This line follower robot is very small and simple. This robot is running fast and follow the line very smoothly. You may see the video here.

Mechanics

All mechanical and electrical parts are mounted on a proto board, and it also constitutes the chasis.

The line following robot is upheld in three points of two driving wheels and a free wheel. The driving wheels are made with a 7 mm dia ball bearing and a rubber tire. The free wheel is a 5 mm dia ball bearing attached loosely. To drive driving wheels, two tiny vibration motors that used for cellular phone, pager or any mobile equipment are used. Its shaft is pressed onto the tire with a spring plate, the output torque is transferred to the wheels.

The steearing mechanism is realized in differential drive that steear the robot by difference in rotation speed between the left wheel and the right wheel. It does not require any additional actuator, only controling the wheel speed will do.

Line detector and Photo reflector

To detect a line to be followed, most contestants are using two or more number of poto-reflectors. Its output current that proportional to reflection rate of the floor is converted to voltage with a resister and tested it if the line is detected or not. However the threshold voltage cannot be fixed to any level because optical current by ambent light is added to the output current like the image shown right.

Most photo-detecting modules for industrial use are using modurated light to avoid interference by the ambient light. The detected signal is filtered with a band pass filter and disused signals are filtered out. Therefore only the modurated signal from the light emitter can be detected. Of course the detector must not be saturated by ambient light, this is effective when the detector is working in linear region.

In this project, pulsed light is used to cancel ambient light. This is suitable for arraied sensors that scanned in sequence to avoid interference from next sensor. The microcontroller starts to scan the sensor status, sample an output voltage, turn on LED and sample again the output voltage. The difference between the two samples is the optical current by LED, output voltage by the ambient light is canceled. The other sensors are also scanned the same avobe in sequence.

Line Detection Signal Processing

Right image shows the actual line posisiton vs detected line position in center value of 640. The microcontroller scans six sensors and calcurates the line position by output ratio of two sensors near the line. Thus the line position can be detected lineary with only six sensors. All the sensor outputs are captured as analog value that proportioning to reflection ratio, and the sensitivity have variety between each one of them. In this system, to remove the variations from the outputs, calibration parameters for each sensor can be held into non-volatile memory. This can be done with online mode. The microcontroler enters the online mode when an ISP cable is attached, and it can be controlled with a terminal program in serial format of N81 38.4kbps. S1 command monitors sensor values, and S2 command calibrates variation of sensor gain on the reference surface (white paper). The ATmega8 must be set to 8MHz internal osc.

Tracking Control

The line position is compeared to the center value to be tracked, the position error is processed with Proportional/Integral/Diffence filters to generate steering command. The line folloing robot tracks the line in PID control that the most popular argolithm for servo control.

The proportional term is the commom process in the servo system. It is only a gain amplifire without time dependent process. The differencial term is applied in order to improve the responce to disturbance, and it also compensate phase lag at the controled object. The D term will be required in most case to stabilize tracking motion. The I term is not used in this project from following resons. The I term that boosts DC gain is applied in order to remove left offset error, however, it often decrease servo stability due to its phase lag. The line following operation can ignore such tracking offset so that the I term is not required.

When any line sensing error has occured for a time due to getting out of line or end of line, the motors are stopped and the microcontroller enters sleep state of zero power consumption.
Notes:

• Development diary [Ja]
• Circuit diagram
• Firmware May 23, 2004
• Following motion with only P control
  This is a video file of line following motion with only P control. The servo system oscllated.
• Following motion with P and D controls
  Adding D control could improve the servo stability. The robot follows the line correctly. Therefore the servo parameter must be optimized for mechanical characterristics to improve the tracking stability.

Source: elm-chan.org

Built based on PIC microcontroller, this robot has multi functions, you might use this robot for several objectives.

The robot’s objectives are the following:

1. Follow a line with sharp turns
2. Maneuver through breaks in the line
3. Detect obstacles and manuever around them
4. Identify colors to be able to locate green and aluminum victims.

You can find the complete tutorial here

Artificial bacterial flagella are about half as long as the thickness of a human hair. They can swim at a speed of up to one body length per second. This means that they already resemble their natural role models very closely.

They look like spirals with tiny heads, and screw through the liquid like miniature corkscrews. When moving, they resemble rather ungainly bacteria with long whip-like tails. They can only be observed under a microscope because, at a total length of 25 to 60 µm, they are almost as small as natural flagellated bacteria. Most are between 5 and 15 µm long, a few are more than 20 µm.

