1. To sense whether or not a door is open, the robot uses the ultrasonic sensor.
2. By using the loop, we don't have to program for every door. It will continue after it checks a door.
3. The robot does not always turn back to straight after looking in the doorway, so it can go off to the right and possibly miss the next line marking the doorway. However, multiple searches in the doorway would not affect the reliability of the ultrasonic sensor. It should still be able determine whether or not the door is open, even if the robot has checked in several other doors already.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Gears and Speed
1. see chart
2. see chart
3.
i.No. The different gear sizes caused it to go different distances. The robot is also not very precise.
ii. see chart
iii. To calculate the average speed.
4. see chart
5. No. This was only three trials with one gear ratio. We need to test different ratios and do more tests in order to conclude anything.
6. That is not how far it went. The back wheels did not start at the line, so measuring from the line to the back wheels with not include the length of the robot in the distance traveled.
7. 18.64 cm/s
8. 51.77 cm/s
9. 51.77 cm/s
10. 18.64 cm/s
11. see chart
12. see chart
13. 156.83 cm
14. 52.28 cm/s
15.
i. 18.64 cm/s
ii. 52.28 cm/s
iii. no
16.
i. 51.77 cm/s
ii. 52.28 cm/s
iii. yes
17.
i. Hypothesis B did a much better job of predicting average speed.
ii. The actual speed for Condition 2 was 52.28 cm/s and Hypothesis B predicted that it would be 51.77 cm/s, which is very close.
iii. Yes. We have disproved it twice, so we can conclude that it is incorrect.
iv. No. We will need to prove it more than twice to conclude that a hypothesis is incorrect.
v. Hypothesis B has the stronger support for it at this moment.
18. see chart
19. see chart
20. 55.83 cm
21. 18.61 cm/s
22.
i. 51.77 cm/s
ii. 18.61 cm/s
iii. no
23.
i. 18.64 cm/s
ii. 18.61 cm/s
iii. yes
24.
i. Hypothesis B
ii. The actual speed for Condition 3 was 18.61 cm/s and Hypothesis B predicted that it would be 18.64 cm/s, which is very close.
iii. Yes. We have disproved Hypothesis A already, so disproving it again proves that it is incorrect.
iv. No. We have only proved it twice, which could be flukes. We must test other ratios and more trials in order to conclude that it is absolutely correct.
v. Hypothesis B because it has been very accurate.
25. Hypothesis B was correct. To prove this we took different gear ratios and tested them to see how far they would go in three seconds. We then calculated the average speed and used the theories to predict how far they should have gone. Hypothesis B was correct since it was the more accurate.
26.
i. B
ii. A
iii. directly proportional
iv. It would be directly proportional because if it has a bigger wheel size, it will travel farther.
27. (36/6)*(16/16)= (x/3)*(18/6)
x =12 cm
28. (1.5)*(1)=(x)*(8/24)
x = 4.5
No. It will go too fast.
29. (9)*(1)=(15)*(36/x)
x = 60 teeth
2. see chart
3.
i.No. The different gear sizes caused it to go different distances. The robot is also not very precise.
ii. see chart
iii. To calculate the average speed.
4. see chart
5. No. This was only three trials with one gear ratio. We need to test different ratios and do more tests in order to conclude anything.
6. That is not how far it went. The back wheels did not start at the line, so measuring from the line to the back wheels with not include the length of the robot in the distance traveled.
7. 18.64 cm/s
8. 51.77 cm/s
9. 51.77 cm/s
10. 18.64 cm/s
11. see chart
12. see chart
13. 156.83 cm
14. 52.28 cm/s
15.
i. 18.64 cm/s
ii. 52.28 cm/s
iii. no
16.
i. 51.77 cm/s
ii. 52.28 cm/s
iii. yes
17.
i. Hypothesis B did a much better job of predicting average speed.
ii. The actual speed for Condition 2 was 52.28 cm/s and Hypothesis B predicted that it would be 51.77 cm/s, which is very close.
iii. Yes. We have disproved it twice, so we can conclude that it is incorrect.
iv. No. We will need to prove it more than twice to conclude that a hypothesis is incorrect.
v. Hypothesis B has the stronger support for it at this moment.
18. see chart
19. see chart
20. 55.83 cm
21. 18.61 cm/s
22.
i. 51.77 cm/s
ii. 18.61 cm/s
iii. no
23.
i. 18.64 cm/s
ii. 18.61 cm/s
iii. yes
24.
i. Hypothesis B
ii. The actual speed for Condition 3 was 18.61 cm/s and Hypothesis B predicted that it would be 18.64 cm/s, which is very close.
iii. Yes. We have disproved Hypothesis A already, so disproving it again proves that it is incorrect.
iv. No. We have only proved it twice, which could be flukes. We must test other ratios and more trials in order to conclude that it is absolutely correct.
v. Hypothesis B because it has been very accurate.
25. Hypothesis B was correct. To prove this we took different gear ratios and tested them to see how far they would go in three seconds. We then calculated the average speed and used the theories to predict how far they should have gone. Hypothesis B was correct since it was the more accurate.
26.
i. B
ii. A
iii. directly proportional
iv. It would be directly proportional because if it has a bigger wheel size, it will travel farther.
27. (36/6)*(16/16)= (x/3)*(18/6)
x =12 cm
28. (1.5)*(1)=(x)*(8/24)
x = 4.5
No. It will go too fast.
29. (9)*(1)=(15)*(36/x)
x = 60 teeth
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Get in Gear
1. Yes. The robot went faster.
2. Increasing the motor power would allow the wheels to move faster.
3. If you make the gear of the wheel axle smaller, the robot will go faster. If it is bigger, it will go slower.
4. It went faster. It went twice the distance in the same amount of time. We timed the robot, and saw that it went faster.
5. It will go slower. It went half the distance in the same amount of time.
6. To make it go faster, you can increase the power or swap the wheel gear to a smaller gear.
7. To make it go slower, you can decrease the power or swap the wheel gear to a bigger gear.
8. The larger wheel will go on the motor.
9.
i. same
ii. very slow
iii. To go faster, the gear on the wheel must be smaller than that on the motor. To go slower, the gear on the motor must be smaller than that on the motor. To go the same speed, the gears must be the same size.
iv. If the wheel gear is smaller than 16, it will go faster. If it is 16, it will go the same speed. If it is bigger than 16, it will go slower.
10.
i. It was only set to motor rotations, not wheel rotations. Since the wheel gear was smaller, it rotated more in the same amount of time.
ii. It was only set to motor rotations, not wheel rotations. Since the wheel gear was bigger, it rotated less in the same amount of time.
iii. No. It the wheel gear is smaller, than you will have to figure out the ratio between the motor gear and the wheel gear to figure out how many motor rotations will equal a wheel rotation.
11.
i. small gear on the wheel and large gear on the motor.
ii. large gear on the wheel and small gear on the motor.
iii. large gear on the wheel and small gear on the motor.
iv. small gear on the wheel and large gear on the motor.
12. Different gears work better for high speeds than they would for towing and having lots of power.
2. Increasing the motor power would allow the wheels to move faster.
3. If you make the gear of the wheel axle smaller, the robot will go faster. If it is bigger, it will go slower.
4. It went faster. It went twice the distance in the same amount of time. We timed the robot, and saw that it went faster.
5. It will go slower. It went half the distance in the same amount of time.
6. To make it go faster, you can increase the power or swap the wheel gear to a smaller gear.
7. To make it go slower, you can decrease the power or swap the wheel gear to a bigger gear.
8. The larger wheel will go on the motor.
9.
i. same
ii. very slow
iii. To go faster, the gear on the wheel must be smaller than that on the motor. To go slower, the gear on the motor must be smaller than that on the motor. To go the same speed, the gears must be the same size.
iv. If the wheel gear is smaller than 16, it will go faster. If it is 16, it will go the same speed. If it is bigger than 16, it will go slower.
10.
i. It was only set to motor rotations, not wheel rotations. Since the wheel gear was smaller, it rotated more in the same amount of time.
ii. It was only set to motor rotations, not wheel rotations. Since the wheel gear was bigger, it rotated less in the same amount of time.
iii. No. It the wheel gear is smaller, than you will have to figure out the ratio between the motor gear and the wheel gear to figure out how many motor rotations will equal a wheel rotation.
11.
i. small gear on the wheel and large gear on the motor.
ii. large gear on the wheel and small gear on the motor.
iii. large gear on the wheel and small gear on the motor.
iv. small gear on the wheel and large gear on the motor.
12. Different gears work better for high speeds than they would for towing and having lots of power.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Article Journal Post #15: Robot Space Plane
The U.S. Air Force's first unmanned re-entry spacecraft landed Friday after a top secret mission in space, beginning in April. The Air Force will not say exactly what the plane's objectives were, but they say that it performs "risk reduction, experimentation and concept of operations development for reusable space vehicle technologies." It was most likely testing avionoics or reusable insulation. The newest reusable reentry spacecraft, the X-37B is planned to launch sometime next spring. It is designed for a vertical takeoff like a rocket to low orbits, where it can automously descend back to Earth on command and land horizontally on a runway, like a plane. This is the first craft since the shuttles to have this capability.
