Hi Again,
I have question about the handy board compatibility with the rug warrior .
i know they are both IC based but is it possible to use the same program Rug
warrior uses work on the HB?
I noticed that the rug warriors format for programming seems to be a little
different that the HB? Is this correct? And why?
Also, if someone has made a version of the rug warriors code that will work
on the Hb , I would like to see it so I can learn more about programming the
Hb in IC.
I find it strange that the manual which is supplied with the HB shows how to
access the ports and all but doesnt really show how to implement the code
into workable complete programs.
I really need some help. if someone could send me some sample programs  or
tell me of links where I could find the same it would really help.
Thanks
-Mike

Hi everyone I'm a new member and I need some advice with the Handy Board.
I cant seem to make a complete working program to do what I want.
I am trying to just write code to have the board repond to a couple of
different values from Analog(3) for instance.
I want the Handy Board to light the motor port lights LIKE, if val = 100 then
motor(0,50) and motor(1,50).
But I dont know the correct way to do it.
If anyone can help me I would greatly appreciate it.
Thanks in advance.
-Mike

> I do agree that a strictly anthropomorphic design is a limited foundation
> for a space robot. Our (human) physical form didn't evolve in space and
> isn't optimized for that environment. However, I do think that the NASA
> Robonaut is a particularly good design because it is intended to service
> things designed to be serviced by people using existing tools made to be
> used by people. Also, because it's intended to be a tele-operated robot, it
> makes sense to design it's geometry and range of motion to be the same as
ours.

Also by making the robot space suited human sized it means things
designed to be serviced by the robot can also be serviced by
humans.  Redundancy is very important when a seconf service call
costs so much.

> I suspect they didn't add anthropomorphic legs because ours aren't good for
> much in space

I find the single pedistal like leg interesting.  Looks like it's
made to be put out on the end of the boom.

> >I suspect that a robot that has four or more arms, used primarily to hold on
> >to the outside of the station as well as rockets would be more advantageous.
> >Primary reasons are that extra arms would stabilize the robot while its
> >working, and using the arms to maneuver around the exterior or the station
> >when possible would use renewable electric energy instead of fuel
> >propulsion.

Reminds me of Quaddies from "Falling Free" by Lois McMaster-Bujold.
They are a genetically engineered race of 4 armed humans.  Instead
of legs they have a second set of arms.

On more than two arms.  I can see a use for more.  I'd the third
hand syndrom we've all run into, but if you make the robot with more
than two hands you risk the situation where you can only repair
something if you have the robot.  Humans need to be able to
substitute for the robot if it fails.

> >The cameras/sensors should be able to see as much of the area as possible,
> >that way the robot will not have to, say, turn around to work on something
> >else - conserving energy.

Wouldn't generally be worth it.  Energy is cheep.  Time on the
otherhand isn'tr.

> >I think the robot tools should be in leatherman or Swiss army knife style,
> >basically a merriad of tools that are right for the job(s).  Special
> >(locking) adapters would allow tool upgrades.  The last thing I want to see
> >are tools floating out of a robots hand like they do with their human
> >counter part.

See my comment about humans being a backup above.  You need
universiality of tool use.

> >In retrospect, I guess this web page is probably designed more for the
> >public.  I'm sure NASA has come to these conclusions on its own.

> > > http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er_er/html/robonaut/robonaut.html


--
|  Bryan Andersen   |   bryan@...   |   http://softail.visi.com   |
| Buzzwords are like annoying little flies that deserve to be swatted. |
|   -Bryan Andersen                                                    |

Just seeing if this new eGroups thing works. Also, I finally got my OOPic to
do something. I got it to turn on and off an LED! Yipee! I've figured out
most of my problems. I WASN"T SAVING THE FILES! Doh! The stupid thing only
compiles the saved version. Arg! I've been trying to get the oSerial object
to work my companies new G120 Seetron LCD. I looks like in this version it
can only transmit numbers. I can't get it to work. The LCD remains blank. My
code looks like this:

Dim serial As New oSerial
Dim i As New oByte

Sub main()
serial.Baud = 3
serial.Mode = 1
serial.Operate = 1
do
   serial = 1
loop
End Sub

I'm going to try Michael's servo code in a minute.... ok done... It works!
Great ... ok now I'm trying to hook up my Sharp 12 sensor, and I get an
"EEPROM Not Acknowledging" error. My battery is fine. Any idea?
-William


---------------------------------------------------
R U 100% Sure
  that if you died tonight you'd go to heaven?
If not, can I tell you the truth?
william@...
------------------------------------------------------------

Turner, Rob wrote:
<snip>
> I think the robot tools should be in leatherman or Swiss army knife style,
> basically a merriad of tools that are right for the job(s).  Special
> (locking) adapters would allow tool upgrades.  The last thing I want to see
> are tools floating out of a robots hand like they do with their human
> counter part.

