See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/253628199

Low-cost robotic arm control

Article  in  Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering · April 2008
DOI: 10.1117/12.784331

CITATIONS READS

0 1,399

1 author:

John R. Rogers
United States Military Academy West Point
9 PUBLICATIONS   16 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by John R. Rogers on 01 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Low-cost robotic arm control
John R. Rogers*
United States Military Academy, West Point, NY, USA

ABSTRACT

A low-cost robotic arm and controller system is presented. The controller is a desktop model of the robotic arm with the
same degrees of freedom whose joints are equipped with sensors. Manipulating the controller by hand causes the robotic
arm to mimic the movement in maser-slave fashion. The system takes advantage of the low cost and wide availability of
hobby radio control components and uses a low-cost, easy-to-program microprocessor. The system is implemented with a
video camera on the robotic arm, and the arm is mounted on an unmanned omnidirectional vehicle inspection robot. With
a camera on the end of a robot arm, the vehicle inspection system can reach difficult to-access regions of the vehicle
underbody. Learning to manipulate the robot arm with this controller is faster than learning with a traditional joystick.
Limitations of the microcontroller are discussed, and suggestions for further development of the robot arm and control are
made.

Keywords: teleoperation, master-slave, manipulator, low-cost, robotic arm, radio control

1. INTRODUCTION

UNMANNED GROUND VEHICLES (UGVs) perform many hazardous military duties including searching for and
disarming improvised explosive devices and inspecting under vehicles at traffic control points. In situations like these,
robotic vehicles provide invaluable stand-off distance between the soldier and the source of potential harm.

This paper describes the design of an easy-to-use low-cost master-slave robotic arm system comprising the arm itself and
a controller, which is a physical model of the arm. Figure 1 shows the robotic arm mounted on ODIS, the Omni-Directional
Inspection System. Figure 2 shows the controller including the transmitter, the microcontroller, and the arm model.

Fig. 1: ODIS robotic vehicle with video camera mounted on Fig. 2: Three-degree-of-freedom teleoperative controller.
three-degree-of-freedom robotic arm.
A description of the system is given in the author’s previous paper1. Teleoperative systems have been used in a range of
applications. In earth-space systems the communication time delay is a significant consideration2. The time delay problem
is compounded when the delay is variable as it is with internet communications3. Teleoperable systems have been used in
other diverse applications including surgery4, and crane control5. Many of these applications require precision and
unfailing reliability, but situations exist where it makes sense to employ simpler, lower cost robotic systems. Low-cost and
even disposable robotic systems are of interest to the military6. RAMBOT7 is an ordnance disposal robot that is designed

*
Author e-mail: john.rogers@usma.edu

Unmanned Systems Technology X, edited by Grant R. Gerhart, Douglas W. Gage, Charles M. Shoemaker
Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6962, 696212, (2008) · 0277-786X/08/$18 · doi: 10.1117/12.784331

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6962 696212-1

2008 SPIE Digital Library -- Subscriber Archive Copy
from the beginning with a cost target of 10,000 US dollars compared to multiples of that figure for the systems it would
replace. Another example of a high-risk application in addition to vehicle inspection and ordnance disposal is mine
clearance8.

The system described in this paper was designed for under-vehicle inspection in a military setting—an application in
which a significant risk of harm to the robot exists. This is a situation in which it makes sense to use low-cost systems.
Precision for handling a video camera is not critical and communication delay is not significant since these systems are
typically used at distances less than one kilometer. Another consideration that drives the cost down for ordnance disposal,
mine clearance, and vehicle inspection robotic systems is the risk that the robot may be damaged by a blast.

Low cost can be achieved by use of low-cost radio control servomotors and other products intended for the hobbyist. The
use of these components is uncommon in military and defense systems, but has been demonstrated in an urban search and
rescue robot9. It is believed that the system presented in this paper can be made at a cost lower than any available
master-slave system of comparable ability. It is also believed that this system represents the first use of radio control hobby
components applied to teleoperation.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 Radio control hobby technology

Radio control hobby servomotors and controllers cost a fraction of the comparable components in the industrial market.
The shoulder joint of the robotic arm described in this paper uses a pair of hobby servomotors in parallel each costing
about US$40. Hobby servomotors have proportional closed loop position control built in. Industrial motors often cost ten
times as much, they often have months of lead time, and require a separate amplifier for position control. This system uses
a standard hobby transmitter with at least three channels.
2.2 Microcontroller
The system uses a Basic Stamp® 1 BS2 microcontroller. This is an easy-to-program device and many sensors and
peripherals are available for use with it. Sample code for common applications is available.