Mimicking nature

The tiny spiral-shaped, nature-mimicking lookalikes of E. coli and similar bacteria. are called “Artificial Bacterial Flagella” (ABFs), the “flagella” referring to their whip-like tails. They were invented, manufactured and enabled to swim in a controllable way by researchers in the group led by Bradley Nelson, Professor at the Institute of Robotics and Intelligent Systems at ETH Zurich. In contrast to their natural role model, some of which cause diseases, the ABFs are intended to help cure diseases in the future.

The practical realization of these artificial bacteria, the smallest yet created, with a rigid flagellum and external actuation, was made possible mainly by the self-scrolling technique from which the spiral-shaped ABFs are constructed. ABFs are fabricated by vapor-depositing several ultra-thin layers of the elements indium, gallium, arsenic and chromium onto a substrate in a particular sequence. They are then patterned from it by means of lithography and etching. This forms super-thin, very long narrow ribbons that curl themselves into a spiral shape as soon as they are detached from the substrate, because of the unequal molecular lattice structures of the various layers. Depending on the deposited layer thickness and composition, a spiral is formed with different sizes which can be precisely defined by the researchers. Nelson says, “We can specify not only how small the spiral is, but even the scrolling direction of the ribbon that forms the spiral.”

External propulsion via magnetic field

Even before releasing the ribbon that will afterwards form the artificial flagellum, a kind of head for the mini-robot is attached to one of its ends. It consists of a chromium-nickel-gold tri-layer film, also vapor-deposited. Nickel is soft-magnetic, in contrast to the other materials used, which are non-magnetic. Nelson explains that, “This tiny magnetic head enables the ABF to move in a specific way in a magnetic field.” The spiral-shaped ABF swim through the liquid and its movements can be observed and recorded under a microscope.

With the software developed by the group, the ABF can be steered to a specific target by tuning the strength and direction of the rotating magnetic field which is generated by several coils. The ABFs can move forwards and backwards, upwards and downwards, and can also rotate in all directions. Brad Nelson says “There’s a lot of physics and mathematics behind the software.” The ABFs do not need energy of their own to swim, nor do they have any moving parts. The only decisive thing is the magnetic field, towards which the tiny head constantly tries to orientate itself and in whose direction it moves. The ABFs currently swim at a speed of up to 20 µm, i.e. up to one body length, per second. Nelson expects that it will be possible to increase the speed to more than 100 µm per second. For comparison: E. coli swims at 30 µm per second.

Possible applications in medicine

The ABFs have been designed for biomedical applications. For example, they could carry medicines to predetermined targets in the body, remove plaque deposits in the arteries or help biologists to modify cellular structures that are too small for direct manipulation by researchers. In initial experiments, the ETH Zurich researchers have already made the ABFs carry around polystyrene micro-spheres.

At the moment, however, the group is still carrying out basic research. Further investigations will be needed before there can be any practical applications. Nelson explains that, “For applications in the human body, it would first of all be necessary to steer the ABFs precisely, track their route without optical monitoring and guarantee their localization at all times.” If ABFs are to deliver drugs, they would first of all have to be functionalized in a feasible way and then need to be able to release the drugs precisely in situ. The plan is for the ABFs themselves to become even faster and smaller. Nelson is enthusiastic about how ingeniously nature has designed natural bacteria. He is happy that his group’s ABFs already resemble the originals so closely.

www.sciencedaily.com

This news comes from ehealtheurope.net. I believe others robots will soon be created to make human life easier…

–

French robotics specialist Robosoft and SRI International have demonstrated a new service robot designed to assist the elderly at home.

The RobuLAB, is able to navigate, follow and assist people moving from room to room using SRI Karto navigation software.

The robot is aimed at developers and integrators building home-centric service robots. Robosoft predicts these may become part of everyday life for the ageing population within the next five years.

Vincent Dupourqué, chief executive of Robosoft said: “The market for home centric robots that provide assistance to the elderly is one of our priorities.

“We’ve chosen to equip this robot with SRI’s Karto localisation technology. Beyond the technical quality of this software, we see the collaboration with SRI as a major plus for developing our activities in the US.”

Robosoft and SRI joined forced in 2008 with the goal of developing innovative commercial offerings in the home-centric service robot market.

Robosoft worked with SRI to integrate SRI’s Karto navigation system software on the RobuBOX, a module programmed using Microsoft Robotics Developer Studio.

Doug Bercow, director of business development at SRI said: “A core requirement for any home-centric robot application is the ability to navigate interior spaces both safely and reliably.

“We are very pleased that Robosoft selected SRI’s navigation software, which leverages existing navigation technologies that have been validated in military and transportation robotics and can easily transfer to robots for residential use.”

The development of the RobuLAB is the latest development in a three-year phase focusing on a turnkey solution with technology suppliers and partners, with the intention of a subsequent large scale deployment.