This technology is great. When the space shuttles are retired next spring, astronauts will need some way to get to the International Space Station. They will have to buy seats on Russian rockets, which is extremely expensive, until we come up with a replacement for the shuttles. The X-37Bs sound very similar to the design of the orbiters, but are automously controlled. Having the controls on autopilot makes the astronaut pilot's job much easier. It can make landings and dockings more precise, lessening the chance of error and calamity.
article
supporting article 1
supporting article 2
This technology is great. When the space shuttles are retired next spring, astronauts will need some way to get to the International Space Station. They will have to buy seats on Russian rockets, which is extremely expensive, until we come up with a replacement for the shuttles. The X-37Bs sound very similar to the design of the orbiters, but are automously controlled. Having the controls on autopilot makes the astronaut pilot's job much easier. It can make landings and dockings more precise, lessening the chance of error and calamity.
article
supporting article 1
supporting article 2
Field of View
1.
i. It made a snowman figure.
ii. It represents the area that the sensor can detect objects. It detects near and far in a wide range, but not as well in the middle.
2.
i. 60 cm
ii. 62 cm away from the sensor, directly in front
3.
i. The widest detection range is bigger than the robot's width.
ii. Yes. the NXT is narrower than 35 cm, so if an object is at the edge of the range, the robot will not run into it.
4. 2 cm
5. 10 cm
6. 1:5
7.
i. The graph is the same pattern as the actual dots. We can see that the robot is smaller than the detection range.
ii. The size of the dot pattern is smaller.
iii. Yes. It is the same information, just smaller.
8.
i. The scale factor means that every one centimeter on the paper is equal to five actual centimeters.
ii. 4.4 cm
iii. 11.5 cm
9.
i. directly in front of the sensor
ii. 12 cm away
iii. 60 cm
iv. The farthest it can detect is 62 cm right in front of the sensor.
10.
i.Yes, at about 50 cm, the robot's side ranges narrowed.
ii.50 cm
iii. Different amounts of frequency of the waves are needed to detect something farther away than something closer.
11. The detection area was in the shape of a circle. As it got farther away, the rebounded waves got weaker until it switched to distance mode, where it had the same circular pattern.
12. We put the sensor on a flat line on the floor. Looking at the sensor readings, we saw how far away the robot could detect an object. Then, at intervals of 10 cm (10,20,30,40,50, and up to your point of farthest detection), we found how far to the sides the sensor could detect an object. We then recorded the points on a scaled graph.
13.
i. It was 52 cm, directly in front of the robot's sensor.
ii. The widest detection part is about 31 cm wide at a distance of 40 cm away from the robot.
14.
i. 2:25
ii. It is about 170 cm, right in front of the sensor.
iii. 115 cm wide
iv. No, it doesn't have the gourd like shape, indicating the mode switch.
15.
i. 62 cm
ii. .0018 seconds
iii. .0018 seconds
iv. .0036 seconds
v. .0038 seconds
vi. They are really fast. It has to be able to detect to the hundred thousandths place.
i. It made a snowman figure.
ii. It represents the area that the sensor can detect objects. It detects near and far in a wide range, but not as well in the middle.
2.
i. 60 cm
ii. 62 cm away from the sensor, directly in front
3.
i. The widest detection range is bigger than the robot's width.
ii. Yes. the NXT is narrower than 35 cm, so if an object is at the edge of the range, the robot will not run into it.
4. 2 cm
5. 10 cm
6. 1:5
7.
i. The graph is the same pattern as the actual dots. We can see that the robot is smaller than the detection range.
ii. The size of the dot pattern is smaller.
iii. Yes. It is the same information, just smaller.
8.
i. The scale factor means that every one centimeter on the paper is equal to five actual centimeters.
ii. 4.4 cm
iii. 11.5 cm
9.
i. directly in front of the sensor
ii. 12 cm away
iii. 60 cm
iv. The farthest it can detect is 62 cm right in front of the sensor.
10.
i.Yes, at about 50 cm, the robot's side ranges narrowed.
ii.50 cm
iii. Different amounts of frequency of the waves are needed to detect something farther away than something closer.
11. The detection area was in the shape of a circle. As it got farther away, the rebounded waves got weaker until it switched to distance mode, where it had the same circular pattern.
12. We put the sensor on a flat line on the floor. Looking at the sensor readings, we saw how far away the robot could detect an object. Then, at intervals of 10 cm (10,20,30,40,50, and up to your point of farthest detection), we found how far to the sides the sensor could detect an object. We then recorded the points on a scaled graph.
13.
i. It was 52 cm, directly in front of the robot's sensor.
ii. The widest detection part is about 31 cm wide at a distance of 40 cm away from the robot.
14.
i. 2:25
ii. It is about 170 cm, right in front of the sensor.
iii. 115 cm wide
iv. No, it doesn't have the gourd like shape, indicating the mode switch.
15.
i. 62 cm
ii. .0018 seconds
iii. .0018 seconds
iv. .0036 seconds
v. .0038 seconds
vi. They are really fast. It has to be able to detect to the hundred thousandths place.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Obstacle Detection
1. The robot went forward until it ran into the wall and stopped.
2. The touch sensor felt the wall and told the robot to stop.
3. No. The robot could bump into a fragile item and break it. Running into things all the time could ruin the robot as well. It is better than running into something and trying to keep going.
4. The robot is able to sense where things are, but it can only do that by running into them.
5. The robot ran until it sensed the wall and stopped a couple inches from it.
6. It sensed the wall because of the radar, which told the robot to stop.
7. The robot stopped about four centimeters from the wall, measuring from the front of the sensor.
8. The robot will stop when it sees obstacles and will not run into them, but it may not see the smaller objects.
9. It is not as reliable as the touch sensor because it is unable to sense smaller obstacles. However, it is good if you want to avoid something without running into it first.
10.
i. We changed the wait for block from touch sensor to ultrasonic sensor. The touch sensor senses where things are by running into them and the ultrasonic sensor senses where things are by bouncing radar waves off of them.
ii. One stops after it runs into an obstacle, and the other stops right before it runs into something.
11. The robot will stop when it sees obstacles and will not run into them, but it may not see the smaller objects.
12.
i. The ultrasonic sensor depends on a variety of variables, like the light sensor and the sound sensor, so you need to set a threshold so the robot knows how far to look ahead. It also has a range that it can detect, so you need to set it to how far you want it to look ahead.
ii. If the threshold is changed, the robot will stop closer or farther away from the obstacle.
13.
i. to detect walls
to navigate a maze
to determine exactly where obstacles are
the sensor is easier to use
ii. robots that are trying to navigate on their own and robots going through a maze. Scales and computer mice are also touch sensors
iii. It would not be acceptable when the obstacle is fragile or if it in a small area.
14.
i. so you don't run into things
more efficient and easy to program
to detect from far away where an object is
to map out an area
ii. No. It cannot see some smaller objects.
iii. A robotically-driven tractor navigating a field
iv. If the robot is traveling over bumpy terrain with small rocks, it may not be able to see them.
15. The touch sensor can detect obstacles by feeling when the robot runs into something. The light sensor can detect obstacles by looking for the shadow of an object. A thermal detector or infrared sensors could detect humans or animals in the area. Magnets could detect the distance, like a metal detector.
16. ??????
17. Yes.
18. It detects hard objects easier because it is more rigid and bounce the waves back easily.
19. The smallest object detected was the ruler.
20. No.
21. Yes. The thinner objects can be seen easier by the sensor.
2. The touch sensor felt the wall and told the robot to stop.
3. No. The robot could bump into a fragile item and break it. Running into things all the time could ruin the robot as well. It is better than running into something and trying to keep going.
4. The robot is able to sense where things are, but it can only do that by running into them.
5. The robot ran until it sensed the wall and stopped a couple inches from it.
6. It sensed the wall because of the radar, which told the robot to stop.
7. The robot stopped about four centimeters from the wall, measuring from the front of the sensor.
8. The robot will stop when it sees obstacles and will not run into them, but it may not see the smaller objects.
9. It is not as reliable as the touch sensor because it is unable to sense smaller obstacles. However, it is good if you want to avoid something without running into it first.
10.
i. We changed the wait for block from touch sensor to ultrasonic sensor. The touch sensor senses where things are by running into them and the ultrasonic sensor senses where things are by bouncing radar waves off of them.
ii. One stops after it runs into an obstacle, and the other stops right before it runs into something.
11. The robot will stop when it sees obstacles and will not run into them, but it may not see the smaller objects.
12.
i. The ultrasonic sensor depends on a variety of variables, like the light sensor and the sound sensor, so you need to set a threshold so the robot knows how far to look ahead. It also has a range that it can detect, so you need to set it to how far you want it to look ahead.
ii. If the threshold is changed, the robot will stop closer or farther away from the obstacle.
