Open Design for ~$800 Swarm Robots

An anonymous reader writes "There are lots of multi-robot designs out there. Most are either research platforms well over $2K (often $10K or more), or are hobbyist bots under $400 with tiny brains and few sensors. But George Mason University's new FlockBots wiki is interesting. They're trying to pack as much functionality as possible into a roughly $800, 7" mobile swarmbot, and publish the design and software as a free and open spec. So far their design includes a wireless 200MHz Gumstix Linux computer, a camera, range and bump sensors, wheel encoders, a can gripper, and lots more. It's a great-looking design and I think the cost could drop to $500 with vendors doing consolidation."

Interesting equipment choice

[Sv-Manowar]

Its interesting that they chose to pair the Gumstix with the Acroname Brainsem. I've been working with the brainstem for mobile robotics as part of CSCS [cs-ed.org] and found it extremely flexible for robotics development. In what we've been doing, we used the brainstem chained to Zaurus PDA's, to achieve a similar linux control environment for the actual board (as the TEA language used to program the brainstem is somewhat restrictive). This platform seems like a great way for people to start out with a known good set of equipment, something that would really have helped us when getting started. (We had a whole load of teething issues getting the PDA's and brainstems talking, not to mention creating working combinations of servos)

Deterrent in the Field of Robotics

[kai.chan]

Having an Open Design is well and good, but I think there is still one main factor that prevents the field of robotics from flourishing. The problem stems from the lack of standard in both the development of the software, hardware, and mechanics.

Since there is no standard, someone can be using Microcontroller A with Motion Controller X using Programming Language N. Then finally combining these electronics with Servo K. When drivers for Motion Controller X has already been written under Programming Language M, developers have to spend time porting the code for another language for a different microprocessor, which might or might not work with the Servo.

When there are so many variables in robotics without any standard, a lot of development time are wasted either porting code, finding minor differences between devices and motors that causes incompatibilities, or choosing non-optimal parts for ease of implementation. In order for the field of robotics to advance at a faster rate, there needs to be a more standardized open environment in the software, hardware, and mechanical aspect.

Re:Military applications?

[cranos]

Nope not a chance. Part of the reason why the insurrgency has been so successful is the low tech aspect. This is something the US found and the forgot about in Vietnam. In a straight up battle, the US probably has the best technology in the world, against simple devices such as road side bombs and car/truck bombs they don't know what to do.

Re:Military applications?

[Admiral Burrito]

This particular device uses Linux, which brings up another question: should developers of open source software license their software so as to prevent it from being used in such killing devices?

Somehow, I doubt that people who would use the software for such purposes would be dissuaded by the licensing conditions.

Re:Military applications?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

We should not restrict anybody from using software. If we allowed restrictions then everybody would have their favorite restriction.

-no military uses
-no Taliban can use this software
-no al Queda can use this software
-no Nazis
-no Republicans
-no vegetarians
-no meat eaters
-no SUV drivers
-everybody but Martha Stewart

and so on. Pretty soon what was free isn't so free. That's because restrictions and freedom and opposing concepts. When in doubt, go with freedom. Some people will do things don't agree with with their freedom, but if you try to stop them from doing these disagreeable things with their freedom, you are the DEVIL.

Re:Military applications?

[hernick]

Open Source must be free for all or else it isn't Free. Should the GPL include a clause that prevents military contractors, neo-nazis, child molesters and Bill Gates from using the software ?

Never. We cannot exclude a single group from using Free software. This would be a desecration of the Freedom that the software stands for. Also, every OSS author would use the license as a political platform to condemn people at random: "This software cannot be used by Southern Baptists, Wahhabists and the followers of Ayn Rand."

--- By having read this post, you have already agreed to the Mostly Open Posting License. You are hereby granted the generous authorisation to read this post, but only if you are not a Witch, the daughter of Bill Gates or a fat-cat billionnaire. If you have read this post illegally, in defiance of this read-through license, you must paypal ten thousand american dollars to the author of this post, before Big Ben has sounded the upcoming call of midnight.

Re:Deterrent in the Field of Robotics

[kai.chan]

You completely missed the point of my post. The basic IEEE standards that you are refering to do not help the advancement of robotics.

For example, I wrote code for a motion controller to drive some motors, with UART, serial, all adhering to these standards. But guess what would happen to that code when the motion controller needs to be changed? I have to write new drivers for the new motion controller following the manufacturer's specifications. After writing the driver, there begins a process of testing.

Everyday electronics might have standards, but these standards that you are refering to does not mean that every microcontroller will have a Watchdog Timer, and not every motion controller will have the same states to drive motors.