The proof-of-concept demonstration was shown at the 6th annual RoboBusiness Conference and Exposition that took place April on the 15th and 16th of April in Boston, Massachusetts.

By the time you complete the text and projects you will:

• Have an intermediate understanding of the C programming language.
• Have a elementary understanding microcontroller architecture.
• Be able to use the WinAVR and AVR Studio tools to build programs.
• Be able to use C to develop microcontroller functions such as:

- Port Inputs and Outputs
- Read a joystick
- Use timers
- Program a Real Time Clock
- Communicate with PC
- Conduct analog to digital and digital to analog conversions
- Measure temperature, light, and voltage
- Control motors
- Make music
- Control the LCD
- Flash LEDs like crazy

Download ebook C Programming for Microcontrollers
or
Buy C Programming for Microcontrollers book from amazon.com for US$ 49.95

PDA Robotics - Using Your Personal Digital Assistant to Control Your Robot will give you the expertise to create anything. One of many areas that I will touch on is the smart distributed network, where each robot can pass the information that it gains onto the “collective” to be shared with other robots. For instance, if two PDA Robots pass each other they can exchange information about a room in the house that has been mapped, saving any duplication of effort. The robots can synchronize to coordinate effort as well. A good example of  a coordinated autonomous effort is the idea of traffic being directed by a computer system.

Download the ebook:
Download Link 1
Download Link 2
Download Link 3

I’ve collected some schematic diagrams of sound activation as follow:

Sound Activation schematic 1

Sound Activation schematic 2

Sound Activation schematic 3

Sound Activation 4 schematic

Sound Activation schematic 5

====================

Alexander Stoytchev and his three graduate students recently presented one of their robot’s long and shiny arms to a visitor.

Here, they said, swing it around. And so the visitor tentatively gave the robot’s left arm a few twists and twirls. The metal arm was heavy, but still moved easily at its shoulder, elbow and wrist joints.

Then the graduate students hit some keyboard commands and the robot replayed those exact arm movements.

It was all incredibly quick, smooth and precise.

Stoytchev, an assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering, says it won’t be long before robot technology is something we’ll all see and experience.

“We’ll have personal robots very soon,” Stoytchev said. “We’re waiting for the first killer app. Hopefully, we can contribute to that.”

Star Wars

There’s a little R2-D2-shaped trash can near the door to Stoytchev’s lab in the new Electrical and Computer Engineering Building. Turns out the Star Wars movies were an inspiration to a young Stoytchev back home in Bulgaria.

“My interest in robotics stems from the day I saw Star Wars for the first time,” the 34-year-old said. “I must have been in second or third grade at that time, but the two robots in the movie (R2-D2 and C-3PO) left a lasting impression on me.”

That impression led Stoytchev to his high school’s computer club and then to computer science studies as an undergraduate at American University in Bulgaria. He moved to Atlanta’s Georgia Institute of Technology for graduate work in computer science. He was at Georgia Tech when he started working with robots.

His research specialty is developmental robotics, a blend of robotics, artificial intelligence, developmental psychology, developmental neuroscience and philosophy.

“It’s one of the newest branches of robotics,” Stoytchev said. “People have learned that it’s unrealistic to program robots from scratch to do every task, so we’re looking at human models. Humans are not born knowing everything. It takes a really long time to develop skills.”

Stoytchev and his students are trying to figure out how a robot can learn what children learn over the first two years of their lives. (And child development is something Stoytchev is learning firsthand; he and his wife have a 2-month-old son.)

Graduate work

Stoytchev’s graduate students are working to develop software that will allow their lab robot to learn and use different sets of skills:

Shane Griffith, who’s from Cedar Rapids and is studying computer engineering and human computer interaction, wants the robot to learn on its own which everyday objects can be used as containers and which cannot.

Jivko Sinapov, who’s from Sofia, Bulgaria, and is studying computer science and human computer interaction, wants the robot to learn how to use objects as tools.

Matt Miller, who’s also from Cedar Rapids and is studying computer science, wants the robot to learn language.

Combine that developing software with existing robotics hardware, and you’ve got a useful, smart robot.

“The essential goal of developmental robotics is for robots to learn how to learn,” Miller said. “We want them to learn how to take a situation, adjust to it and learn from it.”

A robot, for example, could learn to use containers by putting a ball in a bucket and seeing what happens when that bucket is pushed across a table. Is the ball pushed along with the bucket? Or is it left behind? The researchers believe that simple interactions like these hold the key to capturing the common-sense knowledge about the real world that comes naturally to people but is so difficult to capture in software code.

A future with robots

Stoytchev was attracted to Iowa State in 2005 by the College of Engineering’s reputation and research capabilities. And now he’s directing Iowa State’s Developmental Robotics Laboratory and making his own research contributions.