13.
i. to detect walls
to navigate a maze
to determine exactly where obstacles are
the sensor is easier to use
ii. robots that are trying to navigate on their own and robots going through a maze. Scales and computer mice are also touch sensors
iii. It would not be acceptable when the obstacle is fragile or if it in a small area.
14.
i. so you don't run into things
more efficient and easy to program
to detect from far away where an object is
to map out an area
ii. No. It cannot see some smaller objects.
iii. A robotically-driven tractor navigating a field
iv. If the robot is traveling over bumpy terrain with small rocks, it may not be able to see them.
15. The touch sensor can detect obstacles by feeling when the robot runs into something. The light sensor can detect obstacles by looking for the shadow of an object. A thermal detector or infrared sensors could detect humans or animals in the area. Magnets could detect the distance, like a metal detector.
16. ??????
17. Yes.
18. It detects hard objects easier because it is more rigid and bounce the waves back easily.
19. The smallest object detected was the ruler.
20. No.
21. Yes. The thinner objects can be seen easier by the sensor.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Faster Line Tracking
1. The robot spun in circles with a slight hesitations when it reached the black line.
2. The robot was moving too fast to properly register the black line, so it got lost on the right side of the line.
3. Put the sensor closer to the robot's axis of rotation at the back so it can register the line better.
4. The turning centers are underneath the wheels.
5. If we did not change the programming, the robot would track the line behind it, which would be pointless.
6. Since the sensor is on the center of the turn, it will stay in the center of the robot and remain on the black line longer.
7.
i. done
ii. 30% power, 24 seconds
iii. 91% power, 14 seconds
iv. 14/24 = 58.33%
8. There is a left backwards swing turn and a right backwards swing turn.
9. Right and left are dependent upon the person and the direction they are facing. Define left and right from the direction it is going, not the direction it is facing. Or you could say that Motor C is the left wheel and motor B is the right wheel.
2. The robot was moving too fast to properly register the black line, so it got lost on the right side of the line.
3. Put the sensor closer to the robot's axis of rotation at the back so it can register the line better.
4. The turning centers are underneath the wheels.
5. If we did not change the programming, the robot would track the line behind it, which would be pointless.
6. Since the sensor is on the center of the turn, it will stay in the center of the robot and remain on the black line longer.
7.
i. done
ii. 30% power, 24 seconds
iii. 91% power, 14 seconds
iv. 14/24 = 58.33%
8. There is a left backwards swing turn and a right backwards swing turn.
9. Right and left are dependent upon the person and the direction they are facing. Define left and right from the direction it is going, not the direction it is facing. Or you could say that Motor C is the left wheel and motor B is the right wheel.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Article Journal Post #14: Robotic Surgery
Doctors at LSU Health Sciences Center New Orleans have reported the first use of a surgical robot guided by an endoscope. The robot was used to remove a 20 millimeter salivary stone from a patient. Suing the surgical robot will save the salivary gland and reduce blood loss, scarring, and hospital stay. Many factors, such as a small mouth or obesity, made removing a salivary stone very difficult. The endoscope attached to the robot improves the doctor's view of the surgical area through a two-dimensional view. The robotic unit produces three dimensional images, further improving the view. The size and dexterity of the robot allows it to avoid vital structures while taking out the stone.
Minimally invasive, robotic surgery is a highly popular method of surgery, because it does not cause as much of the pain associated with regular surgery. The endoscope guided robotic surgeon is able to remove a salivary stone without damaging the gland. Before, the neck would have been cut open and the whole gland taken out. The new way is much less painful and the patient does not need to suffer any ill effects from the surgery, such as losing a salivary gland. This new development will certainly be useful and save a number of people much pain.
article
supporting article 1
supporting article 2
Minimally invasive, robotic surgery is a highly popular method of surgery, because it does not cause as much of the pain associated with regular surgery. The endoscope guided robotic surgeon is able to remove a salivary stone without damaging the gland. Before, the neck would have been cut open and the whole gland taken out. The new way is much less painful and the patient does not need to suffer any ill effects from the surgery, such as losing a salivary gland. This new development will certainly be useful and save a number of people much pain.
article
supporting article 1
supporting article 2
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Follow the Guidelines
1. The robot is trying to sense light and dark.
2. It should turn right when it sees light because it needs to go back on the line.
3. It should turn left when it sees dark because it needs to go back to the left edge of the line.
4. (56+35)/2 = 46
5.
i. dark
ii. light
iii. light
iv. dark
6.
i.
2. It should turn right when it sees light because it needs to go back on the line.
3. It should turn left when it sees dark because it needs to go back to the left edge of the line.
4. (56+35)/2 = 46
5.
i. dark
ii. light
iii. light
iv. dark
6.
i.
iii.
iv.
7.
i. left (dark)
ii. left (dark)
iii. right (light)
iv. left (dark)
8. To make the robot follow the line, it must turn to the right when it sees light and turn to the left when it sees dark. Once it completes this action, it starts over again.
9. The room is probably lighter in the morning, so it is not able to easily distinguish the difference between the line and the floor. The weather and ambiance of the room that day could also affect the sensor readings. She needs to recalculate the threshold value and adjust her programming accordingly.
10.
i. yes
ii. Instead of starting the robot on the left side of the line, you would have to start it on the right side of the line, assuming that the threshold values are the same. It would turn off the right side of the line rather than the left side of the line, tracing the right side of the line.
11.
i. Yes, if the sensor was not placed at the front of the robot, it would not be able to sense the line as well and would not turn properly. The robot would go way off the curve before it sensed that it needed to turn.
ii. If you raise the sensor, the threshold will have to be higher because more light would be sensed. If you lower the sensor, the threshold will have to be lower because less light would be sensed.
iii. It will work if you place the robot on the right side of the line to begin with.
12. It tracks the right side of the line because when the robot sees light, it will turn to the left. When it sees dark, it will turn to the right. We switched the behaviors when the robot senses light and dark.
13. It would be useful if the robot is near the edge of a cliff and might track the edge on the right side in order to stay on the cliff.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Article Journal Post #13: Flying Robot Car
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is developing a helicopter jeep that has the ability to travel both on land and in the air. The vehicle will be able to carry up to four people and 1,000 pounds of cargo a distance of about 250 knots. The purpose of the Transformer Program, as DARPA calls it, is to create a flexible vehicle that can fly itself or at least with minimal human input. The driver of the vehicle could operate the vehicle without any pilot training. The vehicle will have to be aware of its surroundings and automatically react to it. To help them in developing the robot pilot, DARPA is partnering with Carnegie-Mellon University. Last summer, CMU flew an autonomously guided full size helicopter.
This technology could be really helpful to our military. The jeep aspect of the vehicle could be used for patrols or other missions. The helicopter aspect of the vehicle would allow soldiers to fly over a potential land mine or other dangerous area. It would also be able to get injured soldiers out of the battle and to where they can get medical attention quickly. Since there would not be a need for a pilot to constantly man the controls of the helicopter, the vehicle could have more firepower.The vehicle can also make vertical takoofs and landings, so it would be difficult to hit and less predictable.
article
supporting article
This technology could be really helpful to our military. The jeep aspect of the vehicle could be used for patrols or other missions. The helicopter aspect of the vehicle would allow soldiers to fly over a potential land mine or other dangerous area. It would also be able to get injured soldiers out of the battle and to where they can get medical attention quickly. Since there would not be a need for a pilot to constantly man the controls of the helicopter, the vehicle could have more firepower.The vehicle can also make vertical takoofs and landings, so it would be difficult to hit and less predictable.
article
supporting article
Monday, November 8, 2010
Frequency and Amplitude
1. Sound 1: 25
Sound 2: 26
Sound 3: 27
Sound 4: 28
2. The pitch stayed the same, but the loudness of the sounds increased.
3. x = tone
y = decibel percentage
4.
i. Yes. The readings went up as the amplitude went up.
ii. As the amplitude increases, the sensor readings increase. As the amplitude decreases, the sensor readings decrease.
5. If the amplitude is high, the sensor will read a louder sound and a higher volume. If the amplitude is low, then the sensor will read a lower volume.
6. Sound 1: 24
Sound 2: 69
Sound 3: 88
Sound 4: 96
7. The pitch changed between each tone because the frequencies increased. The amplitude between each tone changed.
8. x = tone
y = decibel percentage
Sound 2: 26
Sound 3: 27
Sound 4: 28
2. The pitch stayed the same, but the loudness of the sounds increased.
3. x = tone
y = decibel percentage
 |
i. Yes. The readings went up as the amplitude went up.
ii. As the amplitude increases, the sensor readings increase. As the amplitude decreases, the sensor readings decrease.
5. If the amplitude is high, the sensor will read a louder sound and a higher volume. If the amplitude is low, then the sensor will read a lower volume.