Decent idea - Remember, tools break occasionally - Perhaps have a spare
set attached to the robot that could be hot-swapped during a space walk
if a tool snaps off?

Alternately could have a belt or tray that spare bits/tools are stored
in, so you could swap tools/bits at will (lower bulk on the end of the
arm = can work in tighter spaces.)

   Mark

Ummm... what is it?
-William

----- Original Message -----
From: Karl Lunt <karllunt@...>
To: <srs@...>
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2000 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: SRS: New member initiation device


> At 06:08 PM 6/10/00 -0700, you wrote:
> >I was thinking about establishing a formal membership initiation, and
> >decided this would be a great thing to use:
> >
> >http://colitz.com/site/819814/819814.htm
> >
>
> Very scary.  I presume present members will be grandfathered?
>
>                         Karl
>
> Karl Lunt       karllunt@...
> web:  http://www.seanet.com/~karllunt
>
> "Technology marches on.  Over you or through you,
> take your pick."      Attributed to Stewart Brand
>
> To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@...
> In the message body, put    unsubscribe srs
> For more information, www.seattlerobotics.org/contact.html
>

I do agree that a strictly anthropomorphic design is a limited foundation
for a space robot. Our (human) physical form didn't evolve in space and
isn't optimized for that environment. However, I do think that the NASA
Robonaut is a particularly good design because it is intended to service
things designed to be serviced by people using existing tools made to be
used by people. Also, because it's intended to be a tele-operated robot, it
makes sense to design it's geometry and range of motion to be the same as ours.

I suspect they didn't add anthropomorphic legs because ours aren't good for
much in space -- that and DeWalt hasn't already made any shoe-mount space
drills ;)

I defiantly think the Robonaut is more legit than PR. After watching the
videos and seeing the list of published technical articles, it's evident
Robonaut is a significant research project.

Anyway I love the fact NASA researchers have the creative freedom to add a
Centurian helmet if they want.

Ted



At 03:06 PM 6/11/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Ok - yes this is a very cool design.  I actually am acquainted with one of
>the guys who worked on the gold prototype in the center of the web page.  I
>dream of building robots like this.
>
>BUT
>
>I suspect that a robot that has four or more arms, used primarily to hold on
>to the outside of the station as well as rockets would be more advantageous.
>Primary reasons are that extra arms would stabilize the robot while its
>working, and using the arms to maneuver around the exterior or the station
>when possible would use renewable electric energy instead of fuel
>propulsion.
>
>The cameras/sensors should be able to see as much of the area as possible,
>that way the robot will not have to, say, turn around to work on something
>else - conserving energy.
>
>I think the robot tools should be in leatherman or Swiss army knife style,
>basically a merriad of tools that are right for the job(s).  Special
>(locking) adapters would allow tool upgrades.  The last thing I want to see
>are tools floating out of a robots hand like they do with their human
>counter part.
>
>In retrospect, I guess this web page is probably designed more for the
>public.  I'm sure NASA has come to these conclusions on its own.
>
>ROB.T.
>
> > ----------
> > From:         Ted Griebling[SMTP:erich@...]
> > Reply To:     SeattleRobotics@egroups.com
> > Sent:         Saturday, June 10, 2000 9:52 PM
> > To:   SeattleRobotics@egroups.com
> > Subject:      [SeattleRobotics] Robonaut: ultra impressive robot with
> > attitude!
> >
> > This link is a must see. "NASA is building an advanced humanoid system
> > called Robonaut" a tele-operated robot to be used as an alternative to
> > human space walks.
> >
> > I especially like the Centurian armor inspired helmet!
> >
> > http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er_er/html/robonaut/robonaut.html
> >
> > Robonaut: ultra impressive robot with attitude!
> > **************************************************************
> > Erich T Griebling (Ted)                       erich@...
> > (206)547-2394                    http://www.seanet.com/~erich/
> > 3938 Bagley Ave N
> > Seattle WA, 98103
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > CLICK HERE AND START SAVING ON LONG DISTANCE BILLS TODAY!
> > http://click.egroups.com/1/4125/6/_/_/_/960692180/
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > SeattleRobotics-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> >
> >
> >
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Before you walk down the aisle, learn to run your financial life.
>Get planning resources from GE Center for Financial Learning
>Free online courses to guide your future.
>http://click.egroups.com/1/4637/6/_/_/_/960750440/
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>SeattleRobotics-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>