It’s work that has him looking ahead.

“In the not-too-distant future, we will have personal robots just like we have personal computers today,” he said. “The robots of the future will be generalists. They will be employed in a large variety of tasks that require a lot more smarts and autonomy than is currently possible. They will have the ability to learn how to perform new tasks on their own without human intervention.”

Yes, he said, “The robots are coming. Are we ready?”

Preface:
In recent years robots have captured the interest of more and more people. Thanks to movies and TV, the notion of the robot as a mechanical companion and servant has become a common concept. As interest in robots grew, a number of books showing how to build robots at home began to appear. These books, however, were very technical, showing how to build computer-controlled mobile platforms that are considered by most to be true robots.

Download Robotics Ebook: Build a Remote-Controlled Robot
Download link 1
Download link 2
Download link 3

Note: this is old book created in year 2002.

Before we get into the details, let us see why it is important to learn about microcontrollers in general and the AVR RISC series in particular. A recent white paper by Sun Microsystems, on picoJava Microprocessor core architecture claims that an average home, by the end of the decade, will contain between 50 to 100 microcontrollers controlling digital phones, microwave ovens, VCRs, televisions sets and television remotes, dishwashers, home security systems, PDAs, etc. Even though this may only reflect the position of a typical home in the advanced countries, there is no denying that even this reflects a huge volume of the microcontroller and microprocessor usage in the home environment. Besides home use, another area that is fueling the microcontroller growth is electronic commerce.

With the advent of “smart cards,” which have much more storage capacity than the more conventional magnetic cards and are more reliable, these devices are all set to replace paper currency, which means that a humongous number of people will be using the smart cards. There is even more: An average car has about 15 processors; the 1999 Mercedes S-class car has 63 microprocessors, while the 1999 BMW has 65 processors! In fact, except perhaps the human body, microprocessors and microcontrollers have gotten into everything around us (and even that may not be completely true—it would not be surprising if a heart pacemaker is microprocessor controlled).

Microcontrollers or microprocessors are easier to use as a controller than say a dedicated digital state machine in a system such as a washing machine, for example, cheaper to upgrade, and require less inventory; all issues critical for maintaining economic viability and profit in the face of cutthroat competition—thus this great rush for microcontrollers and microprocessors. Given the mass usage of microcontrollers in devices, systems, and consumer components, it is obvious where the money is.

So we want to learn about microcontrollers and microprocessors. However, you might have noticed that I have used these terms interchangeably and rather loosely. It is time to consider what a microcontroller really is and how it differs from a microprocessor.

Download ebook Programming And Customizing The AVR Microcontroller
or
Buy Programming And Customizing The AVR Microcontroller book from amazon.com for US$ 29.67

Babysitting robots, once the province of speculative fiction, are on the market. They make conversation, recognize faces and keep track of kids. They’re not a replacement for TV or games, but for personal care — and some researchers worry that kids will be harmed.

“If you leave a small child in front of the TV, you have to keep popping in to make sure they’re OK. But these are so safe that people will eventually leave their children in the care of robots,” said Noel Sharkey, a University of Sheffield roboticist.

Sharkey’s concerns, voiced Thursday in an editorial, “The Ethical Frontiers of Robotics,” published in Science, come at a potentially historic intersection between robotics and parenting.

Personal service robots are more common than industrial robots, and people are happy to use them for tasks once fulfilled by people. One survey of public attitude towards robots found that many people were willing to to use them as babysitters — more people, in fact, than would use robots as priests or massage therapists.

Models now on the market range from the Hello Kitty robot — “perfect … for whoever does not have a lot time to stay with child,” proclaims a vendor — to the discontinued Sony QRIO and NEC’s PaPeRo, which tells jokes, gives quizzes and uses radio-frequency identification chips to track kids. In another generation, these sophisticated machines will likely seem quaint.

“What would happen if a parent were to leave a child in the safe hands of a future robot caregiver almost exclusively?” wrote Sharkey. “The truth is that we do not know what the effects of the longterm exposure of infants would be.”

Sharkey does, however, take instruction from psychologist Harry Harlow’s famous and controversial tests on the importance of maternal care for monkeys, and ostensibly people: when nursed by inanimate objects, they grew up to be withdrawn and socially dysfunctional.

In the editorial, he mentions research — which now would be too unethical to conduct — on monkeys raised by inanimate nurses, which demonstrated the importance of maternal care.

Roboticist Ronald Arkin of Georgia Institute of Technology agrees that robots will affect people. “This stuff absolutely warrants further study,” he said. “People’s behavior is going to change as these artifacts are introduced. We see that with previous technologies, too — TV, the internet, the VCR.”

