applied knowledge.

The Three Laws form an organizing principle and unifying theme for Asimov’s fiction, appearing in his Robot series and the other stories linked to it, as well as his Lucky Starr series of science-oriented young-adult fiction. Other authors working in Asimov’s fictional universe have adopted them, and references (often parodic) appear throughout science fiction and in other genres.

Ant robots are simple and cheap robots with limited sensing and computational capabilities. This makes it feasible to deploy teams of ant robots and take advantage of the resulting fault tolerance and parallelism. Ant robots cannot use conventional planning methods due to their limited sensing and computational capabilities. Rather, their behavior is driven by local interactions. For example, ant robots can communicate via markings that they leave in the terrain, similar to ants that lay and follow pheromone trails.

In the past couple of years, researchers have developed ant robot hardware and software and demonstrated, both in imulation and on physical robots, that single ant robots or teams of ant robots solve robot-navigation tasks (such as path following and terrain coverage) robustly. Thus, ant robots might provide a promising alternative to the currently very popular robabilistic robot navigation approaches. Researchers have also developed a theoretical foundation for ant robotics, based on ideas from real-time heuristic search, stochastic analysis, and graph theory. This half day tutorial on the current state of the art n ant robotics is given by experts who will give an overview of this exciting area of mobile robotics without assuming any prior knowledge on the topic. It will cover all important aspects of ant robotics, from theoretical foundations to videos of implemented systems. To this end, it will bring together the various research directions for the first time, including theoretical foundations, ant robot hardware, and ant robot software.

Its primary objective is to give non-specialists a comprehensive overview of the state of the art of the field, for example, to allow researchers and students to do research in the area and to allow practitioners to evaluate the current state of the art in ant robotics. Consequently, it is of interest to anyone who is interested in mobile robotics and artificial intelligence.

Download the tutorial here

Schottky output diodes are used that match the current and voltage for your motors.

The only ‘real’ difference compared with the 1 amp circuit is that we using an L298 rather than one of the L293 series. The L298 lends itself to mounting a heatsink, due to the higher current, but is a bit of a swine to solder onto strip board or matrix board and is more designed for PCBs. It uses a ‘Mulitwatt 15′ package - and comes with two strips of pins each using a standard 0.1″ pin separation. But the problem is that the second bank of pins is offset by 0.05″. So if you are using strip/matrix board then you will need to be very carefull when bending one set of pins to fit.

Cost
This requires one tri-state switch per motor;
one L298N for every two motors. The L298N costs about $3.57
four diodes per motor at about 50 cents per diode.
So about $11 in total - for driving two motors

Download the schematics here

Our Vision A world where people understand technology, work productively together, and use technology creatively and responsibly to improve the quality of all life. Our Purpose We provide opportunities for kids to:

• Learn technology and engineering skills,
• Gain experience working effectively in project teams,
• Express their creativity and have fun,
• Be inspired to explore future technology careers.

We provide teachers, mentors and parents with training and materials that enable them to be effective leaders, coaches and mentors of robotics and technology programs that teach and inspire others.

Our Work We develop and deliver hands-on technology education workshops and programs for adults and children. Our education programs are project and team-based, providing training and experience in teamwork and project management skills as well as training in mechanical engineering and design, software design and development, problem solving and debugging, and presentation skills.Participants attending our programs work in teams of two or more. An instructor introduces the teams to equipment, materials and concepts though interactive demonstrations, hands-on tutorials, team activities, and challenges. The teams complete activities and problem-solving challenges using provided LEGO^TM MINDSTORMS^TM robot construction kits, computers and software.

Children participating in our Kids Workshops are guided through a hands-on experience where they design, build and program robots using the LEGO construction system. Working in teams, they learn valuable leadership and project management skills. They are left with a feeling of accomplishment for what their team has created with their new knowledge and skills. They also gain and an understanding of, and interest in, possible future careers in engineering, programming and other technical fields.

Participants of our Mentor Workshops gain hands-on experience and familiarity with the LEGO construction system, robot-programming software and challenges. They receive materials, resources and strategies for organizing their own robotics activities, classes, or regional programs.

Our programs can be delivered in a variety of formats, including daytime or evening classes, full day or multi-day workshops, or weeklong summer day-camp programs. Our programs can be held at private or public schools, clubs, homes, community facilities, or education centers. Our plan is to eventually establish one or more dedicated facilities and resource centers for permanently housing and delivering our services and products to communities throughout California and beyond.