6. Sound 1: 24
Sound 2: 69
Sound 3: 88
Sound 4: 96
7. The pitch changed between each tone because the frequencies increased. The amplitude between each tone changed.
8. x = tone
y = decibel percentage
9.
i. Yes.
ii. As the frequencies increased, the sensor readings went up. However, there is not a strong pattern.
10. Frequency and amplitude affect the sensor readings. As they increase, the sensor will read higher values. As they decrease, the sensor will read lower values.
11. Frequency and amplitude affect the sensor, but amplitude will be more accurate.
12.
i. They would need the sound detector since they are trying to limit the amount of noise in the cafeteria.
ii. The sound sensor would be useless since the sensor cannot determine if the pitch is in tune or not. The sensor cannot determine frequency as well as it can amplitude.
iii. The sensor would not work, since the frequencies of people's voices are similar.
iv. It could work except that the sirens for the different emergency vehicles are different frequencies and different amplitudes when they are farther away as compared to when they are closer.
v. The sensor would work well for the teapot because the teapot makes the same noise and pitch every time.
vi. It could work because the crying would be the only noise for the sensor to hear.
13. Test the sound sensor when both amplitude and frequency are variables. We could also play a constant sound and move the sensor closer and farther away to see if it gets quieter and softer.
14. The term to describe amplitude is volume. The term to describe frequency is tone or pitch.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Article Journal Post #12: RoboTeachers
The Education Ministry of South Korea plans to have robotic teachers in every kindergarten class by 2013. Two cities, Masan and Daegu already have the teachers in their elementary schools. An English speaking robot named EngKey can have scripted conversations with the children in English. A robotic dog named Genibo teaches them dance moves and gymnastics. The robots are currently working as a support role for the human teachers, but they can be used for telepresence teacheing, allowing English speakers to communicate with the children in Korea. Eventually, the robots could fully replace the human teachers. In three to five years, the robots’ language skills could be so developed that they could replace native English speakers.
These robots are a very creative solution to helping kids learn new languages. The scripted conversations may not be as effective as learning from an actual English speaker, but as the robots are developed and the telepresence systems are utilized, the robots could be very effective teachers. The cute design of the robots allows the children to think of the robot as their friend and not as a big piece of metal. The robot teachers can also assist the human teachers in caring for the children and can teach the children about robotics and technology.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Clap On, Clap Off
1. 4%
2. 100%
3. 52%
4.
First Block: The Wait block is set to wait for a noise louder than 52%.
Second Block: The Wait block set to wait for a noise softer than 52%.
Third Block: The Motor block turns on motor C and moves it forward.
Fourth Block: the Motor block turns on motor B and moves it forward.
Fifth Block: The Wait block is set to wait for a noise louder than 52%.
Sixth Block: The Wait block is set to wait for a noise softer than 52%.
Seventh Block: The Motor block tells motor C to stop.
Eighth Block: The Motor block tells motor B to stop.
5. The program waits for a loud noise and then the drop off. It then moves forward and waits for the loud noise and drop off before it stops.
i. The two blocks are one Wait block that waits for a sound above the threshold and one Wait block that waits for a sound below that threshold.
ii. One Wait block is not enough because the noise for the clap is still above the threshold as the program moves to the second wait block. The sensor thinks that the after-clap is a second clap and stops the motors.
6. The threshold is the requirement or cutoff point for how loud or soft the sound has to be for the program to continue. If the threshold was higher, it would require a louder noise for the sensor to detect it and move on in the program. If the threshold was lower, then it would require a softer noise for the sensor to detect and move on in the program.
7. The halfway value makes sure that the noise detected to start the program is larger than the quiet sound but smaller than the loud clap. The threshold is meant to include the quieter claps and exclude the louder quiet noise.
8. It responds to other noises. Any noise that meets the requirements for the threshold value will trigger the sensor.
9.
i. She will need to find the quiet value in the theater and the loud value created by the slamming door. Then, she will calculate the threshold value by averaging the two numbers. She then programs her robot to move based on that threshold value.
ii. If the audience makes noise above the threshold value, such as clapping or laughing, the sensor will be triggered and the robot will move.
10. Find the quiet value for the cafeteria and the loudest value in the cafeteria. Then average the two and create a program that will flip the switch off when the noise goes above the threshold and flip the switch on when the noise in the cafeteria goes below the threshold level.
11. After the program is run, it will go back to the beginning and wait for another loud sound.
12. The program will run forever.
2. 100%
3. 52%
4.
First Block: The Wait block is set to wait for a noise louder than 52%.
Second Block: The Wait block set to wait for a noise softer than 52%.
Third Block: The Motor block turns on motor C and moves it forward.
Fourth Block: the Motor block turns on motor B and moves it forward.
Fifth Block: The Wait block is set to wait for a noise louder than 52%.
Sixth Block: The Wait block is set to wait for a noise softer than 52%.
Seventh Block: The Motor block tells motor C to stop.
Eighth Block: The Motor block tells motor B to stop.
5. The program waits for a loud noise and then the drop off. It then moves forward and waits for the loud noise and drop off before it stops.
i. The two blocks are one Wait block that waits for a sound above the threshold and one Wait block that waits for a sound below that threshold.
ii. One Wait block is not enough because the noise for the clap is still above the threshold as the program moves to the second wait block. The sensor thinks that the after-clap is a second clap and stops the motors.
6. The threshold is the requirement or cutoff point for how loud or soft the sound has to be for the program to continue. If the threshold was higher, it would require a louder noise for the sensor to detect it and move on in the program. If the threshold was lower, then it would require a softer noise for the sensor to detect and move on in the program.
7. The halfway value makes sure that the noise detected to start the program is larger than the quiet sound but smaller than the loud clap. The threshold is meant to include the quieter claps and exclude the louder quiet noise.
8. It responds to other noises. Any noise that meets the requirements for the threshold value will trigger the sensor.
9.
i. She will need to find the quiet value in the theater and the loud value created by the slamming door. Then, she will calculate the threshold value by averaging the two numbers. She then programs her robot to move based on that threshold value.
ii. If the audience makes noise above the threshold value, such as clapping or laughing, the sensor will be triggered and the robot will move.
10. Find the quiet value for the cafeteria and the loudest value in the cafeteria. Then average the two and create a program that will flip the switch off when the noise goes above the threshold and flip the switch on when the noise in the cafeteria goes below the threshold level.
11. After the program is run, it will go back to the beginning and wait for another loud sound.
12. The program will run forever.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Article Journal Post #11: Universal Gripper
For decades, scientists have been trying to figure out how to program a robot to firmly grip something delicate, such as a raw egg, and then a hard object, such as a coin. Researchers filled a balloon with coffee grinds to create the "universal gripper". It is able to pick up any hard, dry object. when the gripper comes in contact with an object, a vacuum sucks the air out of the balloon, compressing the coffee grounds around the object, allowing it to be picked up. Coffee was the chosen material for the filling because of its lightness ans ability to jam pack well.
This is a major breakthrough in robotics. No one had thought to use a balloon instead of fingers in a robot that would pass the raw egg/coin test. There are various applications for this new gripper. It could be use in factories that deal with delicate parts or in a better prosthetic limb. It could be used to dismantle bombs because of its soft touch. However, there are some limitations to this "universal gripper". It could not pick up something flat like a piece of paper or anything larger than the area of the balloon. It is also unable to lift anything above 30 newtons. This gripper is a great concept, but there are some bugs that the researchers will need to iron out before it could go mainstream.
article
supporting article
This is a major breakthrough in robotics. No one had thought to use a balloon instead of fingers in a robot that would pass the raw egg/coin test. There are various applications for this new gripper. It could be use in factories that deal with delicate parts or in a better prosthetic limb. It could be used to dismantle bombs because of its soft touch. However, there are some limitations to this "universal gripper". It could not pick up something flat like a piece of paper or anything larger than the area of the balloon. It is also unable to lift anything above 30 newtons. This gripper is a great concept, but there are some bugs that the researchers will need to iron out before it could go mainstream.
article
supporting article
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Measured Turns
1. The left wheel spun.
2.
i. It was a circle.
ii. The right wheel is at the center.
iii. The left wheel ran on the circumference.
iv. Yes, they are.
3.
i. 28.5 cm
ii. 89.5 cm in circumference.
iii. angle turned/360= distance traveled/89.5
4.
i. The circumference of the wheel is the linear measurement of the distance traveled in one rotation of the wheel. The circumference of the circle traced by the robot is the distance traveled by the robot as it turns. It is dependent on the width of the robot.
ii. the circumference of the wheel
iii. the circumference of the circle drawn by the robot
5. 90/360=x/89.5
22.375=28.5(x/360)
x= 442.07 degrees
6.
i. Yes, it turned about 90 degrees. Some factors that could have influenced the distance would be traction, the size of the wheels, and accuracy of the calculations.
ii. Yes, our calculations predicted a fairly accurate outcome.
iii. No. We need to conduct more tests with various wheels and measures of angles.
