RE: RE: WiFi HMMWV update + gearing question [TANKS]

["Doug Conn" <dwconn404-at-comcast.net>]

It's a kit from the Velleman company. You can read about it and buy it here:

http://www.ramseyelectronics.com/cgi-bin/commerce.exe?preadd=action&key=K805
5

8 digital out channels
4 digital inputs
2 analog in
2 analog or PWM out

The board is more complex than is required, but it's cheap and it works. I
had to modify the output channel circuits a little. If you had PIC
programming tools, it would probably be better to make a little board for
yourself. This one comes with a DLL for custom programming. The PWM is not
R/C servo compatible, but it is compatible (I think ... there may be an
issue here) with the motor controller I selected
(http://www.pololu.com/products/pololu/0205/ ). In retrospect, I don't think
I'd use this motor controller again. It was a low budget choice. Since I
have spare R/C channels available anyway, I may end up replacing it with one
of the IFI Victors I found on EBay. In that case, the PC parallel port may
be able to supply all the DIO I need and the USB IO board would not be
required, either. Time will tell. 

I consider this one a prototype vehicle. I plan to complete it, battle it,
learn from it, and then start again on a tank.

        - Doug

-----Original Message-----
From: tanks-admin-at-rctankcombat.com [mailto:tanks-admin-at-rctankcombat.com] On
Behalf Of adt22-at-drexel.edu
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 5:16 PM
To: tanks-at-rctankcombat.com
Subject: Re: RE: WiFi HMMWV update + gearing question [TANKS]

Cool, could you give a little detail on the USB I/O board?

Thanks,
Amir

----- Original Message -----
From: Doug Conn <dwconn404-at-comcast.net>
Date: Wednesday, May 3, 2006 4:47 pm
Subject: RE: WiFi HMMWV update + gearing question [TANKS]

> 
> I started a site that describes the project. It has a picture of 
> the control
> electronics, but no vehicle pictures yet. The site (like my 
> vehicle) won't
> win any beauty contests, so please bear with it.
> 
> https://home.comcast.net/~dwconn404/RCTank/RCTankCombat.htm
> 
> Let me know if you have questions.
> 
>       - Doug
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tanks-admin-at-rctankcombat.com [tanks-admin-at-rctankcombat.com] On
> Behalf Of Pete Curran
> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 7:03 AM
> To: tanks-at-rctankcombat.com
> Subject: RE: WiFi HMMWV update + gearing question [TANKS]
> 
> Doug,
> I am very interested in how you did the WIFI controls, as I am looking
> at embedding a laptop within my tanks and controlling them over a 
> WIFI.
> Pictures and diagrams welcome
> 
> Pete 
> www.angelfire.com/mech/sherman
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tanks-admin-at-rctankcombat.com [tanks-admin-at-rctankcombat.com]
> On Behalf Of Doug Conn
> Sent: Monday, 1 May 2006 14:26
> To: tanks-at-rctankcombat.com
> Subject: WiFi HMMWV update + gearing question [TANKS]
> 
> Well, my WiFi controlled HUMVEE had its inaugural ride this afternoon.
> This
> was just the chassis, it doesn't have a turret, weapon, or body 
> yet. One
> day, I'll post some pictures. :)
> 
> It was a measured success. The WiFi control and streaming video worked
> well.
> I didn't give it the max range test yet. I need to improve the driver
> application to use a joystick or game controller. Right now, I just 
> usethe
> keyboard and mouse and it's very tricky. My steering is way too stiff,
> but I
> think I know how to fix it.
> 
> The biggest problem was too little drive power. I use a geared down 
> 12vwiper motor, and I planned to drive it at 24v to get the RPM 
> back up to
> snuff. I started out running the vehicle at 12v and it was extremely
> slow.
> When I bumped it up to 24v, the motors balked. It sounded like a 
> cat in
> a
> blender. These motors worked fine when I tried them with a straight 
> 24v,but
> over-driving them with a PWM speed controller was just too much for
> them.
> 
> So, I'll be replacing my motor. Assuming I have the space for a large
> sprocket, is there any problem with a single-stage reduction system of
> about
> 7:1 ? I seem to remember someone saying that 3:1 per stage is good
> limit,
> but I can't find that message. Does anybody know of a good reason to
> avoid a
> single stage high ratio reduction and go with two lower ratio 
> stages ?
> 
>       Thanks,
>       Doug
> 
> 
> 
>