I don't see why you threw out the floating-wheeled-vehicle idea. Build something like a Rollagon (couldn't find a link) - basically a 4-wheel vehicle with huge balloon wheels. Such a thing could be built to weigh no more than a kilogram, and if need be you could add floatation material to help. Your weight limit, assuming you want to float something a foot square in three inches of water, is about 6.75kg (make it 5kg to give yourself some wiggle room), so you should have no problems there.

In all seriousness, attempting to go through/over the lake is NOT a smart idea. It certainly might have novelty value, but that doesn't mean you'll earn extra marks.

Quote:Original post by Telamon
Simplier ideas like going *around* the lake is what most groups are doing. We want to do something a little bit more impressive since we are engineering hotshots who feel the need to show off.

What would be novel and likely to curry favour with your examiners is to go around the obstacles intelligently. That is, don't just avoid each obstacle as you come to it, but rather find a path that efficiently avoids all of the obstacles. This would require 'long range' sensory capability. So, spend your efforts in designing a good sensor package for your robot and implement some intelligent techniques for generating a domain map from the data obtained.

If you want to be REALLY novel, build two robots: a small heli-bot for aerial photography of the domain and the rover-bot that actually rolls on the course! ;) The rover would receive pictures from the heli-bot (mount a small ccd on it), do some basic image recognition (shouldn't be too hard if the ground surface has a constant texture, place bounding polygons around obstacles found in the image space and then have your rover drive through the map using whatever control/planning routines you like.

As for your helibot, don't go with an RC-copter, but rather, say, a small bot with 3 or 4 rotor sets around a central frame (easier to stabilise). You could even make it a tethered bot to make life easier (and maintain high data transfer rates without resorting to high speed wireless connections).

Personally though, I'd just go with the ground based intelligent pathfinding unless you have a good bank roll and plenty of time on your hands.

Cheers,

Timkin

why do you guys always want to make it done the hard way and _your_ way? is it not possible to make robot go to the other side without much affecting the environment? freezing water would affect the environment bigtime. digging through the ground and coming up to the other side would affect the environment.

i wouldn't want to think that the future robotics people from top universities, who'll be making the robots to explore planets and moons will destroy the surface/location they're exploring first, before actually exploring the planet/moon itself, just so the robot could travel through the area.

gee...

Quote:Original post by xanin

Quote:Original post by Anonymous Poster
why do you guys always want to make it done the hard way and _your_ way? is it not possible to make robot go to the other side without much affecting the environment? freezing water would affect the environment bigtime. digging through the ground and coming up to the other side would affect the environment.

i wouldn't want to think that the future robotics people from top universities, who'll be making the robots to explore planets and moons will destroy the surface/location they're exploring first, before actually exploring the planet/moon itself, just so the robot could travel through the area.

gee...

Its what we like to call, thinking outside the box.

Very, very far outside the box.

Speaking of the box, I haven't seen it for years...

[grin]

dude, what are you talking about? this has got nothing to do with what you quoted.

yes, you can think 'outside the box'. and it's good too. but making the robot _adapt_ to you so you can achieve the goal is wrong. it should be that the robot is the one _adapting_ in order to achieve the goal.

men...imagine if someday, an earth-like planet is discovered, but because you guys sent in robots just to 'probe' and gather 'images', you had to destroy that planet so that robot can traverse through the terrain...gee, what a good way to think 'outside the box'...

Quote:Original post by xanin

Quote:Original post by Anonymous Poster

Quote:Original post by xanin

Quote:Original post by Anonymous Poster
why do you guys always want to make it done the hard way and _your_ way? is it not possible to make robot go to the other side without much affecting the environment? freezing water would affect the environment bigtime. digging through the ground and coming up to the other side would affect the environment.

i wouldn't want to think that the future robotics people from top universities, who'll be making the robots to explore planets and moons will destroy the surface/location they're exploring first, before actually exploring the planet/moon itself, just so the robot could travel through the area.

gee...

Its what we like to call, thinking outside the box.

Very, very far outside the box.

Speaking of the box, I haven't seen it for years...

[grin]

dude, what are you talking about? this has got nothing to do with what you quoted.

yes, you can think 'outside the box'. and it's good too. but making the robot _adapt_ to you so you can achieve the goal is wrong. it should be that the robot is the one _adapting_ in order to achieve the goal.

men...imagine if someday, an earth-like planet is discovered, but because you guys sent in robots just to 'probe' and gather 'images', you had to destroy that planet so that robot can traverse through the terrain...gee, what a good way to think 'outside the box'...

1) My comment was not intended to be taken in seriousness. If you can't derive that from the big grinning face, the "very, very far outside" line and the last comment about not having seen the box for years, well, you need more help than I can provide.

2) Yes, it actually has everything to do with what I quoted. You (or whoever likes to hide behind the AP acount in this thread) were complaining about people providing ideas for different ways to surpass an obstacle. Such thinking is clearly outside the box and IMO it was clearly the OP's intent to be thinking outside the box. Your complaint was that these suggestions were not realistic in the terms of exploring an unknown world. Of course they're not. They're suggestions for solving an a known obstacle in a different way than traditional pathfinding. Also known as: thinking outside the box.

3) Yes, in an unknown world the robot should be programmed to have a multitude of nondestructional evironmental adaptations with which to explore its surroundings, but at the same time consider an application for the robot such as a combat zone. Wouldn't you want to remove obstacles and clear a straight path for your troops? Just a hypothetical situation to provoke the thought in your head that your interpretation of the use of such methods may be incorrect in some situations. Try thinking outside your own box.

duh!!!! lol

try using a inflatable bed or something.

alok