วีดีโอ

It's called QuadHands, I got it on Amazon. Here's a link www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01MTWLF2Q. It's expensive for "helping hands" but I have no regrets, you can use the arms on any metal surface, or the heavily weighted metal stand that comes with this (it's under the paper in this video).

It looks like they might not sell it anymore... I got that thing like 20 years ago at a Radio Shack. This one looks like a fairly nice desoldering iron. www.amazon.com/Desoldering-Electric-One-Hand-Operated-Soldering/dp/B09DG4BB86 Otherwise, you could check on facebook marketplace or ebay for the one with the bulb like I have.

@@RobotResearchLab Ah cheers and thank you for responding! This looks like it should do the job and I've seen quite a few of these modern plunger types, but I really like the bladder type that you have. I'll keep looking

Thank you for the feedback.

This is path-independent. All the code is doing is trying to stay on a line. Therefore, if there are tees or intersections, it may make a left turn one time, and another time it might make a right turn. With intersections, it generally goes straight since the line is going to give you a center-weighted value. It depends on how the robot approaches the tee or intersection at that specific time.

I love it, awesome to hear, thank you.

I replied to your comment on the other video, just wanted to reply here so it doesn't look like I ignored your comment 😄

Generally, once you get the initial values at a low speed, you should be able to up the speed and then work through them again. So, a process like this 1. Get tuned at speed of 40 2. Increase speed to 140 3. Tune KP until it stays on the line (don't worry about wiggle) 4. Tune KD until it's following the line smoothly 5. Tune KI as needed Generally, I don't bother with KI as this is mostly for external factors like wheel slippage, wind, hills, obstacles, one motor weaker than the other, etc.

I don't think this will give you what you need. When you connect four load cells to an HX711, the inputs are combined into a single output. I don't believe there is a way to get each cell's value. I'm not absolutely positive but I believe you would need an HX711 or other sensitive ADC for each load cell if you want to do it this way.

Thanks for the feedback

Thank you

I personally cut the pins from the wires because I don't need to be able to remove and re-attach the cable and I don't like that cables can come loose, especially when it's on the IR sensor where it's usually under the robot and I wouldn't see if it came loose. So, by soldering the wires, I know it will have a good connection. I think, when you're asking "Why solder the pins and then cut off the pins" you are talking about the last part where I snip the wires that are sticking through the board. If so, that's because if they stick out too far, they could bump into something, causing the pins to bend and then they could touch and short something out. It also looks cleaner, but I only rally do this for wires or things with long leads like resistors or LEDs, if it's a chip, or breadboard pins, you wouldn't need to cut them as they're already short enough. The solder connection should look like the shape of a Hershey Kiss, and the pin shouldn't extend much beyond the tip of that Hershey Kiss shape, otherwise it could cause a short. I hope this helps.

@@RobotResearchLab , I guess I wasn’t clear. Why not solder the pins to the board and then snip the pins going through the board (instead of snipping the wires)? This would be easier/faster, especially for beginners.

@@AramPerez Ah, I understand now; that's definitely an option. I hadn't thought about that probably because I was professionally trained in soldering and I'm a Dudley Do-Right, so that training kicked in. My only concern with the pins is that, if you took the plastic housing off, they could bend and short since there's quite a bit of pin exposed, but, if you left the plastic on, that would work so long as you didn't need the board to sit fairly flush against anything. When I install my boards, I typically use a screw with just a bolt as a spacer between the board and the body of the robot, so in that case, it wouldn't have worked for me. I"ll definitely keep your comment in mind next time I have a situation like this, and mention that your method is a perfectly good option, especially for beginners.

Thank you for your feedback, I'm glad it helped.

Sorry for the late reply, the simplest way to do this would be to copy and paste the code but have currentState be each separate button, so you'd have the code as it is in the video, then something like this currentState = digitalRead(BUTTON_PIN_2); if (currentState == pressed) { // Do something here while(digitalRead(BUTTON_PIN_2) == pressed) { // Do nothing while button is pressed } } This isn't the best way but it's the easiest to describe in text. A better way would be to create a function that reads a button based on the pin value passed in, then you're code would look something like this (this is much cleaner and repeatable without copying and pasting a lot of code, it's just a simple if statement copied and pasted. if (buttonPressed(BUTTON_PIN)) { // Do something here } if (buttonPressed(BUTTON_PIN_2) { // Do something here } But you'd have a custom function called buttonPressed() which would return true/false based on the button pin state. That would look like this bool buttonPressed(char buttonPin) { if (digitalRead(buttonPin) == pressed) { // Do something here while(digitalRead(buttonPin) == pressed) { // Do nothing while button is pressed } return true; } else { return false; } }

I definitely do not disagree with you, this is "a" solution, and definitely not the best. I personally feel the better solution would be more difficult to teach for beginners and that's what my channel is aimed at, teaching people who may have zero programming experience. I think of it like schooling, generally, you are taught a simple method for doing something, like math, then later, once you've understood the concept you learn the better way to solve a problem, so taking it in steps. In my mind, the progression would be, using delays, then using busy-wait, then learning to keep track of time and avoid any kind of delay or busy-wait. I feel like this is a good compromise where, it's avoiding delay() which dislike very much, but it is using a busy-wait BUT, generally people do not hold the button down so it's unlikely this would cause a problem in many cases. I appreciate the feedback, danke schön aus Amerika (ich verstehe ein bisschen Deutsch).