Posts Tagged Lunacy

Success and Failure at the 2009 Battle o’ Baltimore

Aug 26

Posted by Eric in Competition

With the internal controversy surrounding 449’s attendance at the Battle o’ Baltimore, I’m glad to say that we did in fact attend. Summer events are always hard, with most people on vacation or simply not motivated enough to make the 45 minute drive from DC to Baltimore.

The goal of this offseason event was to give the younger members of our team—the rising juniors and sophomores—a jump start into running the robot without us old farts. The power’s been in our hands too long, and we’ve gotten too comfortable being in control.  The drive chain is loose? Not my problem. Here, have a wrench. It might not be the right size. Engineers have got to fend for themselves in the wild world of robotics.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , ,

No Comments

Battle o’ Balitmore vs Robotic Arm

Jul 27

Posted by Ben in Competition

So to go to the Battle o’ Baltimore this year, we’re going to strip the top of our robot and replace the catapult (which worked intermittently at best) with a new dumper design that we’ll spend the next few weeks building.

We also need, statistically speaking, about .5 more people to be interested in going to Battle o’ Baltimore to go (take the chance of a person going as the number of people; two people who are 50-50 for going or not count as 1 person going together. It works.) The reason for needing more people is simple; drivers shouldn’t have to work in the pit full time and vice versa (”That was a tough match, time to take a break… oh wait, I can’t because I have to fix the robot.”)

The other thing we need is a new coach. I’ve coached at competitions the last two years, but I’ll be out of the state at the time of the competition. I apparently have an uncommon idea of what coaching should be (compared to other coaches, not compared to the people I coach): the coach shouldn’t ever yell, except to be heard. The players will do a good enough job punishing themselves for mistakes, and don’t need you to rub it in. Whoever replaces me as coach will have to show him/her self to be calm in general (or at least whenever I’m watching).

I’ve noticed that Bo’B always seems to be rather time consuming; prepping everything, designing, building, programming (plus, I’m not too sure about the new NI stuff… last time we tried to download it took several hours before our laptop would talk with the cRio). Granted, Battle o’ Baltimore is pretty fun, but it always means less time for other things.

This year, I wanted to have a robotic arm built, one of those 5 axis contraptions that every robotics team should have. Scott mentioned this arm in the previous post (about our first summer meeting). Designing it would be an exercise in spatial thinking, CAD, and working with different motors for our younger members, building it would take precise machining that most of us could use some practice with. But the best part would be using it to train brand new electronics and programming members every year. And wouldn’t it be great if some programmer were bored and, say, taught it how to bring us sodas? Oh… and did I mention how awesome it would be?

Anyway, we should end up designing and building something like that regardless of whether we go to Bo’B (it just might run longer into the start of school), but this brings me to what I really, really want to build: a motorized joint that is in a feedback loop with a joint on a human (knee would be most useful), such that it enhances motions of the joint. Systems of powered joints like this exist already, and allow people (read: “soldiers”) to carry people on their back. Without noticing any weight. We probably couldn’t get that sophisticated, but you have to admit it would be cool to try. Maybe next summer…

Tags: , , , , ,

No Comments

Kensington Parkwood ES

May 29

Posted by Ben in outreach

On Thursday, May 28 the team made an appearance at Parkwood ES’s science fair. From our place on the stage, we drove this year’s robot around on the stage, firing orbit balls into our trailer and, on occasion, into the happy crowd.

The kids enjoyed it immensely. When we revealed the robot from behind the stage curtains, a crowd immediately formed around the stage. Apparently, we were a bigger hit than the science projects themselves!

Tags: , , ,

No Comments

D.C. Regionals

Mar 8

Posted by Scott in Competition

The Blair Robot Project’s robot staged an above-average performance compared to the other sixty-odd robots in this year’s game, Lunacy. Unfortunately, the throwing and dumping systems did not work as well as the team had hoped. We made up for this by having an excellent payload specialist, and the team still managed to land in the top twenty-four, which gave team 449 and reasonable chance of being picked in the finals.

One of the team’s biggest successes was the completion (from the perspective of everybody but the software developer, who is still working) of a slick scouting system, which enables data to be rapidly collected and compiled. This data includes photographs, notes on the details of the robots, and qualitative ratings as well as records of past performance. Almost everybody not in pit crew was busy gathering data for the scouting network. Although the team did not win the award for the best scouting network, the network was quite effective. A bit less effective was the team’s ability to advertise itself: hundreds of buttons were made, but nobody got around to handing them out.

The end result was that Team 449 never ended up in the finals, even though twenty-four teams were picked and we were number twenty-three (and twenty-two and twenty-four were picked). Plans are being made for better ways for the team to advertise its own presence. In addition, the scouting network is being improved, and may be released sometime around Chesapeake for other teams to use.

Because of the extensive scouting done at D.C. on many teams that will also attend Chesapeake, we expect to have a significant advantage over many other teams, which will not have had the opportunity to study their rivals first-hand.

