Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #08387
To: "'beam@sgiblab.sgi.com'" beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
From: Wilf Rigter Wilf.Rigter@powertech.bc.ca
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 12:36:39 -0800
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: chloroplast
Sure! Basking would be quite consistent. Adjust the pot until the LCSE no
longer fires in the brightest light and then a small drop in light level
like a shadow (or a cloud) will trigger it within a few tens of ms.
The LCSE would require a small revision to make it more sensitive to "light
change" rather than "light level" so that it would respond even if not fully
charged.
If used as part of a "solar hopper" design , we could have a little contest
between the hopper and my cat (comes sniffing around my work bench) to see
which jumps the highest. LOL!
wilf
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Timothy Flytcher [SMTP:flytch@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, December 18, 1999 11:38 AM
> To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
> Subject: RE: chloroplast
>
> Woe... Wilf, hold up a minuet...
> >Interesting behaviours can result, ie the SE may charge
> >but not fire until a shadow passes over the LDR (fight or flight
> response?)
>
> Is this a repeatable response??? Could the be used as a basking
> response???
> A bot that finds the sun then sits and basks like a lizard on a rock???
> Timothy...
>
> >Your wish is my command!
> >
> >Here is a Light Compensated SE (LCSE or should that be lcse?) It should
> be
> >used with a solar cell with 7 to 8V max open circuit. The caps should
> have
> >a
> >similar voltage rating. The value of the pot is about equal to the
> >brightest
> >light resistance of the Light Dependent Resistor (LDR). The LDR points in
> >the same general direction as the solar cell for tracking light
> variations.
> >It is usually necessary to desensitize the LDR by partially masking it
> with
> >shrinktube or nail polish etc. Experimentation is required to get the
> right
> >setting of the pot. Interesting behaviours can result, ie the SE may
> charge
> >but not fire until a shadow passes over the LDR (fight or flight
> response?)
> >
> >
> >
> > <>
> > > another thing to add on that is a photoresistor. So in more light it
> >will
> > > run
> > > stronger or be more conservative in darker light. Sounds good to me.
> > >
> > > Steve
> ><< lcse.gif >>
>
> ______________________________________________________
>
8388 Sat, 18 Dec 1999 15:40:46 EST [alt-beam] Re: silicon VS SunCeram beam@sgiblab.sgi.com JVernonM@aol.com In a message dated 12/18/99 3:20:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,
robotbreeder@telus.net writes:
> Now your robots get big and ugly.
Not really the same thing, at least to me.
> If you want to make big bots that only run outside in direct sunlight, then
> go for the blue PV's.. They will kick ass, and really go fast. BUT take
> them inside and prepare to be underwhelmed.
But, lets put a second solar array onto that big ole' ugly bot. Let's hook
that to a NiCad pack and devise a circuit to switch to the batteries when the
light levels are less than optimal. You now have a bot that kicks ass in the
sun, in the shade, in the house, and in the dark. I brought this up a few
days ago, but interest seems light. I plan to pursue this line of thinking
and will refer to the battery circuit as robotic fat. A bot without fat will,
and do, die in lower light levels. They are complete corpses in the dark. If
your bot is roaming around all day in bright sunlight, why not build up a
secondary reserve to keep it going in more adverse conditions? Yes, it will
be somewhat larger, but it's performance would be much improved. Of course,
it would not fit ANY of the guidelines of the BEAM games, but it would out
perform any bot entered. And, you could see interaction, even in little to no
light, without the need for stop motion camera work. A bot that works in real
time, all the time. Sounds good to me.
See ya,
Jim
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Exhibit/8281/beamart.html
ICQ# 55657870
8389 Sat, 18 Dec 1999 12:50:25 -0800 [alt-beam] Re: silicon VS SunCeram "'beam@sgiblab.sgi.com'" Wilf Rigter Point well taken! but what is an "anticipointment"? (grin!)
wilf
> -----Original Message-----
> From: adam-m [SMTP:robotbreeder@telus.net]
> Sent: Saturday, December 18, 1999 12:15 PM
> To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
> Subject: silicon VS SunCeram
>=20
> Yes Silicon or monocrystalline pv panels (blue) have significant =
amperage
> over the SunCerams...=A0 but there=A0good reasons you don't see them =
in many
> beam applications...