**************************************************************
Erich T Griebling (Ted)                       erich@...
(206)547-2394                    http://www.seanet.com/~erich/
3938 Bagley Ave N
Seattle WA, 98103

So I went ahead and bought this game. I have managed to play around with it
for a few hours, here are my first impressions:

1) The graphics are outstanding!

2) The programming model is a visual based event network. That means you can
drag wires between inputs and outputs, then set properties on the link. For
example, I can have a radar connected to a thruster. When the radar sees
something, I can set the thruster to a value. The combinations of networks
can get pretty big. I haven't played long enough to know just how big.

3) This could be a very fun and interesting game.

Downsides:

Out of my 5 machines, it only runs on my Windows/NT box. It requires certain
graphic accelerator cards, and crashes if you don't have one. Also, the CD
that came with wouldn't run. However, there was a patch on the website
already.

The UI is not very obvious, but you will get used to it. It would have been
nice to have some sample robots to look at for learning, but I have been
unable to find them yet.

This is worth the $40, but be certain that you have the correct hardware.
They have a list of what cards work and don't work.

I will try to play with it more over the next week and let you know how it
goes.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dinh Bowman <bowdinh@...>
To: Jeff Loitz <jeffl@...>; <srs@...>
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 11:58 AM
Subject: Re: SRS: Robotic Competition Game


> Greetings,
>
> >  Now you can use your robotic programming and building skills to build
and
> > control robots in a game.  Take a look:
> >
> >  http://www.cognitoy.com/
> >
>
> Here's a review of it that a friend of mine is working on.:
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/gamespot/stories/reviews/0,10867,2542601,00.html
>
>
>
> -Dinh-
> To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@...
> In the message body, put    unsubscribe srs
> For more information, www.seattlerobotics.org/contact.html
>

Ok - yes this is a very cool design.  I actually am acquainted with one of
the guys who worked on the gold prototype in the center of the web page.  I
dream of building robots like this.

BUT

I suspect that a robot that has four or more arms, used primarily to hold on
to the outside of the station as well as rockets would be more advantageous.
Primary reasons are that extra arms would stabilize the robot while its
working, and using the arms to maneuver around the exterior or the station
when possible would use renewable electric energy instead of fuel
propulsion.

The cameras/sensors should be able to see as much of the area as possible,
that way the robot will not have to, say, turn around to work on something
else - conserving energy.

I think the robot tools should be in leatherman or Swiss army knife style,
basically a merriad of tools that are right for the job(s).  Special
(locking) adapters would allow tool upgrades.  The last thing I want to see
are tools floating out of a robots hand like they do with their human
counter part.

In retrospect, I guess this web page is probably designed more for the
public.  I'm sure NASA has come to these conclusions on its own.

ROB.T.

> ----------
> From:  Ted Griebling[SMTP:erich@...]
> Reply To:  SeattleRobotics@egroups.com
> Sent:  Saturday, June 10, 2000 9:52 PM
> To:  SeattleRobotics@egroups.com
> Subject:  [SeattleRobotics] Robonaut: ultra impressive robot with
> attitude!
>
> This link is a must see. "NASA is building an advanced humanoid system
> called Robonaut" a tele-operated robot to be used as an alternative to
> human space walks.
>
> I especially like the Centurian armor inspired helmet!
>
> http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er_er/html/robonaut/robonaut.html
>
> Robonaut: ultra impressive robot with attitude!
> **************************************************************
> Erich T Griebling (Ted)                       erich@...
> (206)547-2394                    http://www.seanet.com/~erich/
> 3938 Bagley Ave N
> Seattle WA, 98103
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CLICK HERE AND START SAVING ON LONG DISTANCE BILLS TODAY!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/4125/6/_/_/_/960692180/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> SeattleRobotics-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>

Great Encoder, and many pats on the back for the articles and the authors,
these will put SRS miles ahead of any Robotics group.  Good luck with your
board making ventures!  I'm anxious to get a toaster oven for my work bench.