7.
i. 885.2 degrees
ii. 1327.7 degrees
iii. 1770.3 degrees
iv. 3540.7 degrees
8.
i.-iv. done
v. The first two were pretty close but the last two were slightly off. However, they still support the hypothesis.
9.
i. 6 cm
ii. It was very close to 90 degrees.
iii. Yes, it was a good estimate.
iv. 14 cm radius
10.
i. Since it is a gradual turn, the object has the possibility of running into obstacles directly in front of it. The length of the vehicle affects the turning radius.
ii. A car's turning radius would be about 15-25 feet.
iii. They have to use a swing turn.
11. (210/360)* pi *2*12.4= pi*4.5(x/360)
x= 1157 degrees.
12. (180/360)*pi*2*9= pi*2.5(x/360)
x = 1296 degrees
13.
i. (180/360)*pi*2*10.8= pi*d(760/360)
d = 5.1
Therefore, the wheels with the diameter of 4.6 will be the best.
ii. He could shorten the number of degrees on the wait block. He could also increase the distance between the wheels.
2.
i. It was a circle.
ii. The right wheel is at the center.
iii. The left wheel ran on the circumference.
iv. Yes, they are.
3.
i. 28.5 cm
ii. 89.5 cm in circumference.
iii. angle turned/360= distance traveled/89.5
4.
i. The circumference of the wheel is the linear measurement of the distance traveled in one rotation of the wheel. The circumference of the circle traced by the robot is the distance traveled by the robot as it turns. It is dependent on the width of the robot.
ii. the circumference of the wheel
iii. the circumference of the circle drawn by the robot
5. 90/360=x/89.5
22.375=28.5(x/360)
x= 442.07 degrees
6.
i. Yes, it turned about 90 degrees. Some factors that could have influenced the distance would be traction, the size of the wheels, and accuracy of the calculations.
ii. Yes, our calculations predicted a fairly accurate outcome.
iii. No. We need to conduct more tests with various wheels and measures of angles.
7.
i. 885.2 degrees
ii. 1327.7 degrees
iii. 1770.3 degrees
iv. 3540.7 degrees
8.
i.-iv. done
v. The first two were pretty close but the last two were slightly off. However, they still support the hypothesis.
9.
i. 6 cm
ii. It was very close to 90 degrees.
iii. Yes, it was a good estimate.
iv. 14 cm radius
10.
i. Since it is a gradual turn, the object has the possibility of running into obstacles directly in front of it. The length of the vehicle affects the turning radius.
ii. A car's turning radius would be about 15-25 feet.
iii. They have to use a swing turn.
11. (210/360)* pi *2*12.4= pi*4.5(x/360)
x= 1157 degrees.
12. (180/360)*pi*2*9= pi*2.5(x/360)
x = 1296 degrees
13.
i. (180/360)*pi*2*10.8= pi*d(760/360)
d = 5.1
Therefore, the wheels with the diameter of 4.6 will be the best.
ii. He could shorten the number of degrees on the wait block. He could also increase the distance between the wheels.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Article Journal Post #10: RoboCars
Google has developed robot cars that can drive safer than the best human drivers. The cars are lightweight and fuel efficient. Google claims that the cars will save lives and reduce traffic jams. The cars have traveled over 140,000 miles. Even though the cars are driven by robots, a human driver can take control at the touch of a button. The cars use radar sensors, video cameras, and lasers to sense traffic and Google maps to keep them on the right roads. Google says that their main priority in making these cars is safety. However, this technology is about a decade away from hitting the mainstream.
This technology is amazing. These robot cars are reminiscent of the cars in the movie I, Robot. I have dreamed of cars being able to drive me to school in the morning when I am almost to sleepy to function. The cars would reduce pollution and congestion, making commuting time shorter. If everyone had a robot car, there would be a reduction in tailgating and traffic accidents. You would always know where you are going because of the built in GPS loaded with Google maps. However, these cars raise some interesting questions. If they get into an accident, who is responsible? Does the human driver need to be awake? The benefits of these cars would certainly outweigh the negatives, if there are any.
article
supporting article 1
supporting article 2
This technology is amazing. These robot cars are reminiscent of the cars in the movie I, Robot. I have dreamed of cars being able to drive me to school in the morning when I am almost to sleepy to function. The cars would reduce pollution and congestion, making commuting time shorter. If everyone had a robot car, there would be a reduction in tailgating and traffic accidents. You would always know where you are going because of the built in GPS loaded with Google maps. However, these cars raise some interesting questions. If they get into an accident, who is responsible? Does the human driver need to be awake? The benefits of these cars would certainly outweigh the negatives, if there are any.
article
supporting article 1
supporting article 2
Monday, October 18, 2010
Right Face
1. The robot turned too far to the right.
2. The Motor C spun.
3. Motor C spun forward While Motor B did not spin.
4. It turned right.
5. It went about one-third of a full turn, or about 120 degrees.
6. The robot pivots on the right wheel because that wheel is not moving.
7.
First Block: Run Motor C forward.
Second Block: Do not run Motor B.
Third Block: Have Motor C wait for 720 degrees.
Fourth Block: Stop Motor C.
Fifth Block. Stop Motor B.
8.
i. The robot turned right 90 degrees or swung left 270 degrees. You can tell by looking at the robot's position relative to the arrow.
ii. It turned 3/4 of a full turn.
iii. It turned 1/4 of a full turn.
9.
i. To turn the same amount with smaller wheels, the number of rotations will have to be greater. It will be more precise. With bigger wheels, the turning distance will be greater.
ii. Yes. The amount of traction that the robot can get on the ground will influence the effectiveness of the turn. If the surface is slippery, the tires will not be able to get traction and slide. Uneven ground could hinder its ability to move.
10.
i. Yes.
ii. First Block: Stop Motor C.
Second Block: Run Motor B backwards
Third Block: Wait for 720 degrees.
Fourth and Fifth Blocks: Stop both motors.
11. The first was changed to stop Motor C instead of forward. The second block was set tor run forward Motor B. The wait block was changed to B instead of C. The last two blocks remained the same.
12. Yes.
First Block Motor C moves backward.
Second Block: Stop Motor B.
Third Block: Wait for 720 degrees.
Fourth and Fifth Blocks: Stop both motors.
13. The point turn takes faster and takes less room to complete. One motor moves forward while the other moves backwards. A swing turn is a gradual turn. One motor runs while the other is stationary.
14.
i. A swing turn is more useful for turning a corner.
ii. A point turn is more useful for following a path or approaching an obstacle.
2. The Motor C spun.
3. Motor C spun forward While Motor B did not spin.
4. It turned right.
5. It went about one-third of a full turn, or about 120 degrees.
6. The robot pivots on the right wheel because that wheel is not moving.
7.
First Block: Run Motor C forward.
Second Block: Do not run Motor B.
Third Block: Have Motor C wait for 720 degrees.
Fourth Block: Stop Motor C.
Fifth Block. Stop Motor B.
8.
i. The robot turned right 90 degrees or swung left 270 degrees. You can tell by looking at the robot's position relative to the arrow.
ii. It turned 3/4 of a full turn.
iii. It turned 1/4 of a full turn.
9.
i. To turn the same amount with smaller wheels, the number of rotations will have to be greater. It will be more precise. With bigger wheels, the turning distance will be greater.
ii. Yes. The amount of traction that the robot can get on the ground will influence the effectiveness of the turn. If the surface is slippery, the tires will not be able to get traction and slide. Uneven ground could hinder its ability to move.
10.
i. Yes.
ii. First Block: Stop Motor C.
Second Block: Run Motor B backwards
Third Block: Wait for 720 degrees.
Fourth and Fifth Blocks: Stop both motors.
11. The first was changed to stop Motor C instead of forward. The second block was set tor run forward Motor B. The wait block was changed to B instead of C. The last two blocks remained the same.
12. Yes.
First Block Motor C moves backward.
Second Block: Stop Motor B.
Third Block: Wait for 720 degrees.
Fourth and Fifth Blocks: Stop both motors.
13. The point turn takes faster and takes less room to complete. One motor moves forward while the other moves backwards. A swing turn is a gradual turn. One motor runs while the other is stationary.
14.
i. A swing turn is more useful for turning a corner.
ii. A point turn is more useful for following a path or approaching an obstacle.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Article Journal Post #9: Punching Robots
Borut Povse, a Slovenian researcher, has developed a robot the that has the ability to punch people. The robot formerly worked on a coffee machine assembly line. Six men volunteered to be punching bags for the robot. They were punched in the arm about 18 times, and told to rate the punches on a scale of mild to unbearable. Most punches were rated mild to moderate. The purpose of Povse's experiment was to see how robots keep themselves from harming humans and to see how fast a robot can be moving when it senses that it is near a human and still avoid a collision.
