Walker rule clarification? Unusual design.

Please post all questions and answers in here. This way people can easily see if someone else has the same problem.

Moderators: BeligerAnt, petec, administrator

User avatar
GeorgeR
Posts: 280
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 9:53 pm
Location: Bath, Somerset

Walker rule clarification? Unusual design.

Post by GeorgeR »

I've been working on a new antweight design with an unusual method of movement, and was wondering if it would count as a walker under the rules.

The bot will move by waddling along on two stationary feet, with the waddling motion being caused by a combination of gyroscopic precession and torque reaction from two large horizontal spinners. The spinners will be the only moving parts of the bot.

Do you think this would count as a walker?
Team Zero - AWS 58 Champion!
Zero - rambot - - Axiom - axebot - - Valkyrie - drum spinner
Blueprint - rambot - - Vampire - horizontal spinner - - Particle - ???
RBMK - quad spinner gyro walker - - Duality - dual spinner gyro walker
User avatar
DieGracefullyRobotics
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:39 am

Re: Walker rule clarification? Unusual design.

Post by DieGracefullyRobotics »

Simply using 2 spinners to gyro your robot along (like Clean Sweeper in America, I'm guessing?) wouldn't be a walker because it's still just using rotational movement to propel forwards. The simplest way to change it to a walker would be some sort of twist foot mechanism, like Rex in Battlebots or his ant equivalent. Then you're not simply skating along on vibrations and gyro but converting the energy into a walking motion, though I still think that's a bit dubious in my opinion.

I guess, put simply, walkers (or technically shufflers) need some sort of mechanism to translate the roundy-roundy output of the motor into an uppy-downy movement on the legs. There's no mechanism in a skater or bristlebot, so it's not a walker.

If you wanted to bend the rules, you COULD put in a walking mechanism and then keep it stationary once activate has happened, skating along on the gyro instead but I think you'd have to prove it could at least walk at the start of a fight to qualify for the allowances in the first place. Not that I recommend bending rules of course :wink:
Dave
Die Gracefully Robotics - Barely Even a Proper Team.
User avatar
MarkR
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:46 pm
Location: Reading Hackspace
Contact:

Re: Walker rule clarification? Unusual design.

Post by MarkR »

Would a bristle-bot or similar be allowed if it has no (visible?) rotating components in the drive? A vibration-motor or solenoid powered drive system?

(NB: I don't have any plans to build one)
Robots: Betsie - RaspberryPi controlled flipper bot with gyro stablisation - too clever for her own good?
Stacie - tidy flipper; 4wd driven by hair bands
User avatar
DieGracefullyRobotics
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:39 am

Re: Walker rule clarification? Unusual design.

Post by DieGracefullyRobotics »

Like a back-and-forth vibration? It would still lack a mechanism to walk though. Directional bristles are more akin to the motion of a tracked robot than anything classed as legged.
Dave
Die Gracefully Robotics - Barely Even a Proper Team.
User avatar
GeorgeR
Posts: 280
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 9:53 pm
Location: Bath, Somerset

Re: Walker rule clarification? Unusual design.

Post by GeorgeR »

Someone asked about bristlebots last year, and the general consensus was that they did count as a walker, (which was my also my opinion).

I wasn't actually thinking of a bristlebot, but something a bit more odd (Wrecks from battlebots would be the closest approximation).

The two spinners would run in opposite directions, increasing the speed of one while slowing down the other would turn the whole body of the bot. But by twisting the axis of the slightly diagonally mounted spinners the side moving forward will lift gyroscopically, allowing that side of the robot to step forward.

Maybe I'll build a proof of concept and see how people would classify it.
Team Zero - AWS 58 Champion!
Zero - rambot - - Axiom - axebot - - Valkyrie - drum spinner
Blueprint - rambot - - Vampire - horizontal spinner - - Particle - ???
RBMK - quad spinner gyro walker - - Duality - dual spinner gyro walker
User avatar
DieGracefullyRobotics
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:39 am

Re: Walker rule clarification? Unusual design.