Gene Elliott
Port Orchard Robotics Club
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Ross <kevinro@...>
To: seattlerobotics@egroups.com <seattlerobotics@egroups.com>;
srs@... <srs@...>; DGRG Mailing LIst
<dprglist@...>
Date: Saturday, June 10, 2000 5:06 PM
Subject: SRS: The June 2000 Encoder is available


>This month is a good one. First, we have a review of several PCB layout
>programs by Kevin Ross.
>
>Then, Kenneth Maxon did a major core dump this month and wrote 3
outstanding
>articles
>
>'Reaching the Next Step in Motion Control and Sensor-Software Fusion for
>Mobile Robots.' - Buildling a new 68332 based Microcontroller board
>
>'Have you considered programable logic for your next design?' - An
>introduction to programmable logic devices
>
>'Have you seen my new soldering Iron?' - How to solder surface mount parts
>in a toaster oven
>
>http://www.seattlerobotics.org/encoder/200006/index.html
>
>Enjoy,
>
>Kevin
>
>
>To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@...
>In the message body, put    unsubscribe srs
>For more information, www.seattlerobotics.org/contact.html
>

This link is a must see. "NASA is building an advanced humanoid system
called Robonaut" a tele-operated robot to be used as an alternative to
human space walks.

I especially like the Centurian armor inspired helmet!

http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er_er/html/robonaut/robonaut.html

Robonaut: ultra impressive robot with attitude!
**************************************************************
Erich T Griebling (Ted)                       erich@...
(206)547-2394                    http://www.seanet.com/~erich/
3938 Bagley Ave N
Seattle WA, 98103

This month is a good one. First, we have a review of several PCB layout
programs by Kevin Ross.

Then, Kenneth Maxon did a major core dump this month and wrote 3 outstanding
articles

'Reaching the Next Step in Motion Control and Sensor-Software Fusion for
Mobile Robots.' - Buildling a new 68332 based Microcontroller board

'Have you considered programable logic for your next design?' - An
introduction to programmable logic devices

'Have you seen my new soldering Iron?' - How to solder surface mount parts
in a toaster oven

http://www.seattlerobotics.org/encoder/200006/index.html

Enjoy,

Kevin

We are half way through the process of moving to the new list server.

For now, you should send things to srs@...

I will send email tomorrow night just before I shut down the
srs@... list.

Kevin

----- Original Message -----
From: <Reconbot@...>
To: <SeattleRobotics@egroups.com>; <srs@...>
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2000 2:39 PM
Subject: SRS: whats happening?


> This all has been very confusing.
> (I'm sending this to both lists)
> Is the move final? and are we all on the egroups list yet? So should we
just
> forget about the srs@... list and just use the
> SeattleRobotics@egroups.com?
>
> Can someone just make a final statement?
> To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@...
> In the message body, put    unsubscribe srs
> For more information, www.seattlerobotics.org/contact.html
>

This all has been very confusing.
(I'm sending this to both lists)
Is the move final? and are we all on the egroups list yet? So should we just
forget about the srs@... list and just use the
SeattleRobotics@egroups.com?

Can someone just make a final statement?

Hi This is a test message but also I have a question?
Is this list good for getting help with the Handy board?
Thanks
-Mike

Looks like the mail server at work is finally back up.  Here's hoping this goes
through.

Jim Cox

This is being sent to the new mailing list at eGroups.com. Due to their
anti-spam mechanism, I was only able to move part of the list over. You were
either already subscribed, or I added you. There are no other steps for you
to take at this time.

Everyone else on the SRS list is being invited to join. You will soon see a
mail to the original SRS mailing list explaining the invite. If you got this
mail, your are already signed up, and won't be invited.

Thanks
Kevin

----- Original Message -----
From: Bryan E. Daniel <bedaniel@...>
To: Kevin Ross <kevinro@...>; <srs@...>
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 11:30 PM
Subject: Re: SRS: I'm sold / Concerns about liability and SRS policy?


>
> To the SRS,
> Should we take a vote first on the SRS list server?
> Should the webmaster be paid for time spent managing the list server from
the
> SRS treasury?
> What happened to taking a vote on SRS issues?
> (The officers of the SRS are elected by membership vote.)
> Does the SRS have a Constitution requiring a vote?

Interesting questions that I can address:

-) We don't have bylaws. Its one of those administrivia issues that is too
tedious to deal with. We want to work on robots, not bylaws!

-) This is a volunteer based non-profit corporation. That means we do this
for fun, not for pay. We don't even have membership dues or an official
membership roster.