Arkin is, however, less immediately concerned than Sharkey, and willing to wait for research results before being alarmed. “We don’t have to be fearmongers, but we do need to study them intelligently and rationally,” he said.

But Sharkey is worried that sound science is impossible. Commercial robot makers, he said, are “doing experiments showing positive results by introducing them into schools for two or three hours a day. Children love them. But what we can’t do, scientifically, is long-term studies with isolated children.”

The sorts of tests necessary to directly test the effect of robot care would be unethical.

To Clifford Nass, director of Stanford’s Communications Between Humans and Interactive Media Lab, Sharkey and Arkin’s concerns are ultimately just practical. There’s a more fundamental question posed by the use of robots to care for children.

“The question is, if robots could take care of your children, would you let them?” he said. “What does it communicate about our society that we’re not making child-care a number-one priority?”

Nass pointed out that surveys show people are least willing to use robots as massage therapists, even though robots could make excellent masseurs. The reason, he said, is the meaning of a massage.

“There are some things you do for symbolic reasons, not technical reasons,” he said.

Citation: “The Ethical Frontiers of Robotics.” by Noel Sharkey, Science, 322, Dec. 19, 2008.

source: blog.wired.com

Robots can be used for 2 purposes, for good purposes or bad purposes. With the ethics of robotics, robots can be expected to be used for good purposes only. Here the article about ethical guidelines on war robots.

——————-

International guidelines are needed for the ethical and safe use of robots “for care and for war”, according to a leading British scientist.

Professor Noel Sharkey, a robotics expert from the University of Sheffield, warned of the potential dangers posed by new generations of civilian and military robots.

He drew attention to developments which could see battalions of armed and semi-autonomous robots being deployed in battle, both on the ground and in the air.

The US Future Combat Systems project aimed to use robots as force multipliers, with a single soldier initiating large scale ground and aerial robot attacks.

“The ethical problems arise because no computational system can discriminate between combatants and innocents in a close contact encounter,” Prof Sharkey wrote in the journal Science.

In the civilian area the hazards were more subtle but nonetheless real, he pointed out. Large numbers of “personal care” robots had already been developed for child-minding and care of the elderly.

Research had shown that children could become closely attached to robots, often preferring a robot to a teddy bear. But robots were unable to provide the care and attention offered by humans, which could have unpredictable psychological consequences, said Prof Sharkey.

“Because of the physical safety that robot minders provide, children could be left without human contact for many hours a day or perhaps for several days, and the possible psychological impact of the varying degrees of social isolation on development is unknown,” he wrote. “What would happen if a parent were to leave a child in the safe hands of a future robot caregiver almost exclusively?”

Studies had shown that in monkeys, severe social dysfunction occurs if infant animals only develop attachments to inanimate objects.

Care of the elderly was another area where robots were making a big impact, said Prof Sharkey. Examples of such devices already in use included the “My Spoon” automatic feeding robot, the Sanyo electric bathtub robot that washes and rinses, and the Mitsubishi Wakamura robot for monitoring, delivering messages and issuing reminders about medicine.

Robots on a Mission, a rookie team of seventh-grade students from St. Peter Lutheran School in Arlington Heights and home-schooled youngsters, learned about coping skills Saturday during a robotics tournament at Lake Zurich Middle School North.

After being disqualified in the first round because their robot had four motors, one more than the three allowed, the team redesigned the robot and scored well in the second round.

“The boys did a great job of coming together and regrouping,” said their coach Dave Solak. “They looked at the problem, removed one of the motors and made some adjustments and improved their scores in the next rounds.”

ROAM was one of 16 teams from Arlington Heights, Barrington, Batavia, Buffalo Grove, Elgin, Grayslake, Kildeer, Lake Zurich, Mundelein and Palatine competing in the For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology Lego League regional competition.

Lego competitions also were going on Saturday at the elementary school level at Lincoln Middle School in Mount Prospect and at the high school level at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago.

Dressed in matching black team T-shirts boasting a futuristic robot on a gray background, ROAM teammates were among more than 100 children ages 9-14 who went head-to-head with their robots, built and programmed with the Lego Mindstorms system.

“I’ve always been interested in Legos and technical stuff, so I thought that I would like this. I was surprised by how huge this competition was, and by the number of districts competing,” said Kyle Wahlberg, a fourth-grade student from Frederick School in Grayslake who was participating for the first time.

This was the first year that Frederick School participated in the competition and interest was high, said Principal Eric Detweiler.

“We originally thought that we would sponsor one team, but when the number of students interested reached 28, we formed three teams. We even had to turn some away,” Detweiler said.