> =A0
> 1. They suck like a tornado in anything other than bright =
sunlight.=A0 Those
> wonderful SunCerams produce an amazing amount of light in 'less than
> really bright' conditions.=A0 To get the numbers you read for the =
Blue
> panels, you need to be in noon Texas sun.
> =A0
> 2. Their voltage output is poor, necessitating hooking a bunch in =
series.=A0
> Now your robots get big and ugly.
> =A0
> If you want to make big bots that only run outside in direct =
sunlight,
> then go for the blue PV's..=A0 They will kick ass, and really go =
fast.=A0 BUT
> take them inside and prepare to be underwhelmed.
> =A0
> I bought a bunch of Monocrystalline cells a while back and after a =
few
> tests i was completely filled with anticipointment.
> =A0
> I like bots that wander around on my desk at work under halogen lamps =
and
> in bright room lighting.=A0 For that, SunCerams are the best thing.
8390 Sat, 18 Dec 1999 15:53:11 EST [alt-beam] Re: Miller Engine - licensing... beam@sgiblab.sgi.com JVernonM@aol.com In a message dated 12/18/99 2:52:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,
dave@solarbotics.com writes:
> Jeez, and I was hoping to have some feedback on the _circuit_, not the
> legal issues!
Agreed. But, I think the legalities cropped up again because the license came
before the circuit, contrary to most other circuit postings. I think we are
all fairly honest. But, posting a circuit with lawyer speak hanging all over
it will invite that kind of response. I apologize if my comment seemed
facetious, but posting in that way doesn't really encourage open discussion
of the circuit. Quite the contrary.
See ya,
Jim
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Exhibit/8281/beamart.html
ICQ# 55657870
8391 Sat, 18 Dec 1999 15:55:37 -0500 (EST) [alt-beam] BEAM Flocking chat beam@sgiblab.sgi.com jester96beam@iname.com This sounds like it will be very interesting. I just hope it doesn't turn out like that co-op thing people were so hyped about a while ago.
How about a chat tommorow on this topic? Hows 10pm GMT sound? That's 5pm in Ontario.
If you don't know what time it will be for you, in windows 95/98 double click the time in the corner and click time zone, then find your location.
Chris
---------------------------------------------------
Get free personalized email at http://www.iname.com
8392 Sat, 18 Dec 1999 13:43:08 -0700 [alt-beam] Re: Solarbotics Miller Engines beam@sgiblab.sgi.com Dave Hrynkiw At 01:10 PM 12/18/99 , Wilf Rigter wrote:
>The MSE circuit, using the 2N7000 is of course identical to the PM1 (that
>Miller's too?) but using a bipolar transistor output with a large C2 is a
>nice twist.
Yes, he actually showed that one to Mark.
>In the MSE, if a higher trigger voltage is desired, why not use a 1381 with
>a different suffix letter rather than adding diodes.
The biggest 1381 trigger you can get is only 4.8V. So if you want a 7V
trigger, or don't have a trigger high enough....
> BTW the diode voltage
>drops at low current should be much lower than .7V ie 400mV or less and for
>a 1N914 @ <1mA is more like 50mV.
Is true. Experimentation required.
Thanks for filling in the rest of the details! I was getting pretty foggy
towards the end of the night. Mind if I use some of your descriptions in
future docs on the cct?
Regards,
Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Um, no - that's H,R,Y,N,K,I,W. No, not K,I,U,U, K,I,_W_. Yes,
that's right. Yes, I know it looks like "HOCKYRINK." Yup, only
2 vowels. Pronounciation? _SMITH_".
http://www.solarbotics.com
8393 Sat, 18 Dec 1999 13:16:18 -0800 [alt-beam] Re: 1381-Chloroplast "'beam@sgiblab.sgi.com'" Wilf Rigter Eh? Jim pushing and pulling the guide lines?