Post by DieGracefullyRobotics »

It's the problem with asking at an event (or on here) and getting a concensus based on the opinion of the room vs what the actual rules say. Most people will answer a question on gut instinct with whatever their opinion is but not actually give it much thought and, in that context, most people will answer "yeah, sure, why not?". It's why people outside of the UK ant scene always moan that we have the 4" cube or the drop-offs because they haven't considered there might be a reason for them beyond what they think constitutes "good fighting".

I can't see any way that a bristlebot would count as a walker in the context of a rule. They are skaters, they don't walk, or make any movement that could convincingly be described as walking. They don't line up with the walker rules in any way so why should they get a weight advantage? They aren't a difficult or challenging build so why should they be rewarded in the same way as a true walker?

Sorry, going off on one about bristlebots. I think a "gyro walker" is much more of a challenge to get working well and I think creativity should be rewarded, especially in the current climate where people are seemingly happy to buy a robot rather than build something themselves. But the question was about rule clarification and rules aren't about my personal opinion, they are about being the bottom line to any debate.
Dave
Die Gracefully Robotics - Barely Even a Proper Team.
User avatar
GeorgeR
Posts: 280
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 9:53 pm
Location: Bath, Somerset

Re: Walker rule clarification? Unusual design.

Post by GeorgeR »

Sorry not sure I explained myself properly, I didn't mean I was going to turn up with a working ant and try and enter. More that I might bodge a prototype together to check that the idea actually works, post a video and ask how the powers that be would classify it, then build to whichever weight is decided.

As for bristlebots, I wasn't even trying to start a discussion, I just remember seeing on here a while back that they are considered walkers, maybe that was wrong. I figured they're an unusual method of motion, definitely not wheels, and come with other downsides even compared to conventional walkers (no reverse, no grip), so they should probably count, given the rule is intended to promote unusual entries.

I certainly agree that the rules should be the definitive answer, but it's impossible to write an set of rules without some ambiguities, so there will always be a need to agree on an interpretation for unusual cases.
Team Zero - AWS 58 Champion!
Zero - rambot - - Axiom - axebot - - Valkyrie - drum spinner
Blueprint - rambot - - Vampire - horizontal spinner - - Particle - ???
RBMK - quad spinner gyro walker - - Duality - dual spinner gyro walker
User avatar
DieGracefullyRobotics
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:39 am

Re: Walker rule clarification? Unusual design.

Post by DieGracefullyRobotics »

I agree with you on all that, except the bit that says the walker rule was made to promote unusual designs. It wasn't, it was made to promote the challenge of building a walker, ha. People have talked about building a hovercraft style robot in the past, also a challenge, also not wheels, but not eligible for the walker perks because its not a walker. I guess there is an argument for making "any robot without wheels" eligible for the 4th slot/weight rewards which would reward creativity.

Anyway, yeah, none of this is necessary. I'm always a killjoy in these situations because nobody else wants to be. I think most people would rather avoid all debate and just have a weight limit, a 4-robot-per-team entry and anything goes within that. Seemingly it's just in my nature to try and keep things official and ruin it for everyone.
Dave
Die Gracefully Robotics - Barely Even a Proper Team.
User avatar
peterwaller
Posts: 3213
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Aylesbury Bucks
Contact:

Re: Walker rule clarification? Unusual design.

Post by peterwaller »

The actual rule which can be found here http://www.antweight.co.uk/rules.htm states
Walker - A robot whose final drive output rotates through less than 180 degrees (e.g. legs)
So unless the bristles rotate through more than 180 degrees it must be a walker. :roll:
User avatar
DieGracefullyRobotics
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:39 am

Re: Walker rule clarification? Unusual design.

Post by DieGracefullyRobotics »

But the final drive output isn't the bristles, it's the motor causing the vibration. The bristles don't 'drive', they are static. Otherwise, that would also definine a hovercraft as a "walker" as the cushion would count as the final output, not the fan...
Dave
Die Gracefully Robotics - Barely Even a Proper Team.
Post Reply