This year’s theme was Climate Connections, which immersed middle school students in the impact of changing weather patterns. Teams have brainstormed since September and programmed their robots to accomplish tasks during 21/2-minute competition rounds

Teams were judged on how well their robots performed in table action, as well as design and programming. Their research project on climate and their teamwork also were evaluated.

Team STEELE from Kildeer received the Technical Interview Award; Gem Miners from Lake Zurich won the Teamwork award; Gesundheit! from Grayslake won the Robot Table Performance award and Got Robot? from Elgin took the Judges Award. These teams will head to the state tournament Jan. 16-17 at Forest View Educational Center in Arlington Heights. Lego Republic from Lake Zurich received the Research Presentation Award.

Motorola Foundation members have been major supporters of the competition, with many of its engineers serving as mentors and coaches for teams every year

The Bluetooth Boe-Bot Robot Kit for Microsoft Robotics Studio (MSRS) is a Parallax Boe-Bot Robot and an A7 Engineering eb500-SER Bluetooth module. The eb500 module makes it possible for the Boe-Bot robot’s BASIC Stamp 2 microcontroller brain to communicate wirelessly with MSRS running on a nearby PC. The BASIC Stamp microcontroller runs a small PBASIC program that controls the Boe-Bot robot’s servos and optionally monitors sensors while it communicates wirelessly with MSRS.

MSRS makes it possible to write robot sensor monitoring and motion control code (called services) on your PC with popular languages such as Microsoft Visual C# and Visual BASIC. This code relies on other services that communicate serially with the Boe-Bot robot via the Bluetooth connection to request sensor measurements and issue control commands. With this arrangement, MSRS makes puts an extensive service library and the PC’s processing and data storage abilities at your disposal for robotics applications.

Download Bluetooth Boe-Bot Robot Tutorial here:

Vex Robotics Design System is a robotic kit intended to introduce students as well as adults to the world of robotics. The Vex Robotics Design System is centered around the Vex Starter Kit (which retails for about USD $500). This kit comes with the Vex “brain” (a microcontroller), a hobby-grade remote control, various sensors (2 bumper sensor and 2 limiter switches), three electric motors and a servo, wheels (4 small, 2 medium all purpose, and 2 large high traction tires), gears, and structural parts. Additional sensors (ultrasonic, line tracking, optical shaft encoder, bumper switches, limit switches, and light sensors), wheels ( small and large omni-directional wheels, small, medium, and large regulars), tank treads, motors, servos, gears (regular and advanced), chain and sprocket sets, extra transmitter and receivers, programming kit (easy C) extra metal and rechargeable battery power packs,can all be purchased separately.

This tutorial will show you how to maximize your Vex Robotics Design System. Here are some previews of Vex Robotics Tutorial which will guide you how to get the maximum performance.

You can download the tutorial here;

For the Vex Robotics Kits, you can buy it from Amazon.com:

————-

ANN ARBOR, Mich., Dec 05, 2008 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ — As more companies adopt robots the need for safety training is expanding across the U.S. and Robotic Industries Association (RIA) is responding with more training events and locations than ever.

For the first time, Knoxville, Tennessee is host to RIA’s 2009 Spring Robot Safety Conference at the Knoxville Marriott from March 23-25, 2009. This three-day conference features a mix of workshops and conference sessions. Tabletop exhibits also accompany the conference with top companies displaying their latest robots, accessories and safety product innovations.

The RIA continues a twenty-one-year tradition of safety training as the National Robot Safety Conference XXI comes to Detroit at the Hyatt Regency Dearborn October 26-29, 2009. Attendees have four days to receive comprehensive training for their automation safety concerns. Pre- and post- conference workshops accompany the main conference, which features presentations on robot safety, standards, case studies, the latest developments and more. A networking and tabletop trade fair is also included, adding to the event’s value and excitement.

Companies interested in participating in the tabletop exhibits for either conference can call RIA at 734/994-6088.

In addition to its two conferences, RIA offers one-day Robot Safety Standard (R15.06) & Robot Risk Assessment Seminars. These robot safety seminars, modeled after RIA’s popular In-House Training courses, make their inaugural stops in Long Beach, California at host facility DENSO Robotics on February 4, 2009, and in Phoenix on March 30, 2009.

According to RIA’s Standards Development Director, Jeff Fryman, “The addition of the Long Beach and Phoenix seminars highlight the Association’s commitment to reach those interested in industrial safety throughout the West. These seminars extend an opportunity for those in the region to attend and receive training that meets their needs.”

Full seminar, workshop and conference agendas are being developed for all safety events and will be posted on the Association’s website (visit www.robotics.org) along with detailed registration information.

The Robotics Research Laboratory, tucked away in a corner of Coates Hall, tends to go unnoticed by most University students.