3. TELEOPERABLE ROBOT ARM SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

3.1 System configuration

The teleoperable robotic arm system has two components: a robotic arm and a controller that serves as an operator
interface. The controller is a desktop model of the robotic arm with the same degrees of freedom. The operator manipulates
the model arm by hand within its range of motion, and appropriate commands are sent wirelessly to the robotic arm. The
robotic arm moves in the same manner as the controller—a master-slave arrangement. This teleoperation is a natural way
to control a mechanical system because the motions correspond one-to-one, and learning to operate is easier than with
joystick control.

The system uses a radio control transmitter with the trainer mode toggle switch held on. The master end connector of a
trainer cord is plugged into the transmitter and the student end connector is removed. The conductors at the student end of
the trainer cord are wired to the microprocessor on the controller. Three conductors are used: power, ground, and signal.
The microprocessor reads the joint sensors, determines the angular position of the links in the control arm model, and
builds the signal expected by the master transmitter. See figure 3.

1
BASIC STAMP is a registered trademark of Parallax Corporation

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6962 696212-2

 ±EEObEbV]JAE b\C HOB
cov±or VB B25 ICE ±bVk12IflE B
'OIVJ 2EkI2C)b2 bbOCE22Ob (±bvIvEb oDE)

COb0

covaor flU'III

Fig. 3: Controller Block Diagram. The trainer functionality is utilized for low-cost teleoperation. The controller,
consisting of a model robotic arm with joint sensors and microprocessor, provides signals through the trainer
cord to a standard radio control hobby transmitter.

3.2 Mechanical design, robotic arm and controller

The ODIS robot is designed for under-vehicle inspection and has been successfully employed by troops at checkpoints in
Iraq and Afghanistan. The robotic arm and controller described in this paper is built to mount on ODIS. A video camera is
mounted on the end of the arm to facilitate vehicle inspection, but the concepts presented in this paper are equally
applicable to a claw or other end-effectors. The arm has three degrees of freedom which allow the linkages to move in a
vertical plane. The standard ODIS model camera on a tilt-mount is removed when this robotic arm with camera is installed.
Out-of-plane motion of the camera or end effector is achieved by ODIS pivoting in place thereby eliminating the need for
a hip joint in the robotic arm. The robotic arm has its own controls and power for easy transfer to platforms other than
ODIS.

Figure 4 shows the design of the robotic arm. The arm has three revolute joints with horizontal axes parallel to each other:
a shoulder joint, an elbow joint, and a wrist joint. The shoulder joint is actuated by two servomotors in parallel
mechanically. The two shoulder joint motors and the elbow joint motor are ”quarter-scale” servomotors, so called because
of the intended use in quarter-scale aircraft hobby models. The wrist joint uses a standard sized hobby servomotor. These
servomotors have 180º+ range of motion. Link one and link two are made of aluminum sheet metal formed into U-shaped
cross sections. The reach of the arm is 24 inches.

The controller arm model is kinematically identical to the actual robot arm: it has the same three degrees of freedom with
mechanical stops to limit the range of motion of each joint to 180º. Potentiometers at the three joints sense the joint angles.
See Figure 5. The controller is about half the size of the robot arm.

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6962 696212-3

 LINK 2

VIDEO
CAMERA

WRIST
SERVO
ELBOW LINK 1
MOTOR
SERVO
MOTOR

SHOULDER
SERVO
MOTORS

Fig. 4: CAD Model of mounted robotic arm showing links and servomotor actuators. The shoulder joint uses two servomotors in
parallel.

MOCK WRIST
VIDEO JOINT ELBOW
CAMERA SENSOR JOINT
SENSOR

I
LINK 2
I I

LINK 1

//.
/ //-
/
/ // //
SHOULDER
JOINT
SENSOR / I

N
N
N
N

Fig, 5: CAD model of robotic arm controller. This device is a mechanical desktop model of the robot arm. The joint sensors are
10kΩ potentiometers. Mechanical stops limit each joint to 180 º of rotation.