-) There is a tradeoff between actually accomplishing things and voting on
them. The board of directors of the SRS include the officers (Ted, Ron, Tom)
who are recognized by the state since they are on the corporations yearly
statement. The other two positions are event coordinator and
webmaster/Encoder Editor (Doug Kelley and Me). These are all elected
positions. The current webmaster was installed by the previous benign
dictator (ah, er, me) because he was willing to setup the website, pay for
it, and edit the Encoder on a monthly basis.

-) Our election mechanism is slightly screwy, but seems to work pretty good.
Elections are held when the current board of directors get bored, want to
leave the group, or when more than a few people at the meeting say its time
for an election, which happens rarely. The voting has been by people who
attend the meetings, mostly because whoever is at the meeting might actually
interact directly with the esteemed members of the board.

-) Years of experience show that the most efficient way to run our group is
via the benign dictatorship method. While we all love our national
democracy, it doesn't work all that well for actually accomplishing things.
That is why we have a board of directors. Their mission is to handle all of
the non-robot related issues to the best interest of our non-profit
corporation. As such, we on the board of directors usually propose the
intended action to the group, and unless most of the group raises objections
or there is a serious flaw in the proposal, we will carry out the proposed
action. We often times send out the proposal to a small subset of the
membership before hand to get their reactions to it. It just isn't possible
to satisfy 100% of the members. Getting even the 70 members of a meeting to
decide on something can be impossible.

-) We take suggestions by members of the group seriously, but we also have
to be realistic about implementations. Fortunately for us, this is a group
of people who have more ideas than you can shake a stick at. The sticky spot
is that few are willing to back their ideas up with an implementation plan
or at least taking on organizing the implementation of their own
suggestions.


> Concern:   Public Speech versus Private Conversation protection
>
> I have a concern about public posting at egroups versus the SRS having the
list
> server.
>
> It may be possible that if the SRS has the list server, posting a message
to the
> list could be considered a private conversation with 384 or so list
subscribers.
<snip>

Our list server has an open door policy. Anyone can subscribe, unsubscribe,
or post to our list. This is a public forum with members all around the
world.

>
> Will the SRS webmaster be able to remove a message on request or will a
posting
> by an SRS member be publicly archived  forever? !

Sure, I can remove a message from the archive on reasonable request. In
general, it will be archived for as long as egroups exists.

Kevin

Interesting!

The meeting is scheduled for 10am to 2pm, Pacific Daylight Time (local to
Seattle). Apparently, the calendar function must adjust the schedule for
your timezone.

Kevin

----- Original Message -----
From: <htogesen@...>
To: <SeattleRobotics@egroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 12:56 PM
Subject: [SeattleRobotics] Monthly Meeting times


> Looking at the calendar page on the eGroups web site, I noticed the
> time of the monthly meetings was set to 5pm-9pm.  Is this an error?
>
> Hans Togesen
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Buy and sell used, rare and vintage gear at the Web's best
> music gear auction. Register to enter the weekly gear giveaway!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/3735/6/_/_/_/960580944/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> SeattleRobotics-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
>

Looking at the calendar page on the eGroups web site, I noticed the
time of the monthly meetings was set to 5pm-9pm.  Is this an error?

Hans Togesen

Well, I must admit, being able to read the mailing list while at the
library is going to be convenient. I can check in, check out whats
going on, and answer email without having to go home!

I was playing around with some of the other features, such as an
automatic scheduler that will send meeting reminder mail to the
group.

We can also upload about 20mb worth of files to a public area.

They also support a poll mechanism.

Anyway, I think this might work out pretty well.

Kevin

I wanted to try it too.

but egroups is faster

Yes, the to use the web interface, you need to register with egroups. My
point is that you don't have to use the web interface. You can use only the
email based interface if you wish.

Kevin

----- Original Message -----
From: <Reconbot@...>
To: <kevinro@...>; <srs@...>;
<SeattleRobotics@egroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: SRS: Moving the mailing list


> but to use the web interface to email requires you to register
>

but to use the web interface to email requires you to register

i'm just testing the email responce when i dont use the web interface

This is actualy from reconbot"@"aol.com but i dont feal like filling
out another regesteration form for reconbot yet. it looks ok on the
outside but it will take some getting used to.

This is the first post to SeattleRobotics@egroups.com

This post is really just a test, but I also want to forward it to the rest
of the group so they can see the banner ad format, etc.

There is a strong chance we will move our list in the near future.

Kevin