Simple 34164 chloroplast not including solar cell and main cap = 4 parts.
Simple 1381 chloroplast not including solar cell and main cap = 4 parts.
Heavy duty motor chloroplast needs a few more parts in either case for the
reasons I pointed out .
Neither is "better" but how would you add light compensation, for example,
in the 34164 chloroplast?. The wide range of 1381 trigger voltages available
allows more choice in the chloroplast design reset voltage for different
applications, perhaps matching the SE characteristics more closely with cap
and solar cell voltages. It's always nice to have several solutions that
perform more or less equally well and being able to use existing components
can make life a lot easier or were you planning to toss your 1381s? .
peace
wilf
> -----Original Message-----
> From: JVernonM@aol.com [SMTP:JVernonM@aol.com]
> Sent: Saturday, December 18, 1999 10:35 AM
> To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
> Subject: 1381-Chloroplast
>
> OK, I don't get it. The 1381-Chloroplast that Wilf just posted does pretty
>
> much the same thing as the original Chloroplast. But, does it with 3 more
> parts. Why? The 1381 is very hard to get in Europe and down under. So,
> again,
> why? Maybe I'm to dense to see it, but why is it necessary to reinvent the
>
> same engine with more parts? Also, Ian, why not just hook enough of those
> solar cells in series to get the required voltage. If you did that you
> would
> have a power house equivalent to more than 4 AA batteries. Simple,
> effective,
> hook 'er right up. Unless, of course, they are like 6 inches wide or
> something. I guess Ian is going for a conservation of parts. So, why does
> that guideline go out the window when reinventing the Chloroplast. Like I
> said, I don't get it.
>
> See ya,
> Jim
> http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Exhibit/8281/beamart.html
> ICQ# 55657870
8394 Sat, 18 Dec 1999 22:25:31 +0100 [alt-beam] Re: PCB iron on transfers beam@sgiblab.sgi.com Thomas Pilgaard Nielsen I'll just correct myself:
it would seem quite difficult !until! you got the hang of it.
Sorry - Thomas
Thomas Pilgaard Nielsen wrote:
> Dennison Bertram wrote:
>
> Not to say that you don't know what it's all about, but my local electr=
onics
> retailer instructed me that it would seem quite difficult once you got =
the hang
> of it. I've seen boards done with iron on tranfers and I must say that =
I was
> impressed. I am certainly going to have a go at it some time.
>
> cheers - Thomas
>
> > Stay away from Iron on Transfers. I don't care what people say, they =
just
> > don't work. They seriously will be a huge dissapointment. Your better=
off to
> > simply put some time and energy into a good design, and spend the ext=
ra
> > bucks to have it fashioned at a real PCB etching facility. Seriously,=
I know
> > you're going to have to do it the hard way a few times before you lea=
rn, but
> > it pays off.
> >
> > dennison
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-beam@sgiblab.sgi.com [mailto:owner-beam@sgiblab.sgi.com]O=
n
> > Behalf Of jester96@iname.com
> > Sent: Friday, December 17, 1999 7:53 PM
> > To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
> > Subject: PCB iron on transfers
> >
> > I know you can get PCB Iron on transfers for laser printers, but what=
about
> > inkjets???
> >
> > I work at a computer store, and we have T-Shirt transfers for inkjets=
. Would
> > they work do you think or would the solution etch right through it? H=
as
> > anyone tried it before?
> >
> > The only way I can make PCBs now is with a pen, and that it's a pain =
in the
> > arse, so I am looking for something better. How much do cheap UV boxe=
s cost?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Chris
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > Get free personalized email at http://www.iname.com
>
> --
> ---
> "Stj=E5lne tusser skriver bedst."
> Yvonne Miller
--
---
"Stj=E5lne tusser skriver bedst."
Yvonne Miller
Home