3.3 Setup of the Teleoperable Robotic Arm

The potentiometers used in the robotic arm controller joints have 350 º active rotation range and have no mechanical stop.
When the potentiometer is rotated beyond 350 º the resistance is discontinuous, jumping between maximum and
minimum. The joints themselves are limited to 180º and the potentiometers are positioned in their brackets such that the
central portion of the active range is utilized avoiding the discontinuity.

A trim potentiometer in series with the joint potentiometer on each joint sets the home position of the joint. One-to-one
correspondence between the controller displacement and the robotic arm displacement is established by setting a constant
for each joint in the microprocessor program, see Appendix A. The trim potentiometers and the constants are adjusted

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6962 696212-4

iteratively until the output of the robot arm corresponds to the control input. Once the system is set up and powered up, the
robotic arm is operated by manipulating the control by hand; the robot arm follows.

4. RESULTS AND SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS

4.1 Results
The system works as intended; it is not difficult to adjust the controller to obtain one-to-one master-slave correspondence.
Reaching and manipulating the end effector is easy. Trial operators report that controlling the robot arm with the
master-slave controller is more intuitive and thus easier than using two joysticks on the standard radio control transmitter.
4.2 Suggested Improvements
Several improvements are recommended. One operator suggests that a smaller control model would make it easier to
control with one hand. Adjustable friction at each joint would also be a benefit by allowing the controller to hold pose with
hands off. Effective operation of the system requires the operator to drive by video rather than by watching the vehicle.
Having a second camera dedicated to driving would be helpful. The driving camera need not tilt; fixed forward-looking
mounting would be sufficient. The robot arm servomotors occasionally get jittery, probably due to FM noise near the
transmitter frequency. This problem needs to be investigated and solved. The servomotors are constantly drawing current
from the battery in the current arrangement. Power to the robot arm needs to be switched off when the system is idle unless
torque is required to hold pose. The two motors driving the shoulder joint overconstrain the design and they possibly work
against each other. The two motors are controlled with a common signal, but a small misalignment will result in continual
current drain. An experiment could be designed in which the motors are uncoupled from each other to determine the
degree to which the motor torques add (desirable) or oppose one another (undesirable). The robot vehicle currently has its
own controller, a joystick, separate from the control for the arm; it is impossible with the current design for the operator to
do both functions (drive and manipulate) while standing. The ODIS driving control attaches to the operator’s belt and can
be let go for free hands, but the robot arm control is designed to be set on a surface. The integration of the robotic arm
controller with the robot vehicle motion control would be a step further in natural control of the complete system,
especially if coordinated control can be accomplished by an operator on foot, and hands can be free while not driving or
manipulaitng. There are three communication channels in the current arrangement: ODIS driving control transmitter, robot
arm transmitter, and video transmitter. Integration of these frequencies would be beneficial. The communication between
operator control and robot arm system is rudimentary; it is not secure against jamming or unintentional interference. Trade
offs need to be considered to establish whether electromagnetic hardening is warranted for low cost systems such as this.
4.3 Limitations of the microcontroller
One of the objectives of the robot arm project was to explore the capabilities and useful limits of the Basic Stamp
microcontroller. The Basic Stamp series has two great benefits: good support, and easy programming. Support includes
availability of many types of sensors and peripherals such as LCD screens along with sample code, free downloadable
instruction books, and application examples. The software is a high-level programming language making it easy to write
code compared to a lower level language such as Java or c. The Basic Stamp BS2 also has limitations. The nonvolitile
memory allows programs as large as 100 lines or so. The robot arm program in Appendix A is 35 lines not counting
comments. The program memory would only allow adding a few more sensors to the robotic arm or adding simple
functions to the program; complex algorithms such as navigation and obstacle avoidance would not fit. The Basic Stamp
BS2 does not handle floating point numbers. All math must be done with integers. In the robot arm program scaling is done
by first multiplying by a constant, and then dividing by another constant. Variables are 16 bit, so the largest number that
can be represented is 65535; care must be taken to respect this limit when multiplying. Programs such as that in Appendix
A work by looping continually. On each pass through the loop, the sensors are read and the outputs are updated. One loop
takes about 20 milliseconds, and thus updates are performed about 50 times per second. Higher speed might be desirable in
some applications but is not possible. The time to complete one pass through the loop varies according to the sensor
readings. Sensor readings in this context are based on counting fixed-period pulses and the program does not proceed until
the count is finished. See Appendix B. Thus the motor update rate is not on a fixed schedule. This variability is not a
problem in the current program, but would make it difficult to coordinate the microprocessor with external devices that
require regular communication. The BS2 microprocessor does not allow program access to internal clocks and counters
and does not support the use of interrupts, the ability to jump to a block of code based on an event such as an error. The
interrupt function can be accomplished by polling inputs on each pass through the loop, but this method is inefficient,
slowing the program loop and using program memory.

