Proposed rule change to Robothon "Pop Can Challenge"

[Don Zagorski]

This is a request for a change to the rules for the SRS Pop Can Challenge Competition
https://robothon.org/rules-pop-can-challenge/

Rationale: Since this competition is simulating a home environment with a base station and mobile robot, we should allow programmed communication between the base station and the mobile robot!  That's how we enable new approaches that can leverage hardware.  (Of course no remote control by humans should be allowed once a competition run starts.)  
The current rules are ambiguous in the "remote control" respect.

--------------

The specific rule change I am proposing is for item 7 (on https://robothon.org/rules-pop-can-challenge/) :

    change: "Robots must be autonomous. Remote control is not allowed."
    to:     "Robots must be autonomous. Remote control by humans is not allowed. Programmed communication between the base station and the mobile robot is otherwise allowed."

While I happen to be the Coordinator of the SnoCo Robotics Group, I am making this request entirely as an individual; I have not vetted this with any members of that group (but key members are copied).

Don Zagorski
(425) 493-4196 home

[Bill Adcock]

I was thinking it was suppose to be a self contained mobile robot.

Don, how would the judges know that someone wasn't using the robot's camera and remote controlling from off site?  Having wifi turned on during the competition opens a can of worms.

Don were was talk the first year when there was talk of putting a small laptop on board.   Then there are Raspberry Pi clones with 4G of ram, some with 8 processors.  Then there are Windows computers  like the one in SnoCo makers 3d printer room, raspberry pi form factor windows machines, Intel NUC computer and mini-ITX board (about 9" by 9" if I remember correctly) that take AMD or Intel I3, I5 or I7, but I don't know how much current they take.

What's driving your request for wifi?

Bill

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SnoCo Robotics Club" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to snoco-robotic...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to snoco-r...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/snoco-robotics/9542767.1216612.1529113758087%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Don Zagorski]

Bill,

> I was thinking it was suppose to be a self contained mobile robot.

Well, (duh), that's what this proposal is about!  It's a change to the rules.

[Ignoring all your in-between stuff because I don't understand it.]

 

> What's driving your request for wifi?

My change is not specific to wifi.  It is to allow communication (in whatever form) between the base station and mobile robot.  We should be testing the capabilities of a robotics system-- where the base may have a powerful computation engine and the mobile robot has the sensing capability, with communication between. 

What's driving me is to push for the most effective solution, without arbitrary bounds.

Don Zagorski
(425) 493-4196 home

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/snoco-robotics/164066c1486-1489-31f7%40webjas-vab164.srv.aolmail.net.

[Mark Kenworthy]

Hi Don – As Bill points out, this is a slippery slope.  On the other hand, should we block systems like the Microsoft Robotics Developer Studio, which requires a Windows PC as a “dongle”?

 

Carrying an onboard laptop/tablet/etc. would seem more of the spirit of the autonomous intent, and avoid the slippery slope of Wi-Fi control, which then makes it much easier for someone to just do manual remote control without our knowledge.

 

I am setting up my robots (Pop Can Challenge and Robo-Magellan) to send info (for debugging) to my cell phone over Bluetooth, but that is a one-way communications stream.  The info sent allows me to see what the robot thinks it is doing and where it thinks it is, instead of trying to just figure that out from the robot’s behavior.

 

Per the rules, any rule changes are up to the participants, so this is something we can discuss and decide upon, although we should also put this up on the Facebook group if we are moving towards a rule change, to make sure all participants have an opportunity to contribute to the discussion.

 

Mark

[John Jennings]

Thanks for bringing this up Don, I was wondering about item 7 as well.  I am running ROS and while my robot is strictly autonomous,  it is dependent on communication via wifi to a remote laptop.  I was thinking of RC or remote control by a human was implied.  Therefore, I would gladly like to see this rule change.

[Don Zagorski]

Everyone,

Let's continue this discussion on the SRS Yahoo group, since that is the sponsoring organization.

I have a post there proposing this rule change that you can reply to with your pros and cons.

(It was a bad move on my part starting this discussion here, rather than in the SRS group.  Sorry for the wasted energy.)

--Don