ideas
A Pretty Face
Dauntless
American Enterprise
This thought is being generated from trying to decide what should be the water borne operations platform for the Roboboat project. I have been wishy-washy on my decision on how big and fancy the boat needs to be. The robot competition boats for autonomous operation built by students are almost always ugly looking floating boxes. No classic marine hull designs at all. Many look like pontoon houseboat platforms.
My intention from the start was realistic boat hull design. To that desire, my urge at this writing is to skip the ugly test platform stage I have briefly considered (the pointy box) and go back to my large hull original conception.
-
I want to get there (real hull design) anyway.
-
Saves the cost and time of “ugly duck hull”, as a “just get it on the water”, intermediate stage.
-
Kit boat saves all marine design work. Just build it. This takes hull design and performance out of the variable list.
-
The onboard electronics are very small so require little space. Access for experiments and alterations will not be an issue using a large hull.
-
Most experiments will be in software control functions.
-
Did I say reduces overall development costs?
-
Standard boat design has retained value if controls project is ever abandoned or sold as finished design.
-
Larger, heavier model boat projects perform much better in a wider range of water conditions than small, light, non marine designs.
So with all that considered, I have two prospect boat designs in mind. Both are made by Dumas. My top of the list is the Dauntless Kit #1211. Also considered is the American Enterprise Kit #1213. Both use the same running hardware, but I am considering sourcing the electric motors from other than Dumas.
The Dauntless is about 2.5 inches shorter than the 52 inch American Enterprise but is two inches wider in beam at 14 inches. It is also more expensive than the American Enterprise. However, the Dauntless looks a lot roomier due to its much larger freeboard.
Yet, the American Enterprise is sexier and faster looking. I’d take either but which one first? Ha!
This means I will soon be putting a face on this project. I’ll let you know when I decide.
Early Boat Thoughts
Now that I have been working with the proposed control system I realize the subject boat (to be controlled) does not have to be as big as I first envisioned. The first tests will be remote basic control. Just taking control response and range into consideration.
To me that indicates I can run early tests on a smaller and cheaper to build model boat. The smaller size will also mean a smaller single motor will be needed. Less battery size will also be a benefit.
For these reasons, I am considering downsizing my first vision of the model boat required. This change justifies my plan to start with the control system first. I am learning what I need as I go. I am not sure when I will be able to commit to the actual boat selection.
At first I was thinking the bigger the model the better. Still a good plan but a lot more cost than needed for an untested communication system. I was thinking of about a 48+ inch length and a 10-12 inch beam. Now I am considering 24-36 inch length and as wide a beam I can find for stability (and space to work)
If plans go astray, I will have less invested in this experiment. My biggest concern is the reliability of the wireless network. I will spend a lot of time testing that before I have to figure out how to put it in the boat.
The second concern is water proofing. I have built model boats and know I have to seal the electronics from the moisture. I am using an experiment board for now. Next step for installation in the boat will be a prototype board. This will provide permanently soldered components and connections. It will also be larger than a custom designed circuit. I do not know exactly what size the prototype board will be. I have a general idea from the boards I know that are available. So that is why I think I can downsize the model.
The truth I have considered is the first test vessel can be a very simple and crude “pointy box” with a motor and rudder. Ugly yes, but a consideration. I’d rather have a scale model looking test bed for the pictures, but I can be practical if I want or need to be.
When I get to GPS and other enhancements, then I will have to go to a larger test platform. Perhaps then I will include dual motor controls. Fun to think about but first things first.
I’m a Hack
I am starting to think of how many ways I can use the micro computers in monitoring and control situations. They can be set up to have their own network IP address and webpage, at least on the home network. It’s called the Spinneret Web Server. Not sure that I would want to make my data available to the world, at least not at this time.
There are just so many wonderful options that these controls can be set up to manage. I’m sure there is a business opportunity somewhere in designing and deploying these devices. I certainly will be finding and deploying my own beyond the RoboBoat Project.
I have returned to my first love of working with computer CPU’s (Central Processing Units). Back when I started there was nothing but assembly. I was working in machine language just trying to make LEDs blink in sequence. Much later on I was writing ham radio terminal programs in MS Basic on the Apple MAC computer. Getting the random serial streams to decode and display properly (using BASIC) was a real challenge. Somehow I got it working very well.
I enjoyed writing computer code for the control system (I/Net) that my real job (office building control systems) allowed. I became involved just as the code writing was evolving from the DOS environment into a higher generation language. Most of the “old boys” didn’t trust the new interpreters. They wanted to stick with DOS. Ha! I had to learn both methods.
I enjoy the process of writing code that works closely with the fundamental CPU process of the computer. I like it more than running a computer application. However, I can live just fine with the simple BASIC interpreters of these computers. Some machine level code (assembly) can be written to speed certain operations. Dedicated hackers (good hackers) can write their entire program in assembly if they desired. Not me, I’ll just give it a poke when I have to. Assembly is just TOO much detail.
The higher power Propeller computer uses a language called SPIN. But that system also recommends Assembly when needed for speed. There are lots of options to fit any need. I love it!
Heck, I may never get the boat built. Not true, I am on a mission there. I’d love to have the boat running simply as the reason to experiment with the programming. And also have something truly unique with which almost no one else is experimenting.
Stand back! You may get injured in all the hacking going on.
More Concept Jabbering
I have thought about this project for some time. I was considering building the boat then figuring out how I was going to control it. I have a good idea what size hull I am going to use for the test bed. Not sure exactly which one though. I’d like to keep cost and initial complexity down by choosing things like only using one motor.
The boat is going to be a stock out of the box kit. No design problems there. Just assemble or build it like all the others of its type. It just has to be big enough for room to work and make changes. Detailing the vessel is a whole other direction I’d like to include in this blog, when the controls become less of the central focus.
The more I thought I realized I was going to tackle the problem from the wrong direction. The controls ARE what is going to be the hardest (most complex) part to design. They need to be the first part of the project. If I can’t get them to work on the bench, then I don’t need to put together a boat.
The computer components are very small and light so size, weight and power usage are no problems. But it is like scratch building a model or maybe a ham radio where there is no complete set of plans or all the parts in a box. No kit with parts already selected that are ready to install. That’s why the communication system is the cutting edge here. I chose the Parallax folks for the hardware to keep the parts shopping at the minimum. They do have a lot of the parts in the box for the robot kits, but no boats in sight.
There is nothing sacred with my choice of supplier. It just works for me
The first version control system will be on a prototyping breadboard and crude looking. That’s why it will be built and tested on the bench, using the 1 milliwatt transceivers and prototype plug in boards. It will be easy to make changes. Soldering parts on a production prototype board is not so friendly to changes.
I am trying to temper my enthusiasm for details by trying to have a suitable plan of action that won’t keep the project on the bench forever. I see so much that can be, that I have to slow down and think what has to be. I don’t need to jump in the water with a fully functional space shuttle. Say… there may be a surplus sale on one of those babies fairly soon…
Here is my thinking. Stage one is a working communication network with rudder control (one servo) and motor control (one motor controller). All inputs from the shore. No more than R/C can do. To prove bidirectional LON communications something will be monitored like maybe a compass heading or motor temperature displayed on shore.
Stage two will be to add the GPS. Then the programming gets tough, like PID loops on the rudder to hold course or turn to a course. More feedback such as true course and distance and true speed can be added to the com link.
Prototype operation can be built into the programming to simulate real world reaction times.
Stage three would be the elimination of the full laptop on the shore terminal. A hand held terminal box Like an R/C radio control supplies all the information using it own embedded microcomputer and a small display. Wow, this could take some time, trying out all the ideas.