I do not believe that robots should be programmed to punch people. If they have this ability, someone can steal the technology and use it to wreak havoc. This ability could also ruin people's perceptions of robots. Many people view technology and robots as evil, as seen in the book, I, Robot. If they believed that robots could go berserk and start punching people, they could lose all faith in the good of technology. Robots should also serve a useful purpose. Punching people is not a useful purpose.
article
supporting article
I do not believe that robots should be programmed to punch people. If they have this ability, someone can steal the technology and use it to wreak havoc. This ability could also ruin people's perceptions of robots. Many people view technology and robots as evil, as seen in the book, I, Robot. If they believed that robots could go berserk and start punching people, they could lose all faith in the good of technology. Robots should also serve a useful purpose. Punching people is not a useful purpose.
article
supporting article
Monday, October 11, 2010
Wheels and Distance
1. The diameter of the wheel is 5.8 cm.
2. The circumference is 5.8∏ cm.
3. It will go 2 rotations.
4. It will travel approximately 36.4 cm.
5.
Trial 1: 35 cm
Trial 2: 35.3 cm
Trial 3: 35.2 cm
6.
i. It did not go the same distance because the robot is not 100 % accurate all the time.
ii. 35.2 cm
iii. We averaged the distances to see how precise and accurate the measurements were and so that we could calculate average error.
7. 3.30% error
8.
i.Yes, it was close.
ii. Yes, since the actual distance was close to the predicted distance, it supports the hypothesis. We were able to estimate how far the robot would travel.
iii. No. Many more trials are needed to validate the hypothesis and make sure it is true in all cases.
9. The back wheels started behind the line and then went two rotations. To measure from the line to the back of the robot would be to leave out the length of the robot in the distance measurement, therefore producing false results.
10. 3.1 cm
11. 3.1∏ cm
12. 2 rotations
13. 19.48 cm
14.
Trial 1: 19.1 cm
Trial 2: 19.2 cm
Trial 3: 19.4 cm
15. 19.23 cm
16. 1.28 % error
17.
i. Yes, they were about right.
ii. No. We need to test more sizes of wheels and different robots to make sure that the hypothesis is true in all cases. We also need other scientists to validate our results. More that two sets of trials is needed to prove a hypothesis.
iii. It could be proven by testing multiple times and with different wheels. Other scientists need to validate our results.
18.
i. Our results support the hypothesis because while the results did not exactly match the predicted distance, they were very close.
ii. According to our results, I would say that the hypothesis is correct.
iii. We measured the diameter of the wheel and then found the circumference by multiplying by pi. To get the distance traveled, we multiplied the circumference by the number of rotations. Then we tested our predicted distance by running the robot and measuring the distance traveled three times. We then repeated the experiment for a different size wheel. Everything did validated Dr. Turner's hypothesis
19.
i. 18.2 cm per rotation.
ii. 10= 5.8∏(x)
x = .54 rotations(360 degrees)= 197.57 degrees
iii. 20= 5.8∏(x)
x = 1.1 rotations(360 degrees) = 395.14 degrees
iv. 30 = 5.8∏(x)
x = 1.65 rotations(360 degrees) = 592.72 degrees
v. To get x, multiply the circumference (18.2cm) by the number of rotations. Then multiply by 360 degrees.
vi. No, it would not work for any robot. The robot must have wheels and have the same specifications.
20. An advantage to controlling the distance in centimeters would be that we can easily see how far a centimeter is. It is much harder to visualize distance in terms of rotations.
21. The wheels are attached to the motors. If the motor turns once, the wheel will turn once.
22.
i. 14.45 cm
ii. No. The robot is not very accurate, as our previous experiments show. It will be close, but not exact.
23. The robot will travel four times as far as it would with the old wheels.
24.
i. 4.2∏(2) = 26.4 cm
26.4 = 3∏ (x)
x= 2.80(360) = 1008.41 degrees
ii. The hub only wheels have no traction.
iii. Since the wheels have no traction, the robot will not move correctly and probably not go the desired distance.
25. You must tell the team the new diameter and the desired distance. If you do not communicate this information, the robot will not run the required distance.
26.
i.d∏ (1 rotation) = 7.85
2.5 cm in diameter
ii. 2.5∏(2 rotations)= x
x = 15.7 cm
27.
i. 2040/360 = 5.667 rotations
d∏ (5.667 rotations) =65 cm
d = 3.7 cm
ii. 1020/360 = 2.8333 rotations
d∏ (2.8333 rotations) = 65 cm
d = 7.3 cm
28. 9600/360 = 26.667 rotations
2.7∏ (26.667 rotations) = x
x = 226.2 cm
3 in (2.54cm/ 1 in) = 7.62 cm in diameter
7.62∏(x) = 226.2 cm
x = 9.45 rotations(360 degrees) = 3420 degrees
iv. 30 = 5.8∏(x)
x = 1.65 rotations(360 degrees) = 592.72 degrees
v. To get x, multiply the circumference (18.2cm) by the number of rotations. Then multiply by 360 degrees.
vi. No, it would not work for any robot. The robot must have wheels and have the same specifications.
20. An advantage to controlling the distance in centimeters would be that we can easily see how far a centimeter is. It is much harder to visualize distance in terms of rotations.
21. The wheels are attached to the motors. If the motor turns once, the wheel will turn once.
22.
i. 14.45 cm
ii. No. The robot is not very accurate, as our previous experiments show. It will be close, but not exact.
23. The robot will travel four times as far as it would with the old wheels.
24.
i. 4.2∏(2) = 26.4 cm
26.4 = 3∏ (x)
x= 2.80(360) = 1008.41 degrees
ii. The hub only wheels have no traction.
iii. Since the wheels have no traction, the robot will not move correctly and probably not go the desired distance.
25. You must tell the team the new diameter and the desired distance. If you do not communicate this information, the robot will not run the required distance.
26.
i.d∏ (1 rotation) = 7.85
2.5 cm in diameter
ii. 2.5∏(2 rotations)= x
x = 15.7 cm
27.
i. 2040/360 = 5.667 rotations
d∏ (5.667 rotations) =65 cm
d = 3.7 cm
ii. 1020/360 = 2.8333 rotations
d∏ (2.8333 rotations) = 65 cm
d = 7.3 cm
28. 9600/360 = 26.667 rotations
2.7∏ (26.667 rotations) = x
x = 226.2 cm
3 in (2.54cm/ 1 in) = 7.62 cm in diameter
7.62∏(x) = 226.2 cm
x = 9.45 rotations(360 degrees) = 3420 degrees
Friday, October 8, 2010
Article Journal Post #8: Fujitsu Teddy Bear
Technology-driven Japan is faced with the problems of caring for an aging population. Decades of research has gone into designing a robot that can care for the elderly. However, it might be disconcerting to some people for a robot to tell them what to do. As a result, a Japanese company has developed a teddy bear robot designed to care for the elderly population. The teddy bear has a variety of facial expressions and gently suggests rather than demanding. A webcam on its nose allows the teddy bear to see who it is interacting with and their current state.
This teddy bear could be a major breakthrough in patient care. No one wants to feel that they are being bossed around by an enormous metal contraption. it is much easier to follow suggestions given by a teddy bear. The teddy bear guise for the robot also hides the fact that it is a robot. Many people are still scared of robots, even in today's technology based society. I think this teddy bear could really work. The bear is really cute, so you almost want to do anything it tells you. I am much more willing to cooperate with someone if they suggest what I am to do rather than if they were forcing me to do it.
article
supporting article 1
supporting article 2
This teddy bear could be a major breakthrough in patient care. No one wants to feel that they are being bossed around by an enormous metal contraption. it is much easier to follow suggestions given by a teddy bear. The teddy bear guise for the robot also hides the fact that it is a robot. Many people are still scared of robots, even in today's technology based society. I think this teddy bear could really work. The bear is really cute, so you almost want to do anything it tells you. I am much more willing to cooperate with someone if they suggest what I am to do rather than if they were forcing me to do it.
article
supporting article 1
supporting article 2
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Full Speed Ahead Worksheet
1. The left wheel spun 720 degrees, but the right one did not, so the robot spun in a circle.
2. The left motor spun.
3. It spun forward.
4. Yes, the motor stopped spinning on its own because we set it to only go 720 degrees.
5. No. We want it to go straight forward.
6. The second motor command is needed because there are two motors. One command will only activate the one motor. To move both motors we need two commands.
7. The robot did not stop because we did not command it to stop. It kept going once it hit the end of the program because it wasn't commanded to stop then.
8. Downloading a program is transferring the program from the computer onto the NXT. Running a program means that the robot is actually following the commands and executing the commanded actions. You need to download it first. You should download it as often as you make changes to your program.
9. B. The sequence beam determines order.
10.
First Block: Motor C was to run forward.
Second Block: Motor B was to run forward.
Third Block: Motor C was to wait for a rotation of 720 degrees.
Fourth Block: Motor C was told to stop.
Fifth Block: Motor B was told to stop.