Tags: , ,

No Comments

Week Five: 1/31/09 – 2/6/09

Feb 12

Posted by Margaret in Mechanics, Uncategorized

We took advantage of the first full week of school in nearly a month to get a lot done on the robot. The three-wheeled backerman drive was completed and prepared for transfer onto the robot itself. The dumper and harvester were altered to better manipulate moon rocks within the robot and the catapult was completed and tested in conjunction with the camera. Thanks to this, we now have a much better idea of the catapult’s range and ability. The final parts for the gyro were acquired and construction began on it. Our programmers continued to work diligently on the LabVIEW code and made changes to the website. Meanwhile, the public relations subteam worked on the team’s entries for various awards and provided the programmers with additional content for the website.

Tags: , , , ,

No Comments

Week Four: 1/22/09-1/30/09

Feb 3

Posted by Margaret in Competition, Mechanics, Programming, Robot Code

Once again, team meetings were delayed due to days off, this time the result of two snow days. With the school closed, students could not get back into the building to retrieve robot parts, but progress continued to be made by team members CADing parts of our virtual robot. For the remaining days, hours increased and we managed to continue to stay on schedule for completion.

This week, the programming subteam tested and modified the acceleration code and wrote the three-wheeled robot code for cRIO. Other team members redesigned the alternate shooter and continued to perfect the four-wheeled prototype’s frame and the harvester system, which can now load and dump orbitz balls. The backerman prototype was also tested and proved itself useful. The scouting subteam worked on designing the team’s t-shirts for this year and writing up information for several FIRST awards.

Tags: , , , , , ,

No Comments

Week Three: 1/17/09-1/21/09

Feb 3

Posted by Margaret in Mechanics, Programming, Robot Code, Website Development

Monday and Tuesday were holidays, but the team met anyway at the home of our Vice President. Attendance was significantly reduced because of this, but also because Wednesday, Thursday and Friday were exam days and many students opted to stay at home studying instead of attending meetings. We still managed to make progress, especially on exam days as the tests let out earlier than the normal school day and meetings often lasted longer.

Construction on the frame of the completed four-wheel drive continued, and the harvester and its accompanying roller and belt-clamping mechanisms were worked on. The ackerman drive prototype was switched for a more efficient three-wheel design that has been dubbed the ‘backerman’ design. Other mechanisms such as the harvester’s feed system and the catapult progressed, both of which are nearing completion. Meanwhile, the programming subteam was able to write code to better control acceleration make the camera track and follow colors. They also updated our team’s website.

Tags: , , , ,

No Comments

Week Two: 1/11/09-1/16/09

Jan 22

Posted by Margaret in Competition, Mechanics

Subteams busied themselves with working on their projects and ordered crucial parts necessary to complete the robot. The prototype for six-wheel drive was switched for four-wheel drive, tested, and proved its worth. The ackerman design evolved into a three-wheel design incorporating a motorized castor wheel. The harvester, roller and catapult continue to progress, and while the shooter was considered a viable option for some time, it was eventually abandoned. Also, a full-size model of the trailer for the game was completed and our designs for power-bumpers were tested.

Tags: , , ,

No Comments

Week One: 1/4/09-1/9/09

Jan 14

Posted by Margaret in Competition, Mechanics

Following kickoff, we spent Saturday and Sunday brainstorming concepts for robot construction.  By the end of Sunday, we settled on designs to flesh out and prototype. On Monday, members gathered together and those who had been unable to attend the kickoff were informed of this year’s game rules and our team’s strategy. Throughout the rest of the week, the mechanics sub-team worked on completing the two prototype frames and several types of ball manipulator, including a harvester, a spring-loaded launcher, and a catapult. One of the prototype frames was completed enough to test, and it worked fine. The other one was still under construction.

Meanwhile, the electronics sub-team created several versions of the electronics board to test out with the prototypes and helped the mechanics sub-team with their various devices. In the programming room, the PR sub-team assigned various responsibilities and planned out their activities for the coming season. The programming sub-team itself were able to successfully track colors using the camera and began developing code for the prototypes’ drive systems. So far, attendance and moral have been high as we eagerly look forward to another excellent season.

Tags: , , , , ,

No Comments

Kickoff: 1/3/09

Jan 9

Posted by Margaret in Competition

At 9:30 AM on Saturday morning, around seventy students and parents assembled in a large conference room at Vecna Technologies’ offices. Our team’s president and vice-president gave a PowerPoint introduction on what to expect from the FIRST telecast and the coming six-week build season. Specific policy changes, such as the new practice of yellow-carding unsafe members, were announced and the commitment expected from students and parents was described.

Then at 10:00am, the telecast began. Several speeches were given by such illustrious personages as FIRST founders Dean Kamen and Woodie Flowers, along with a New Hampshire congressman. Then the exciting part began: the explanation of this year’s game, Lunacy. The telecast ended with a quiz show designed to acclimate teams to important rules and game specifications.

After the telecast, we ate lunch and split into five groups to brainstorm ideas for this year’s robot. Though initially daunted by the game’s challenging conditions, especially the low-friction playing field, our members enthusiastically contributed ideas for possible methods of movement, ball manipulation, and interaction with other robots. The new parents split into a separate group where they had a discussion about their role on the team. Later, the groups came back together to show their ideas and discuss them as a group. Although no single consensus was reached, we planned to meet the following day to continue debating ideas and eventually prototype several of them.

Tags: , , ,

No Comments