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6962 696212-5

The Basic Stamp BS2 serves well for the robotic arm controller, but its limitations are serious. If one can accept the cost of
learning c or another lower level programming language, other microcontrollers are worth consideration. The Robostix
microcontroller for example overcomes most of the limitations of the BS2 at about the same hardware cost, under US$100.

5. CONCLUSION
The system presented in this paper demonstrates how readily-available low-cost components can be used to build an
easy-to-learn teleoperative control. These components have cost benefits transferable to commercial and defense robotics
where they are often underutilized. Maintaining low cost is the key to widespread distribution of this advantage. The
torque limitations of the components make this teleoperable system most appropriate for UGVs the size of ODIS (20 Kg)
or smaller. These small robotic systems serve the important function of extending the soldier’s senses and reach on today’s
battlefield. The system was designed for under-vehicle inspection, but the functions can be ported to other robotic
platforms. This application does not require a large robot, and the addition of an arm-mounted camera improves the utility
of the robotic inspection vehicle by allowing visual access to difficult-to-reach areas of a vehicle undercarriage. Other
potential applications of a low-cost teleoperative manipulator include clipping wires, sensing chemicals, digging, and
placing small loads for example. The Basic Stamp BS2 serves well as the controller, but it has limitations that would
prevent the development of more complex algorithms. The natural master-slave mode of control leads to a significant
reduction in learning time compared to joystick control. The demonstration of this teleoperative control with hardware
costing a few hundred dollars is the primary contribution of this project.

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to thank TARDEC, the US Army Tank-Automotive Research Engineering and Development Center for
their support of this project.

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6962 696212-6

APPENDIX A, MICROPROCESSOR CODE
' {$STAMP BS2}
' {$PBASIC 2.5} HIGH 6
' TDM2.bs2 J. Rogers July 2007 RCTIME 6,1,time4 'dof3 input pin 6
' Combine 3 individual Pulse Width Modulated (PWM) 'DEBUG HOME
signals into a single 'scaling:
' Time-Division-Multiplexed (TDM) channel 'DEBUG DEC5 ? time2, CR
' For use with RC Circuit A--see BASIC Stamp Reference time2=time2*scale2
Manual 'DEBUG DEC5 ? time2, CR
time2=time2/scaleDen
' HIGH statement charges bottom plate of capacitor 'DEBUG DEC5 ? time2
' RCTIME command switches the pin to an input and counts
' clock cycles until pin voltage drops from 5V to 1.4V 'DEBUG DEC5 ? time3, CR
' i.e. time until pin switches from state 1 to state 0 time3=time3*scale3
' clock cycle is 2 microseconds (BS2) 'DEBUG DEC5 ? time3, CR
time3=time3/scaleDen
' Shoulder: min 0.410 ms max 2.04 ms (PULSOUT 202 to 'DEBUG DEC5 ? time3
1016
'DEBUG DEC5 ? time4, CR
' constants time4=time4*scale4
scaleDen CON 16 ' scaling factor denominator 'DEBUG DEC5 ? time4, CR
scale2 CON 18 ' scaling factor ch 2 time4=time4/scaleDen
scale3 CON 21 ' scaling factor ch 3 'DEBUG DEC5 ? time4
scale4 CON 23 ' scaling factor ch 4
time1 CON 250 ' channel 1 not used: fixed 0.5ms 'output:
sync CON 1500 '300ms synchronization PULSOUT 5, sync 'output syncronization pulse (high)