11.
i. The wait block told the motors how long to run before stopping.
ii. To make the robot go a shorter distance, I could have told the wait block to wait for a smaller degree rotation. To make it go a longer distance, I could have told the wait block to wait for a bigger degree rotation.
iii. To make the robot go twice the distance, all I would have to do to the original program would be to change the degrees in the wait block from 720 to 1440.
12. When changed the plug from Port B to Port A, the robot turned in a circle. Only the left motor spun.
13.The robot will go straight forward for 720 degrees and then stop. Both motors will run.
14. The robot will go straight forward for 720 degrees and then both motors will stop.
15. The program blocks are not different. The action blocks are the same, but must be programmed to run backwards instead of forwards.
16. The robot did not behave as expected. It went too far backwards.
17. The Rotation Sensor needs to be reset because the program interprets 720 degrees backwards as 720 degrees behind where it started.
18. We will need to use this in future programs when the programming becomes more complicated. We may need to change the reference point to where the robot currently is and not where it started.
2. The left motor spun.
3. It spun forward.
4. Yes, the motor stopped spinning on its own because we set it to only go 720 degrees.
5. No. We want it to go straight forward.
6. The second motor command is needed because there are two motors. One command will only activate the one motor. To move both motors we need two commands.
7. The robot did not stop because we did not command it to stop. It kept going once it hit the end of the program because it wasn't commanded to stop then.
8. Downloading a program is transferring the program from the computer onto the NXT. Running a program means that the robot is actually following the commands and executing the commanded actions. You need to download it first. You should download it as often as you make changes to your program.
9. B. The sequence beam determines order.
10.
First Block: Motor C was to run forward.
Second Block: Motor B was to run forward.
Third Block: Motor C was to wait for a rotation of 720 degrees.
Fourth Block: Motor C was told to stop.
Fifth Block: Motor B was told to stop.
11.
i. The wait block told the motors how long to run before stopping.
ii. To make the robot go a shorter distance, I could have told the wait block to wait for a smaller degree rotation. To make it go a longer distance, I could have told the wait block to wait for a bigger degree rotation.
iii. To make the robot go twice the distance, all I would have to do to the original program would be to change the degrees in the wait block from 720 to 1440.
12. When changed the plug from Port B to Port A, the robot turned in a circle. Only the left motor spun.
13.The robot will go straight forward for 720 degrees and then stop. Both motors will run.
14. The robot will go straight forward for 720 degrees and then both motors will stop.
15. The program blocks are not different. The action blocks are the same, but must be programmed to run backwards instead of forwards.
16. The robot did not behave as expected. It went too far backwards.
17. The Rotation Sensor needs to be reset because the program interprets 720 degrees backwards as 720 degrees behind where it started.
18. We will need to use this in future programs when the programming becomes more complicated. We may need to change the reference point to where the robot currently is and not where it started.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Article Journal Post #7: RoboCare
Panasonic has recently unveiled two new technologies to help health care workers assist the elderly and disabled. One is a robotic hair washer that has sixteen "fingers" to massage the scalp and has the memory capacity to store preferences for different people. The other new technology is a wheelchair that can convert into a bed.
These new developments in health care are important as the world's population ages. Health care workers do not need to spend the time doing mundane tasks that a robot could easily do for them and when there are more important things to take care for the elderly patient, such as getting the right medicine or preparing meals. The pneumatic controls on the wheelchair bed allow the caretaker to handle it easily. The wheelchair bed also minimizes the risk of a patient falling or getting hurt when being transferred from the wheelchair to bed. These technologies are very useful, but may need some getting used to from the older patients.
article
supporting article
These new developments in health care are important as the world's population ages. Health care workers do not need to spend the time doing mundane tasks that a robot could easily do for them and when there are more important things to take care for the elderly patient, such as getting the right medicine or preparing meals. The pneumatic controls on the wheelchair bed allow the caretaker to handle it easily. The wheelchair bed also minimizes the risk of a patient falling or getting hurt when being transferred from the wheelchair to bed. These technologies are very useful, but may need some getting used to from the older patients.
article
supporting article
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Full Speed Ahead
To make an airplane go from rest to in motion:
1. Get in the airplane.
2. Start the engine.
3. Check all systems.
4. Make sure the runway is clear.
5. Give the safety lecture.
6. Turn on the throttle.
7. Start down the runway.
8. Pull up to take off.
9. Raise or lower the wing flaps to have the airplane go to the desired height.
10. Keep the engines running and the wing flaps at the correct angle to fly.
Something that would inhibit this object from moving would be:
~lack of fuel
~no tires
~no pilot
~no wind
~broken propeller
~malfunctioning electrical systems
Ways that robots move include:
~wheels attached to wires and sensors that connect to the robot's computer programming
~legs
~motors
~propellers
Ways that a robot's movement can be inhibited:
~malfunctioning elcetrical systems
~mud
~low battery
~glitch in programming
~obstacles in its way
Five steps in order for the robot to go forward two rotations:
1. Start left motor.
2. Start right motor.
3. Wheels turn 720 degrees.
4. Stop right motor.
5. Stop left motor.
1. Get in the airplane.
2. Start the engine.
3. Check all systems.
4. Make sure the runway is clear.
5. Give the safety lecture.
6. Turn on the throttle.
7. Start down the runway.
8. Pull up to take off.
9. Raise or lower the wing flaps to have the airplane go to the desired height.
10. Keep the engines running and the wing flaps at the correct angle to fly.
Something that would inhibit this object from moving would be:
~lack of fuel
~no tires
~no pilot
~no wind
~broken propeller
~malfunctioning electrical systems
Ways that robots move include:
~wheels attached to wires and sensors that connect to the robot's computer programming
~legs
~motors
~propellers
Ways that a robot's movement can be inhibited:
~malfunctioning elcetrical systems
~mud
~low battery
~glitch in programming
~obstacles in its way
Five steps in order for the robot to go forward two rotations:
1. Start left motor.
2. Start right motor.
3. Wheels turn 720 degrees.
4. Stop right motor.
5. Stop left motor.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Article Journal Post #6: Canada Rovers
The Canadian Space Agency is now building space rovers. They are currently working on designing rovers that will be able to carry astronauts across the surface of the moon and Mars. The Canadian Space Agency has long been known for the robotic Canadarms on board the International Space Station and space shuttles. MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. received a contract for $6 million to develop a prototype for the rover. The Mars rover would be commanded from a remote location and will be ready for Earth testing by 2012. The space agency will continue to manufacture its signature Canadarms.
This is a very good move for the Canadian Space Agency. The Canadians will maintain their expertise in space robotics and may become a partner in international space exploration. In manufacturing the Canada rovers, the agency will continue to stay on top of the current trends in robotics. With the Moon, Mars, and Beyond program that NASA hopes to initiate soon, the rovers will become a critical part of the mission. The astronauts will need something to transport them as they traverse the surface of the moon and Mars. The rovers have other potential uses, such as in mining and transportation.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Three Laws Rebuttal
Anderson's new Three Laws of Robotics seem to be thorough, but they have their own problems, just like Asimov's original Three Laws. Anderson's new Three Laws are basically rewrites of the original Three Laws with a few qualifiers thrown in to make it seem more like his laws. The assignment was to create Three Original Laws of Robotics, not to reuse the old ones. Anderson's Second Law, while it protects the robot from deliberate harm, does not protect it from accidents or unintentional harm. For example, a robot could be trying to help someone in danger, but in the process of saving them, accidentally destroy itself beyond repair. The robot could be charged with saving someone from a volcano. There is a high likelihood that if the robot stays there too long, it will start to melt and lose some of its functions. Or, in another example, a robot could be rescuing a person from the top of a very tall bridge, slip, and fall into the water, accidentally destroying itself. In both cases there was no aggressor involved. The robots were destroyed because of their bad luck.
The terms "mental harm" and "emotional harm" are difficult to understand in the context of the Laws. If, according to Anderson's First Law, the robot wishes to avoid causing mental and emotional harm to a person, the robot must analyze the person's reaction to what they did. If it does turn out to cause mental or emotional harm, the robot would have broken the First Law. How is a robot supposed to measure emotional or mental harm? These are not easily measured because everyone reacts in different ways to different situations. For a robot, measuring emotional and mental harm is especially difficult. The robot does not have the advantage of being a human to interpret body language for signs of mental or emotional harm. It would be impossible for a robot to determine what constitutes as mental or emotional harm. As a result, robots would live in a constant state of confusion and not be able to function properly.
The terms "mental harm" and "emotional harm" are difficult to understand in the context of the Laws. If, according to Anderson's First Law, the robot wishes to avoid causing mental and emotional harm to a person, the robot must analyze the person's reaction to what they did. If it does turn out to cause mental or emotional harm, the robot would have broken the First Law. How is a robot supposed to measure emotional or mental harm? These are not easily measured because everyone reacts in different ways to different situations. For a robot, measuring emotional and mental harm is especially difficult. The robot does not have the advantage of being a human to interpret body language for signs of mental or emotional harm. It would be impossible for a robot to determine what constitutes as mental or emotional harm. As a result, robots would live in a constant state of confusion and not be able to function properly.
