Gamma 2 Robotics uses Parallax in their security robot

kscheer

I am new to the Forum and would like to say Hi to everyone!
At Gamma 2 Robotics we are proud to say that we use the Parallax propeller chip and encoders in our mobile, autonomous, security robot to control its motion. Here is a short video that demonstrates how well our robot can move: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XxVUCEyu3k&feature=player_detailpage

erco

Welcome kscheer! Nice robot, and of course we love your use of the Propeller. You are in the Denver area?

kscheer

Thanks! Yes, we are located in Denver, CO.

SRLM

Hey, that's pretty cool. If you get a chance we'd love to see some technical pictures (insides, Propeller chip PCB, etc.).

GordonMcComb

This one looks good. So many of the security robots you see rolling out these days try to do too much. There's no weight or cost mentioned on your page, but it doesn't look like yours will flatten a kid at the mall, or cost so much that no one really could ever buy it.

As you develop your Web page, some basic specs -- weight, dimensions, etc. would be cool.

erco

GordonMcComb wrote: »

So many of the security robots you see rolling out these days try to do too much.

@kscheer: Per Gordon, just focus on one key security feature. If you need any help adding a flamethrower feature, just PM me. That can be a useful deterrent.

kscheer

Thanks for the suggestions, I will pass them on.

The cost is less than the annual salary of a security guard and it is destined to help people by doing the dull, dirty, dangerous jobs. The robot weighs about 160 lbs. We are very safety conscious; the robot will not flatten a kid at the mall because when it detects obstacles, it stops and then goes around them.

Mark_T

Surely a 'defensive' patrolling robot needs sensors in all directions, not just forward facing?

Looks like it would be easy to just follow it around in its blind spot - or are there concealed
sensors at the back?

GordonMcComb

I'm thinking 160 pounds is just on the high side of being acceptable for an unsupervised robot used in public, but even lighter would be better. That makes it more likely to be a theft target, but that can be minimized by using some really loud sirens on it that are activated by an accelerometer. I'm guessing it's very bottom-heavy and not likely to be tipped over. But remember there are always clowns in crowds who do stupid things, and the nature of liability makes it the owner of the robot, with deeper pockets, being the one the personal injury lawyers will go after.

I think to be more safe for public the bottom needs a very thick pad that is also tactile, and will stop the robot at even slight pressure. The ultrasonic perimeter sensors are, IMO, not adequate by themselves for detecting people and other objects. OTOH, I'm a long way from being sure any of these robots are truly safe for unsupervised use in public. I always suggest non-public applications only for these, and to forget the notion of 'Paul Blart the Mall Bot.' Safety issues aren't as critical for a bot used in controlled environments not around people (warehouses at night, etc.). That's just me, though. I have a distorted view of things because I do consulting work for lawyers, and know how these guys think.

Ken Gracey

kscheer wrote: »

Thanks for the suggestions, I will pass them on.

The cost is less than the annual salary of a security guard and it is destined to help people by doing the dull, dirty, dangerous jobs. The robot weighs about 160 lbs. We are very safety conscious; the robot will not flatten a kid at the mall because when it detects obstacles, it stops and then goes around them.

Hello kscheer,

I'd like to welcome you to our forums! I've worked with you as a customer for several years as you've been quite the consumer of our motor mount and wheel kits! I think MattG even scoured the building for our old encoder sets to avoid costly firmware/circuit updates to your robots.

Make yourself at home here and thank you for sharing! I'm excited that you guys have made a guest appearance!

Sincerely,

Ken Gracey

Heater.

This is possibly the most disturbing and/or stupid thing I have seen for years.

When are you going to get it tooled up like the ED 209?

http://robocop.wikia.com/wiki/Enforcement_Droid_Series_209_(1987)

Ken Gracey

Heater. wrote: »

This is possibly the most disturbing and/or stupid thing I have seen for years.

When are you going to get it tooled up like the ED 209?

http://robocop.wikia.com/wiki/Enforcement_Droid_Series_209_(1987)

I really don't like to bring this up, but this reply borders on violating our forum guidelines http://forums.parallax.com/showthread.php/134682-Forum-Guidelines. Please be considerate and polite towards new forum members.

Ken Gracey

Heater.

Ken,

For sure I did think about how far I'm pushing the bounds before I posted that.

But post I must. Either that thing works as advertised, in which case it is disturbing. Or it does not, in which case it is stupid.

The ED 209 thing was something of a joke. If you ignore where this is going in reality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_robot

I do believe this is an on topic debate. Engineers should possibly, maybe, sometimes think about what they do.

Ken Gracey

@Heater, sure, I realize you probably thought twice about making that post. I knew the ED 209 reference wasn't serious, too. I read as many of your posts as I can and I recognize your significant contributions around here, so it's not easy for me to slap your hand.

Just considering that this newcomer to our forums is a long-standing and productive customer who didn't make his post to engage in debates but instead to share their company's product, it seems reasonable to ask that we generally be more considerate so we have a growing community.

I receive input about our forums in person, by e-mail, etc. The most important (and most valuable) input is that our forums are truly productive. The engineers who hang around here including yourself have contributed portions of the Propeller 2 design. Products are designed, people collaborate for a common goal, and everybody learns so much faster. This forum is a resource a company certainly can't buy or easily build. Even with all of these positive benefits, once in a while the lurkers pull me aside and express concern about how they'll be received. That's why I responded the way I did - I am expected to set a certain tone that I believe is mostly right about how we interact .

You are welcome to differ, of course.

Ken Gracey

GordonMcComb

Heater. wrote: »

But post I must. Either that thing works as advertised, in which case it is disturbing. Or it does not, in which case it is stupid.

You seem to be unaware mobile sentry platforms have been around for a looooong time. The concept is hardly new, but this one appears to be aimed at a lower cost point as it's designed around off-the-shelf parts. I think that's admirable, and advances the industry.

It's basically a burglar alarm on wheels. How that is disturbing or stupid is rather unfathomable.

I do have a *theoretical* objection to an object with the weight of an adult coursing around in public. Liability nightmare waiting to happen. The company's video suggests it can be used in public areas, but the video never shows it among people. Their use-case page does not list an application where the robot is used around people, so it seems they already get the liability problems. They probably saw Robocop, too.

kscheer

Correct, there are sensors all around the robot and if someone were to 'mess' with it by pushing or tipping, etc. it will pop up an alarm to the console where a person can see it and respond appropriately.