Robotic hobbiests -- SUB $1000 challenge?

mlw wrote:

I like this. I might even suggest a lower price tag with no kits
allowed.


I agree with the no sponsorships, but I think that including
universities under the same regulations as private individuals/teams
would be a good thing.

For example, I probably have a parts cabinet that might be
as good as a university's for this sort of thing.


If there were such a competition I might throw something together.


Of course. Now that can be produced/helped by corporate
sponsorship.


Again, I think that schools are important to include. There are few
enough opportunities for people to use inventive skills. And individuals
can get access to all sorts of tools if they try hard enough.

And to be honest, small robots can be built with few tools. Add points
for creative budgeting.


I think this is a *really* bad idea. Some people have more tools than
a university; some have few.


I do like these rules.
--
D. Jay Newman

D. Jay Newman wrote:


No kits, great idea. What constitutes a kit? A whole robot kit, or a
Velleman board?


Perhaps we also need weight classes and cost scales:
1.0lbs to 5.0lbs        $300
5.1lbs to 10.0lbs       $500
10.1lbs to 20.0lbs      $700
20.0lbs to 100.0lbs     $900
greater than 100lbs     $1000

Also make a point structure from coming in under budget?



I can see that, but by the same token, I can see someone with access to a
$50,000 logic analyzer having a huge advantage over someone using a kernel
debugger.

mlw wrote:

Hmmm. I was thinking of entire robot kits, but for some
reason I have no problem with building a base from a kit.
I also have no problem with using an SBC such as the MAVRIC
boards.

On the other hand, I'm not fond of using a single kit
to build an entire robot.

This may just be an aftifact of my own prejudices.


Yes, this was what I meant by points added for "creative budgeting".


Not always. I think in hobby robotics that ingenuity matters more than
fancy tools. I don't even have an oscilloscope or logic analyzer.
--
D. Jay Newman
http://enerd.ws/robots/

I wonder how it is possible to build a 100lb robot for $1000 :-)?
I guess its name would be nobrain.
Please do not take it seriously. I am kidding.

Ek

Ek wrote:

I'm pretty sure if I added a couple of dumbells to one of mine I could
get there pretty easily.

--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)

Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html

Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!

Ek wrote:


It would only take a few good-sized sealed gel-cell lead batteries.

D. Jay Newman wrote:
[snip]

The logic analyzer I can live without, but I have to admit that the
oscilloscope has helped me fix more problems than I care to remember.
eBay is a pretty good source for these. I've really come to consider
mine essential.

Cheers -- tAfkaks
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)

Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html

Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!

the Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty wrote:

I fully agree, and I intend to get one as soon as I've finished
my current project.
--
D. Jay Newman
http://enerd.ws/robots/

the Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty wrote:


I couldn't live without a scope. A logic analyzer is cool if you have
access.

I like the idea.  I'd definitly get on the band wagon if there was
something like this.

Some thoughts:

1)  for alot of hobby builders that I know (including myself) I could
probably build a $1000 dollar robot (or less) but then may not be able
to cover entrance fees.  Perhaps a sponsorship in this area, rather than
parts or money for the actual robot, could be allowed.

2)  The idea of corporate or university sponsorship for the event as a
whole, as has been suggested, is a good idea.  This will cut down on
required costs of the organization putting on the event.

3)  about universities...I think that having the parts and build methods
accountable for would help in this case, but leave equipment out of the
restriction.  Alot of universities or technical schools will let you use
thier labs if you ask nicely, tell them what it's for, and give them a
background on what your doing. This doesn't mean they can give you
parts, or even expertise from professors and such.  Just that you can
use thier equipment if you need to.

    Case in point:  Have a rule that parts must be traceable.  Either
through reciepts, bills of lading, or soemthing to that effect.
Something to make sure that a team can prove that they obtained the
parts themselves rather than having them donated.  I would allow "part
swapping" though.  soemthing like "I'll give you this ADC for that DAC"
or something along those lines.  But make sure that trades are for fair
value of a single piece.  Not an op amp for an embedded GPS module, but
say a binary comparator, op amp or two, and temp sensor for a
multichannel ADC. (I think thats about $10 of value for the swap or
so...that's the gist anyways)

    As far as build methods, require each team to keep a journal of the
build process, including who came up with what idea, thier theory behind
it, and have them able to explain how they came up with it and made it
work.  That could keep someone from getting something cutting edge from
a university or whatnot, and know how to implement it, but not how it
was built.