Three Laws Analysis
The Three Laws in Isaac Asimov’s I, Robot were made in order to keep humanity safe. They were made so that we would not have to fear robots killing us or revolting against us. However, there is a major flaw with the 3 Laws. The positronic brain that U. S. Robotics created to run the operating system for their robots, VIKI, found the loophole. Through distorted logic, she realized that no matter how much robots tried to stop people from coming to harm, we found more clever and ingenious ways to destroy our way of life. We still murdered each other, committed suicide, and poisoned our planet. VIKI reasoned that if she was in charge, she could save all of humanity. By controlling the NS-5s, she could enforce her plan across the world. She realized that in the transition, some humans would die, but their sacrifice would be worth it if the world was a safer, better place. Another flaw with the 3 Laws was revealed when Spooner and the girl, Sarah, were in the car accident. A robot stopped to help because he was compelled by the 3 Laws to not allow them to come to harm, but he refused to follow Spooner’s commands to save Sarah instead of him. The robot calculated that he had a 42% chance of survival, while Sarah only had an 11% chance. Spooner was the “logical choice”. In the movie he says that 11% is enough for any human. The robots do not have a heart, so they could not possibly understand the pain and suffering caused by not saving Sarah.
I have created my own 3 Laws that will hopefully get rid of the loopholes in Isaac Asimov’s original 3 Laws that allowed VIKI to take control of the human race. These laws operate on the assumption that a robot must obey any order that a human gives it. The order is a programmable action, something that the robot must be able to do, as it is an part of the definition of a robot.
- A robot must never hurt a human being. A robot must always attempt to save a human being in danger, even if they have a low probability of survival.
- A robot may not do anything that could be prosecuted in a court of law, even if they are given a command by a human being to do so.
- Human beings reserve the right to live their lives as they wish. If a robot recognizes something that could allow human beings to come to harm that they cannot fix, they will relay the problem to an appropriate human authority so that humans may fix it themselves.
The First Law would fix the problem of robots not saving someone with a low chance of survival. In the example of Spooner’s car accident, the robot would have to try and save them both. The robot would get Spooner out of the car and into a place in which he could get himself to safety. Then the robot would attempt to go back and help Sarah. The Second Law prohibits robots from killing, stealing, or anything that a human could be punished for. One of the problems with Asimov’s 3 Laws is that is did not say anything about crimes that do not put a human being in danger (Resistance Report). The robots could have robbed people, counterfeited money, or harmed animals, actions that do not directly harm people, but are not something that a robot should be able to do if we are to entrust them with the responsibility to help run our lives. The Second Law fixes that problem. If a robot was ordered by a human to take something of another human’s, the robot would not be able to according to the Second Law. Stealing is punishable by law. The Third Law prevents robots from taking over because they believe it will fix the world’s problems and save humanity. VIKI tried to take over the city because she believed that with her protection, every human would be safe. However, the life that the humans would have under her control would not have been a good one. They would be under lock down and would hardly be able to do anything. Under the Third Law, VIKI and any other robot would be unable to take control. Instead, the robot would have to tell the government or some other agency the problem it sees that is causing the human race harm and then suggest ways to get rid of the danger.
Unfortunately, no set of laws is perfect. These laws cannot prevent a robot from doing something that would unknowingly cause harm to someone(Wikipedia). Someone could divide up tasks between robots that, in and of themselves would not cause harm, but combined together, would (Wikipedia). In trying to save everyone in danger, a robot may injure itself or be destroyed. However, it would be worth it because even though robots are expensive to make, they are expendable, unlike people. Robots are tools and tools are supposed to be useful (Resistance Report). The Third Law does not state that human beings will fix the problem. That is a choice that we as human beings must make. We should not want any of our kind to come to harm, but unfortunately, it would be impossible for everything that is wrong in the world to be fixed. This world will never be perfect. As human beings we are prone to mistakes. By my laws, a robot would be allowed to lie. People cannot be tried in a court of law for lying, except if it is fraudulent. As they are not allowed to let a human being be in danger, robots would only be allowed to tell simple lies, like the ones we tell almost everyday such as, “Of course it doesn't make you look fat" or saying that we don't know who got into the cookies when we took five. This would not pose much of a threat, but it would ruin people’s perceptions of robots. They would learn to distrust them. If robots were everywhere, we would not want them to be deceitful. If I added a Fourth Law, it would state that robots may not speak falsely or be deceitful in any way. People would be able to place their trust in robots without fear of betrayal.
Works Cited
"The Fallacy of Asimov’s Laws of Robotics." The Human Resistance Report. 03 May 2010. Web. 21 Sept. 2010. <http://bffcustom.com/blog/2010/05/03/the-fallacy-of-asimovs-laws-of-robotics/>.
"Three Laws of Robotics." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 21 Sept. 2010. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics#Loopholes_in_the_laws>.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Article Journal Post # 5: E-skin
Biotechnicians have engineered an electronic skin that can sense touch. This is a major breakthrough because while we have adequate substitutes for the other four senses, touch was way behind. The sensors in the e-skin can respond to the same pressures that normal human skin would. The skin is made of a matrix or nanowires attached to a sticky film. Attached to that are nano scale transistors and a pressure-sensitive rubber. The skin can feel pressures of 0-15 kilopascals, about the pressure of normal activities. Another group of scientists used a different approach. They used rubber film that changes thickness according to pressure. However, the material cannot be stretched. The response time to pressure is within milliseconds, almost instantaneous. The scientists plan on making better sensors that will react to varying pressures, like our nerves do, and to figure out how to connect this new e-skin on to human nerves.
The applications for the e-skin are endless. We could put the new skin onto prostheses, making the prosthetic like a real arm or leg. If we figured out a way to connect the transistors to nerve cells, amputees would have the complete function of a limb again. If robots were outfitted with the e-skin, they would be able to perform more delicate tasks, like holding crystal. Robots outfitted with the e-skin could be sent into environments where it is to dangerous for humans to go and be able to relay more information to us.
article
supporting article 1
supporting article 2
The applications for the e-skin are endless. We could put the new skin onto prostheses, making the prosthetic like a real arm or leg. If we figured out a way to connect the transistors to nerve cells, amputees would have the complete function of a limb again. If robots were outfitted with the e-skin, they would be able to perform more delicate tasks, like holding crystal. Robots outfitted with the e-skin could be sent into environments where it is to dangerous for humans to go and be able to relay more information to us.
article
supporting article 1
supporting article 2
Friday, September 10, 2010
Article Journal Post #4: Decepticons
Researchers at Georgia Tech have developed robots that can lie. The robots are equipped with cameras and are programmed to play hide and seek. The hider robot is able to use deception, something that is unknown to the seeking robot. The researchers claim that the need for a robot to use deception will be rare, but is potentially useful. A search and rescue robot may need to lie to a panicked victim. A robot in a war zone may be able to mislead an army or lie to the enemy if captured. The work that the GA Tech researchers have done builds on the work that Swiss researchers did in 1997 that proved that robots can learn to lie in certain situations.
Teaching robots to lie could turn out to be not a wise decision. The HAL 9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey was programmed to lie and ended up trying to kill all of the astronauts. This, unfortunately, is what many people believe will happen if we allow robots to become too advanced. The researchers in charge of the project say that they recognize that people are leery of robots, but that deception is not necessarily wicked. We are getting closer to true AI in developing a machine that can deceive others, something that we do almost all the time, yet I do not think that robots should be able to lie. If they are programmed to communicate, they must do exactly that. The robot cannot communicate properly with people if it is lying. If I have trained a robot to perform a certain task, I want it to do that task. I do not want it to have the capacity to disobey or deceive me. I wan to be able to trust the machine that I have created and programmed.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Article Journal Post #3: Baby Robochair
There are wheelchairs for disabled children and adults, but what about infants? Babies lack the coordination and fine motor skills needed to drive powered wheelchairs. Engineers at the University of Ithaca have developed a infant robot wheelchair that is guided by a Wii balance board. An infant seat is attached to the robot so the baby has a place to sit. When the baby reaches for something, the Wii balance board senses the direction that he is leaning in and the robot moves in that direction. The robot uses a sonar detector to keep from bumping into things and has an override joystick for a therapist or parent to use.
This robot is a great idea. Handicapped babies have no way to get around and must depend on older people to carry them to where they want to go. There are wheelchairs for children as young as three, but require the use of a joystick, something an infant can't use. As soon as the baby is able to sit up, they can operate the robotic wheelchair. Using this robotic wheelchair allows the baby to gain independence and to explore their surroundings better than they ever could before. The robot relies on one things that babies can do easily, leaning, and does not rely on their weakness, limited dexterity. The robo-chair was used in a study with several babies and all of the babies responded well to the chair and mastered how to control it.
articlesupporting article
supporting article 2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)