Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
help I'am stock ! conneting the PING to a HB25 — Parallax Forums

help I'am stock ! conneting the PING to a HB25

Ro'King MRo'King M Posts: 4
edited 2007-01-08 11:06 in BASIC Stamp
freaked.gif
PING and sharp gp2d12

what if i use a PING to control the acceleration and decceleration of the motor control like a HB25 rather than using a sharp gp2d12. becuse if i use the sharp sensor i will have to use and ADC like the adc0831.

i dont have too much knowledge in programing a BSII

I need help with the connection of·a sharp gp2d12 to a hb25 to control the motor control. Im using 4 of·the gp2d12 i have the sensor connected to a single adc0831. ·Im using the the sensor like bumpers.· I want to use the sensors so that the sensor will control the HB25 signal input of the·so it will control the speed ot the robot. the plafor that im using is the·HUMMER toy car that Radio Shack sells. Im also adding a Parallax GPS but that will be for later for self control.


·hey take a look at this hummer h2 it is a good plafor for robot. is the same one that im using.
·http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2131012&cp=&origkw=HUMMER&kw=hummer&parentPage=search
thanks for the help.







If·you need to see pictures of the robot that·Im building send me an email to Roking96@homail.com

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Ro'King M
2576 x 1932 - 2M
2576 x 1932 - 655K
2576 x 1932 - 1M

Comments

  • PJAllenPJAllen Banned Posts: 5,065
    edited 2007-01-07 23:34
    You don't need an ADC to use the Sharp sensor.· If you can settle for Go/No-Go then you could use a comparator (i.e. threshold voltage = "too close", otherwise OK.)

    Post Edit:· Attached also is an analog input interface·ckt. which you might consider.

    Post Edited (PJ Allen) : 1/7/2007 11:45:04 PM GMT
    284 x 220 - 6K
    643 x 287 - 27K
  • Bruce BatesBruce Bates Posts: 3,045
    edited 2007-01-08 11:06
    Ro'King -

    If I were you, and before·I went·too much further, I'd back up and change my method of attack. Just as a for instance there is no way any Sharp distance sensor is going to "drive" any motor controller directly, which is what you seem to propose. To borrow a term from the grammarians, what you have there is a bit if a mixed metaphor.

    That thinking SHOULD have gone something like this:

    A. My robot is able to avoid objects in front of it.
    ·1. Sharp distance sensor can detect objects in front of it.
    ·2. Stamp determines if there are obstacles via a Sharp distance sensor.

    B. My robot can change speeds or stop.
    ·1. Motor controller permits speed variation.
    ·2. Motor controller permits stating/starting robot.
    ·3. Stamp sends commands to direct the actions of the motor controller.

    C. My robot is able to·stop/slow before hitting·objects in front.
    ·1. Stamp slows motor controller if obstacle detected.
    ·2. Stamp can stop robot if it needs to, during decision making.
    ·3. Stamp decideds how to manuver around/avoid objects.
    ·4. Once object(s) avoided, Stamp can direct motor contoller to resume speed.

    Whether you can see it or not, many of us can actually code a rudamentary program, merely based on those reasonably logical and somewhat sequential thoughts. Once you can lay things out in a similar, logical fashion you will find things far less confusing, and much more logical.

    Regards,

    Bruce Bates
Sign In or Register to comment.