But out of this remote nook, Dr. S.S. Iyengar and two computer science graduate students hope to bring national recognition to the University through a new robot they have been working on for the past year and a half.

Iyengar, computer science department chair, Bharat Narahari and Jong Hoon Kim are making great strides in the robotics community by building a robot with technology that hasn’t been used anywhere else, Iyengar said.

The AgBot, powered by solar panels, includes features such as lawn fertilization, seed planting and security.

But Narahari, one of the creators of the AgBot, said he hopes the AgBot will be able to take on many different duties in the future.

“What we are imagining is, about five years down the line, suppose if you want to do a toilet cleaning job … buy a module and fit it inside the AgBot so it will clean your toilet,” he said. “And if you are out on a vacation for a month, and you need to guard and protect your house, so you go to some robot store, buy a security module, and just place it in the AgBot, so you have a full feature intrusion detection robot.”

Iyengar compared the robot to a cell phone. He said 10 years ago, a cell phone would just make calls, but today it has many different features. In the same way, he said, the AgBot is just a prototype that will be expanded to provide many functions as it is developed.

The AgBot, an invention Iyengar said could be worth a lot of money, is safely secured by the University. He said he didn’t want to give the idea to a large company because he didn’t want them to take the machine apart after buying it and make it into something completely different.

“I want LSU and the computer science department to make a niche here,” Iyengar said.

Some of the other projects being worked on by the RRL include a “pipeline robot,” which can inspect pipes for cracks and leakage, and a “maze robot,” which uses sensors to detect obstacles.

“All of it is built here,” he said. “And the very interesting thing is, [it was built] for probably a price of $2,000.”

The AgBot is being prepared for the commercial market, Iyengar said.

“We have proven the concept,” he said. “We have applied for patents, so now it is going to be ready for execution.”

Iygenar said he wants the robot to be available across the nation and be very cost-effective.

“We want to do it at a very cheap price,” he said. “If somebody wants the base of the robot only for doing a few things, that’s very cheap.”

Iyengar said he expects potential buyers to not only be homeowners but also golf clubs and baseball fields because the AgBot would cut back on lawn maintenance.

To see a video of the AgBot, click here.

ECS Student Robotics team members Rob Spanton and Chris Cross were among presenters showcasing their work to UK academics at a workshop discussing ‘Robotics in the Curriculum’.

According to Dr Su White, who organized the workshop, their enthusiasm and the success of their project was evidence of the many potential gains which students can experience when teaching with a robotics theme is included in the undergraduate curriculum. The Student Robotics challenge runs competitive activities in local sixth forms colleges and school.

‘Robotics in the Curriculum’ was convened by Su White of the ECS Learning Societies Lab in conjunction with the Higher Education Academy subject centres for Engineering and Information and Computer Science. Curriculum innovations from Southampton were showcased alongside contributions from engineering and computing colleagues from across the UK.

Student Robotics, which has won sponsorship from Motorola, demonstrates that there are accessible and low costs ways in which learning about engineering and electronics can integrate the theory with the practical and at the same time be challenging and enjoyable.

‘Robotics is an important part of the undergraduate curriculum in Southampton and demonstrates practical and exciting applications of computer science and electronics,’ said Dr White. ‘Student Robotics is a voluntary activity which involves students drawn from across our Faculty. Students also have options to study robotics formally at various levels of their degree course. We are particularly proud of the way in which our research and our teaching mutually benefit in this subject area. Rob Stanton has now progressed to PhD studies, and his supervisor Dr Klaus-Peter Zauner can clearly identify benefits which have resulted from the challenges our undergraduates have undertaken.’

Robots may soon be everywhere, in homes and at work. They could change the way humans live. If this happens, it will most likely raise many philosophical, social, and political questions that will have to be answered. In science fiction robots become so intelligent that they decide to take over the world because humans are deemed inferior. In real life however they might not choose to do that. Robots might follow rules such as Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics, that will prevent them from doing so. If the Singularity happens robots will be indistinguishable from human beings and some people may become Cyborgs, with some parts half biological and half artificial.

Economic impact

Given that in the next two decades robots will be capable of replacing humans in most manufacturing and service jobs, economic development will be primarily determined by the advancement of robotics. Given Japan’s current strength in this field, it may well become the economic leader in the next 20 years (part 1, part 2). Marshall Brain also discusses the emergence of robotic economy.

Market evolution

Today’s market is not fully mature. One or more software compatibility layers have yet to emerge to allow the development of a rich robotics ecosystem (similar to today’s personal computers one). Microsoft is currently working in this direction with its new software Microsoft Robotics Studio. Other candidates to reach this goal might be Free Software solutions such as Player/Stage or cross-platform technologies such as URBI.

