Range-finding ultrasonic / infrared

[Danny T]

What's the best (cheapest, quickest, easiest) way to detect obstacles
for a small robot? The book I have starts with infrared, and later
replaces them with ultrasonic. Infrared is way cheaper, but I don't full
understand how it works..

I've got some phototransistors here, that seem to work exaclty like
LDRs, they just change the resistance with the light - except they also
work with infrared (as well as normal light). I've seen infrared LEDs,
and infrared phototransistors - am I right in thinking these are simple
filtered to only detect IR, instead of normal light?

Would these be accurate enough to be able to get a range, or would it
simple be a yes/no if something's there? Ideally, I want to be able to
detect a) if there's anything within, say, 6 inches, and also if there's
anything within, say, 3 inches. That way, as things get near, I'll start
turning my robot, but if it doesn't turn quick enough, it'll increase
the turn when it gets closer.

Thanks,
--
Danny

 

[Robert Monsen]

Danny T wrote:

What's the best (cheapest, quickest, easiest) way to detect obstacles
for a small robot? The book I have starts with infrared, and later
replaces them with ultrasonic. Infrared is way cheaper, but I don't full
understand how it works..

I've got some phototransistors here, that seem to work exaclty like
LDRs, they just change the resistance with the light - except they also
work with infrared (as well as normal light). I've seen infrared LEDs,
and infrared phototransistors - am I right in thinking these are simple
filtered to only detect IR, instead of normal light?

Would these be accurate enough to be able to get a range, or would it
simple be a yes/no if something's there? Ideally, I want to be able to
detect a) if there's anything within, say, 6 inches, and also if there's
anything within, say, 3 inches. That way, as things get near, I'll start
turning my robot, but if it doesn't turn quick enough, it'll increase
the turn when it gets closer.

Thanks,

You can buy units that are designed as IR distance sensors. They give
you either a voltage (which you can read with the comparator or a/d) or
a binary output. The Sharp GP2D120 comes to mind. Here is a datasheet:

http://www.technologicalarts.com/myfiles/data/gp2d120.pdf

You can get them at the various robotics webstores. However, they are
cheaper at Arrow electronics. Make sure you get some JST connectors,
because they are a bit difficult to run without them. Acroname sells
them with the connectors and wires for $12.50 plus shipping:

http://www.acroname.com/robotics/parts/R146-GP2D120.html

I've built robots with these before, and they work pretty well. One
issue they have is that they are *really* directional. This is an issue
when you are trying to detect obstacles, and mounting becomes critical.
That is one thing to say for ultrasonics.

You can also just use a bump sensor, like the roomba.

http://www.irobot.com/home.cfm

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.

 

[Danny T]

Robert Monsen wrote:

Danny T wrote:

What's the best (cheapest, quickest, easiest) way to detect obstacles
for a small robot? The book I have starts with infrared, and later
replaces them with ultrasonic. Infrared is way cheaper, but I don't
full understand how it works..

I've got some phototransistors here, that seem to work exaclty like
LDRs, they just change the resistance with the light - except they
also work with infrared (as well as normal light). I've seen infrared
LEDs, and infrared phototransistors - am I right in thinking these are
simple filtered to only detect IR, instead of normal light?

Would these be accurate enough to be able to get a range, or would it
simple be a yes/no if something's there? Ideally, I want to be able to
detect a) if there's anything within, say, 6 inches, and also if
there's anything within, say, 3 inches. That way, as things get near,
I'll start turning my robot, but if it doesn't turn quick enough,
it'll increase the turn when it gets closer.

Thanks,


You can buy units that are designed as IR distance sensors. They give
you either a voltage (which you can read with the comparator or a/d) or
a binary output. The Sharp GP2D120 comes to mind. Here is a datasheet:

http://www.technologicalarts.com/myfiles/data/gp2d120.pdf

You can get them at the various robotics webstores. However, they are
cheaper at Arrow electronics. Make sure you get some JST connectors,
because they are a bit difficult to run without them. Acroname sells
them with the connectors and wires for $12.50 plus shipping:

http://www.acroname.com/robotics/parts/R146-GP2D120.html

I've built robots with these before, and they work pretty well. One
issue they have is that they are *really* directional. This is an issue
when you are trying to detect obstacles, and mounting becomes critical.
That is one thing to say for ultrasonics.