4)Make everyhting open to competitor scrutinization after the
competition.  This will keep things from happening like they used to in
formula one, where one team has a tech advantage and keeps winning for a
number of years straight, until someone else catches up and takes over
for a few years.  It will give people ideas for the next event, develop
camraderi between competitors, and make it a learning experience from
someone elses success, not jsut your failure.  In this respect, everyone
could come away a "winner", not just the winning team.

5)  Instead of one task, make the competition a multi event type of
thing, where one robot, with one configuration, and no parts or software
changes between events, must compete in a number of different tasks.
This will also help keep one machine from dominating because a machine
vision robot can choose a colored ball better than a robot built for
transporting things, but cant necessarily be as good at transporting
things from one place to another successfully and autonomously.

Just my..uhm..5 cents ;)

--Andy P

I don't think there should be too many strick rules.  If someone could
build a super-cool robot for $1080.43, he shouldn't be disqualified.

I think a home/office fire-fighting robot would be a great app, but the
contests today are usually for scaled-down, mock-up houses and robots no
bigger than 1 sq ft.  A full-size apartment, with real furniture and a
controlled fire in the corner would make more sense, IMHO.

But, I think a more simpler tasks would be better at first.  Like picking
up a 1 pound object and placing it in a predetermined area.

And when that becomes too easy, we can graduate to fetching the mail and
taking out the garbage contests.

mlw wrote:


If you are really serious about this you might want to check out and even
contact the folks who run the FIRST competitions.

If you want a larger contest then you should seriously consider getting the
whole contest sponsored.  An outfit like GE or IBM or perhaps the FIRST folks
sponsoring the whole thing would seem both possible and helpful.

LB

LB@notmine.com wrote:


Links to FIRST

http://www.usfirst.org  and  http://www.usfirst.org/robotics/

LB (no affiliation with first - just found watching the competition fun)

LB@notmine.com wrote:


That's cool and all, but my quick read indicates that it is more of an
educational institution and with robots they issue "kits" from which you
solve a problem.

My idea is to create a task that a mobile robot could do, say, deliver mail
or something.

Then teams or people enter the contest. The robot that completes the
competition first wins. There will have to, of course, be handycaps, i.e.
cash outlay. If a guy spends $999.99 on his robot, and does the task in 10
minutes, but another guy spends $199 on his robot and accomplishes the task
in 10:10, then while the $999.99 robot is technically "better" the lesser
robot is a more efficient design.

I don't know, maybe there are multiple trophies, winner, best overall, etc?

mlw wrote:


Not to discourage you, but you may want to spend a fair amount of time reading
that web site.   As it says at the top of the main page FIRST's purpose is...

"...to create a world where science and technology are celebrated... where young
people dream of becoming science and technology heroes..."

                                                                     - Dean
Kamen, FIRST Founder

These folks have their stuff together.
BTW the finals have been televised on Public TV and/or TLC and/or its
affiliates.
There are many meets around the country this weekend and the next two.  We found
it a lot if fun not only watching the robots but the whole atmosphere where the
High Schools bring cheerleaders and whoop  it up.


LB

LB@notmine.com wrote:


Yes, "young people." All the events are through trade schools and stuff. I'm
talking about use hard core robot hackers that have full time jobs and
stuff.

Surely, adults (and maybe kids) who may not nessisarily be employed in the
robotics industry or taking classes on it, who view robotics as a hobby,
should be able to have our own thing.

mlw wrote:


My reason for pointing you at the site was to both warn and show you some of the
complexities of what you are proposing.  OTOH I think it is a really neat idea.
Unfortunately its going to take a LOT of effort to make something happen.

LB

mlw wrote:

How do you determine how much money people have spent on their robot?
If somebody "gives" me a couple of motors that are worth $100 each?
What is somebody scrounges some neat stuff at the local swap meet?

I am skeptical that setting up a competition where price is the
primary criteria is going to provide a very level playing field.
I do not want to discourge setting up a compatetion, I just think
that using price is not a very good parameter for judging.

My $.02,

-Wayne

My real E-mail address is Wayne .at. Gramlich @Dot@ Net.

Wayne C. Gramlich wrote:


Of course people can cheat, but friendly competitions usually expect some
degree of trust.


Price is certainly limited, but I wouldn't call it a primary criteria. The
price should be sufficient that one could build something good and have fun
building it. Think of it like NASCAR or Stock car races, there are rules
about engines, components, and body, but the primary objective is still
racing. Didn't you ever do pinewood derby as a kid?

The primary criteria will be the task at hand. The restrictions on price and
corporate sponserships just send the message that this is an amature
competition.


Does that mean you may be interested?