' variables ' 300 microsecond reference pulse (low)

time2 VAR Word LOW 5 'FIXED 150 microsecond PULSE
time3 VAR Word LOW 5 'FIXED 150 microsecond PULSE
time4 VAR Word
PULSOUT 5,time1 'output dof1 pulse
LOW 5
' initialization
HIGH 5 'pin 5 is the TDM output signal PULSOUT 5,time2 'dof2
LOW 5
' main program
DO PULSOUT 5,time3 'dof3
LOW 5
HIGH 2
RCTIME 2,1,time2 'dof1 input pin 2 PULSOUT 5,time4 'dof4
LOW 5
HIGH 4
RCTIME 4,1,time3 'dof2 input pin 4 LOOP

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6962 696212-7

APPENDIX B, RESISTIVE-CAPACITIVE CIRCUIT FOR JOINT SENSORS
Each degree of freedom of the control arm has an associated resistive-capacitive circuit; one such circuit is shown in figure
B1. Resistor R1 limits current at the microprocessor input/output (I/O) point. R2 is the potentiometer mounted at the control
arm joint to sense angular position. R3 is a trim potentiometer used to set the home position of the robot arm. Capacitor C
is used in conjunction with the BASIC RCTIME command as explained below.

2A
C 055 E
I\C
550
b OK

Fig. B1: Resistive-Capacitive Circuit for one Joint Sensor. There are a total of three of these circuits: one for each degree of
freedom of the robot arm. Each circuit is connected to a different input pin of the BASIC Stamp® microprocessor.

The HIGH 2 statement sets I/O pin 2 to a high voltage, 5 volts, thus charging the lower plate of the capacitor C through
resistor R1. Time to charge to 98% of 5 volts is four time constants for the charging current path through R1. The current
leaking through R2 and R3 is neglected:
τ = R1*C
τ = 220Ω * 0.22µF
τ = 50 µs
4τ = 200 µs
Therefore charge time for the lower plate is about 200 µs. The upper plate is connected to 5 volts at all times. The execution
of the RCTIME 2,1,time2 command in the next line of code causes I/O pin 2 to switch from high output to high-impedance
input; the capacitor lower plate then discharges to ground through the series resistors R2 and R3. The microprocessor
counts clock cycles until the I/O pin changes logic state from 1 to 0, corresponding to the voltage dropping below 1.4 volts
from its initial 5 volts. The period of the clock cycle is 2 µs for the BASIC Stamp® BS2 microprocessor. The count is
stored as variable time2. It is a linear function of the potentiometer position. The voltage drop is shown in figure B2. The
voltage change from 5 volts to 1.4 volts is 73% of the initial voltage, or about 1.25 time constants for the discharge current
path through R2 and R3; τ = (R2+R3)*C. The potentiometer used for joint position sensing has a range of motion of about
350º, but only 180º of that is active because the joints are physically limited. The active resistance range of the 10 kΩ joint
sensor potentiometer R2 is approximately 2.5 minimum to 7.5 kΩ maximum. 10kΩ is initially aligned in its bracket so that
the resistance measures 2.5kΩ when the joint is in its collapsed position. The resistance when the joint is extended 180º
will then be approximately 7.5KΩ. The servo horns on the servomotors used in this system turn clockwise with respect to
the body of the servomotor as the duty cycle of the control signal increases. A signal pulse of 0.4 milliseconds will send the
servomotor shaft to the full counterclockwise position and a pulse duration of 2 milliseconds will send the servomotor
shaft to the full clockwise position. The clockwise or counterclockwise sense for increasing resistance of the potentiometer
must correspond to the servomotor shaft rotation for increasing pulse duration. The potentiometer wiper (middle terminal)
is electrically connected to one of the end terminals of the potentiometer. The direction of rotation for increasing resistance
can be reversed by swapping the wiper to the opposite end terminal on the potentiometer.

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6962 696212-8

 Voltage at I/O Pin

6.000

4.000

Volts
2.000
1.4 V

0.000
1.25 τ
0 1 2 3 4
t/τ

Fig. B2: Exponential Voltage Decay of the RC Circuit. The BASIC Stamp® BS2 counts clock pulses until the voltage drops below
the 1.4 volt threshold. The count is a function of robot arm joint position.