Timeline

Developments related to robotics from the NISTEP 2030 report :

• 2013-2014 — agricultural robots (AgRobots⁾.
• 2013-2017 — robots that care for the elderly
• 2017 — medical robots performing low-invasive surgery
• 2017-2019 — household robots with full use.
• ???’ — Nanorobots

Robotics in 2020

Robots may be commonplace: in home, factories, agriculture, building & construction, undersea, space, mining, hospitals and streets; for repair, construction, maintenance, security, entertainment, companionship, care.

Purposes of these Robots:

• Robotized space vehicles and facilities
• Anthropomorphic general-purpose robots with hands like humans used for factory jobs - Intelligent robots for unmanned plants - Totally automated factories will be commonplace.
• Robots for guiding blind people and home automation for the elderly and disabled.
• Robots for almost any job in home or hospital, including Robo-surgery.
• Housework robots for cleaning, washing, transporting etc - Domestic robots will be small, specialized and attractive (= cuddly).

Properties of these robots:

• Autonomous, with environmental awareness sensors .
• Self recharging, self diagnostic and self repairing.
• More sophisticated artificial brains, perhaps with ten thousand or more cells, combined with electronic circuits.

Legal rights for robots?

According to research commissioned by the UK Office of Science and Innovation’s Horizon Scanning Centre, robots could one day demand the same citizen’s rights as humans. The study also warns that the rise of robots could put a strain on resources and the environment.

Otto Voettiner’s hands shook slightly as he lined up his team’s robot and released it along a Lego-filled course. The robot, Billybot, had a seemingly simple mission: to cross the table, lift a red ring with its long, gray fingers and return to base.

The seconds ticked down. His eight teammates, all fourth- and fifth-graders from Mountain View Elementary in Haymarket, watched intently beneath furry hats bearing their school’s cougar mascot. The “future MIT student,” as his coach proudly called him, had completed the task correctly dozens of times. But something was off yesterday, and Billybot veered off course, crashing into a little Lego house.

Otto was cool about the crash and the resulting low score. “At least we have two more tries,” he said.

More than 200 students, ages 9 through 14, had three chances yesterday to show judges what their personally designed, built and programmed Lego robots could do at River Bend Middle School in Sterling. Statewide, about 2,400 students donned team T-shirts and funny hats and took their childhood toy to a new level of sophistication.

Turning Legos into robots, complete with sensors and computer hard drives, has become a popular weekend pastime for a growing number of young students in the Washington region and beyond. Ten years ago, the Manchester, N.H.-based educational organization known as FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology) joined forces with Lego to establish the FIRST Lego League competition. This year, 135,000 children were expected to compete in about 40 countries. The regional tournament leads to a state championship in December and a world competition in Atlanta in the spring.

Neighborhoods, home-school organizations, Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts all organize Lego League teams. Fairfax County has dozens, including seven from Oak Hill Elementary in Herndon. There’s interest for more teams but not enough volunteer coaches, said Martha Cosgrove, a third-grade teacher at Oak Hill, who has coached an all-girls team for seven years. Her daughter, a member of the first team, is a junior in high school and spent her summer at an engineering program geared toward young women.

Cosgrove’s goal is to reach out to students who are underrepresented in engineering and technology careers. That means going after more girls, Hispanics, African Americans and those who aren’t in gifted programs.

But if yesterday’s competition is any indication, the robotics competition, although growing, is still solidly a game for self-identified brainiacs. Most teams came from schools with gifted and talented centers.

Mountain View’s students were handpicked from an enrichment program, said coach and third-grade teacher George Lombardi. As one of his students explained, “You have to be one of the smartest kids in the class to do it.”

The students have eight weeks to put together robots and presentations. On competition day, they are evaluated on a range of objectives, including teamwork and the performance and design of the robots, a category that brought Mountain View a first-place prize.

In addition, the students had to research how technology could help address a real-world problem associated with climate change. The Cougars chose to study drought and came up with a poster-board presentation and a skit called “The Scoop on Drought.”

Some of the children already sounded like scientists.

Paige Payne, 9, presented on an ancient Peruvian irrigation system with three kinds of “raised bed systems,” including a “phreatic system, in which the systems are joined in areas where the groundwater table is close to the surface of the soil and there is a means for groundwater recharge such as an infiltration lagoon.”

While the audience of parents and teachers let the information sink in, she asked, “Do you have any questions?”

Between events, the Cougars marched two by two through the middle school hallways. “We keep our heads up high/For we are the Cougars of Mountain View/Our goal is to reach for the sky,” they belted out.

One second-grader followed, marching and singing along a step or two behind. Her mother, Laurie Payne, held her hand, and said that she wants to be on the robotics team someday, just like her sister.