Sounds good, but Acroname don't have visible shipping costs for the UK!
Cheapest I've found here is:
http://www.active-robots.com/products/accessories/sensors.shtml

But I'll have a look around. I'll probably need 2 or 3, but looks like
they'll do the job!

You can also just use a bump sensor, like the roomba.

http://www.irobot.com/home.cfm

There's something more elegant about a robot that moves around without
hitting things... Imagine seeing people walking around an office by
bumping off walls ;-)

--
Danny

 

[Robert Monsen]

Danny T wrote:

Robert Monsen wrote:

Danny T wrote:

What's the best (cheapest, quickest, easiest) way to detect obstacles
for a small robot? The book I have starts with infrared, and later
replaces them with ultrasonic. Infrared is way cheaper, but I don't
full understand how it works..

I've got some phototransistors here, that seem to work exaclty like
LDRs, they just change the resistance with the light - except they
also work with infrared (as well as normal light). I've seen infrared
LEDs, and infrared phototransistors - am I right in thinking these
are simple filtered to only detect IR, instead of normal light?

Would these be accurate enough to be able to get a range, or would it
simple be a yes/no if something's there? Ideally, I want to be able
to detect a) if there's anything within, say, 6 inches, and also if
there's anything within, say, 3 inches. That way, as things get near,
I'll start turning my robot, but if it doesn't turn quick enough,
it'll increase the turn when it gets closer.

Thanks,



You can buy units that are designed as IR distance sensors. They give
you either a voltage (which you can read with the comparator or a/d)
or a binary output. The Sharp GP2D120 comes to mind. Here is a datasheet:

http://www.technologicalarts.com/myfiles/data/gp2d120.pdf

You can get them at the various robotics webstores. However, they are
cheaper at Arrow electronics. Make sure you get some JST connectors,
because they are a bit difficult to run without them. Acroname sells
them with the connectors and wires for $12.50 plus shipping:

http://www.acroname.com/robotics/parts/R146-GP2D120.html

I've built robots with these before, and they work pretty well. One
issue they have is that they are *really* directional. This is an
issue when you are trying to detect obstacles, and mounting becomes
critical. That is one thing to say for ultrasonics.


Sounds good, but Acroname don't have visible shipping costs for the UK!
Cheapest I've found here is:
http://www.active-robots.com/products/accessories/sensors.shtml

But I'll have a look around. I'll probably need 2 or 3, but looks like
they'll do the job!


You can also just use a bump sensor, like the roomba.

http://www.irobot.com/home.cfm


There's something more elegant about a robot that moves around without
hitting things... Imagine seeing people walking around an office by
bumping off walls ;-)

Unfortunately, it would be like trying to navigate with tunnel vision.
All you can tell is the distance to something, nothing else. That makes
it difficult to build mental models of what's out there. Robots without
vision processing are somewhat like flatlanders, living in a 2d world of
walls. They tend to crash into walls, chair legs, and feet even with the
IR sensors. Thus, bump sensors are fairly important for keeping the
robot from getting stuck.

One thing that is often done is to to measure the current through the
motors. That way, you can use a sudden increase as a signal that you've
hit something, and the motor has stalled. I was watching a roomba a few
days ago, and it appears to use that strategy. It was trying to climb
onto a persian rug that was too high for it, but which was lower than
it's bump sensor. It got a bit onto it, but then got stuck, noticed
this, and backed off. Not too bad. It also has wheels that can bob up
and down, which helps with this kind of thing.

You can notice increasing current by using a small (like a 1 ohm)
resistor, in series with the motor, and by watching the voltage across
it. By smoothing out the voltage spikes with a filter, you can keep
track of the general trend of current. If it goes beyond a certain
point, you are pretty sure that the motor is stalling.

Unfortunately, with your driver circuit, you don't have the ability to
back up. For that, you need a way to reverse the current through the
motor. That is often done with an H-Bridge (or a 1/2 H). There are
dedicated chips to handle this kind of thing (see the texas instruments
SN754410, for example). You can also control the speed using PWM, which
just means turning it on and off, and adjusting the amount of time it's
on to control the speed of the motor. 'PWM' stands for Pulse Width
Modulation. Some new PIC 16F chips have PWM built in, but only a single
channel, which means you need two processors, working in tandem, to use
this feature (which is pretty much useless). However, doing PWM in an
interrupt routine is almost trivial, if the frequency is low.

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.