Program constants scale2 and scaleDen are used by the program to establish a one-to-one relationship between the
angular displacement of the control arm (input) and the angular displacement of the robot arm (output). See example lines
of code below.
'scaling:
time2=time2*scale2
time2=time2/scaleDen

The constant scale2 is determined experimentally and scaleDen is an arbitrary integer. The microprocessor used in this
system uses integers only; it does not have the ability to represent floating point numbers. Care must be used in selecting
the scaling constants and the time constants so that the product of the multiplication does not exceed 65535, the maximum
value of the 16-bit variable. The example uses scale2 = 18 and scaleDen = 16. The maximum expected value of the
variable time2 is Constants similar to scale2 exist for the other two joints allowing for differences in component
tolerances.

Pin 5 is the controller output and is connected to the appropriate line of the trainer cord. Microprocessor output is
controlled by the following lines of code:
'output:
PULSOUT 5, sync 'output synchronization pulse (high)

' 300 microsecond reference pulse (low)

LOW 5 'FIXED 150 microsecond PULSE
LOW 5 'FIXED 150 microsecond PULSE

PULSOUT 5,time1 'output dof1 pulse

LOW 5

PULSOUT 5,time2 'dof2

LOW 5
The command PULSOUT 5, sync causes I/O pin 5 to output high, 5 volts, for 3 milliseconds. sync is a constant. This high
pulse marks the start of a frame of data; it indicates to the receiver that the next high pulse that follows will be channel-one
data; the next pulse following that will be channel two, and so on. The PULSOUT command turns an output on (5 volts) for
a specified number of clock cycles. The BS2 microprocessor uses a 16 bit variable or constant for this command so the
maximum value is 1111111111111111 binary, or 65535 decimal. The maximum duration of a pulse is 65535 times the
clock period, about 131 milliseconds. The radio control hobby equipment, the receiver in particular, is expecting pulses in
the 0.5 to 2.5 millisecond range. The required commands for output pulses on pin 5 would then be pulsout 5,250 and
pulsout 5,1250 respectively. Interpretation of the variable used with the RCTIME command is the same, cunt of the 2
microsecond period. Figure B3 shows the Basic Stamp mounted in the Parallax Board of Education2 development board
with the resistor and capacitor components on the breadboard section.

2
BOARD OF EDUCATION is a registered trademark of Parallax Corporation

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6962 696212-9

 TRIM
POTENTIOMETERS

Fig. B3: BASIC Stamp® with RC Circuit components. The trim potentiometers are used to set the joint home positions.

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6962 696212-10

 REFERENCES
[1] Rogers, J. R., “Low-Cost Teleoperable Robot Arm,” Manuscript submitted to Mechatronics (2008)
[2] Sheridan, T. B., “Space Teleoperation Through Time Delay: Review and Prognosis,” IEEE Trans Robotics and
Automation 9(5), 592-606 (1993)
[3] Slawiñski, E., Mut, V. A., and Postigo, J. F., “Teleoperation of Mobile Robots with Time-Varying Delay,” IEEE
Trans Robotics 23(5), 1071-82 (2007)
[4] Kolvenbach, R., Schwierz, E., Wasilljew, S., Miloud, A., Puerschel, A., and Pinter, L., “Total laproscopically and
robotically assisted aortic Aneurysm surgery: A critical evaluation,” J Vasc Surg 39(4), 771-6 (2004)
[5] Fernández Villaverde, A., Raimundez Alvarez, C., Barriero Blas, A., “Digital passive teleoperation of a gantry
crane,” IEEE ISIE 56-61 (2007)
[6] “FY2005 Joint Robotics Program Master Plan,” OUSD (AT&L) Defense Systems/Land Warfare and Munitions
[7] Czop, A., Hacker, K., Murphy, J., Zimmerman, T., “Low-cost EOD robot using off-the-shelf parts: revisions and
performance testing results,” Proc. SPIE 6230(62301Z), 1-12 (2006)
[8] Wojtaraa, T., et.al., “Hydraulic master–slave land mine clearance robot hand controlled by pulse modulation”
Mechatronics 15(5), 589-609 (2005)
[9] Bishop, B., Crabbe, F. L., and Hudock, B. M., “Design of a low-cost, highly mobile urban search and rescue robot,”
Adv Robotics, 19(8), 879-899 (2005)
[10] Basic Stamp Reference Manual, V2.2, Parallax Inc., (2005)

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6962 696212-11

View publication stats