autonomous robots and jamming?

[blackbeard]

so i've been wondering something. in most robot competition rules it states that you can't interfere with another players controls. this is understandable however i havn't found anything in any competition's rules that deals with jamming or tricking other robots through electronic countermeasures. so lets say you had a robot with a big spinning blade on it and you stuck a sonar sensor on top that would detect other sonar sensors and cancel them through sound cancellation or a sharp IR sensor that would detect other sensors and send out false signals. or what if you had radar absorbent silicon rubber over reflective angles on your robot (this is the least likely to offend i think). is this considered interfering with the other players controls? i mean if it's autonomous then this should be part of the game i'd think but most rules don't really go too deep into it.

[Razor Concepts]

That kind of stuff would be allowed, but the thing is... why would you? Usually it is just much more productive to actually use your own sensors to do stuff rather than focusing on messing with the opponent.

[blackbeard]

i like to keep my options open.

[Soeren]

Hi,

Kids and women snipe, real men fight 

[Razor Concepts]

Hmm.. I guess it won't be too hard then.. just have a random sonar pinging, and some IR leds rapidly blinking... just make sure you don't come out looking unsportsmanshiplike, some competitions its okay, others they kind of frown on bending the rules like that

[blackbeard]

Hmm.. I guess it won't be too hard then.. just have a random sonar pinging, and some IR leds rapidly blinking... just make sure you don't come out looking unsportsmanshiplike, some competitions its okay, others they kind of frown on bending the rules like that

ya that's what i would worry about. if i were to do it then i would at least make it complicated enough that it's not BS (i.e. making it detect and target specific bots sensor frequency and position). i kind of see all this really only being useful to a wedge though. a spinner doesn't suffer from other bots detecting it so long as it can position it's self effectively.

[madsci1016]

Actually, the few robot competitions I have heard of encourage sensor counter measure technology.

Think about it, you have to truly understand how the sensor technology works to be able to build systems to counter it, and you have to do it in such a way you don't kill your own sensors. And you have to try to stop competitors from fooling your sensors!

 It's a way to demonstrate your innovation and technically ability, which is the point of a robot competition anyway!

How do you distinguish designing a robot to flip the competitor over, disabling there robot, or blinding their sensors, and disabling them that way?

[Soeren]

Hi,

Actually, the few robot competitions I have heard of encourage sensor counter measure technology.

Any links?

Think about it, you have to truly understand how the sensor technology works to be able to build systems to counter it, and you have to do it in such a way you don't kill your own sensors. And you have to try to stop competitors from fooling your sensors!

Directional EMP - doesn't take much understanding, just an "electronic sledgehammer".

It's a way to demonstrate your innovation and technically ability, which is the point of a robot competition anyway!

That only counts if the person really invents it - most of what goes into competitions are jig-saw'd from the net - copying isn't invention.

How do you distinguish designing a robot to flip the competitor over, disabling there robot, or blinding their sensors, and disabling them that way?

Established practice

I thought The American Way^TM was going heads and fist on in a manly way, not like a weenie hiding behind a tree, shooting poisonous gas to avoid actually facing the opponent - Perhaps a redefinition is in order

And from this day forward, the winner will be... The person to release the first EMP.
No need for flippers, spinners, axes and the like anymore.

[madsci1016]

Any links?

Nope, just what I remember from the days at school.

Directional EMP - doesn't take much understanding, just an "electronic sledgehammer".

Can you design one that's smaller then a stack of CDs, and runs of low voltage? If you can, you deserve to win IMHO. If there is such a beast, then time to think of some defenses.

That only counts if the person really invents it - most of what goes into competitions are jig-saw'd from the net - copying isn't invention.

True, but like you stated, this can be applied to the whole robot, so it's not a valid argument against sensor jamming.

Established practice

The 'established practice' is old, tired, and basic. My argument is that adding the new element to the game presents more challenges and strategies to implement.

I thought The American Way^TM was going heads and fist on in a manly way, not like a weenie hiding behind a tree, shooting poisonous gas to avoid actually facing the opponent - Perhaps a redefinition is in order

I can turn around and say 'your way' is to hold hands, make it easy, and insight a belief that in the real world is fair and balanced, and you are guaranteed your opponent will try to mess with your system in some ways, but not others. I build robots to defend this country for a living. Do you know how fast i'd get canned if I designed under the assumption that the enemy wouldn't try to mess with my sensors?

I can also say the 'American Way' is to continue to challenge ourselves, and model our competitions to be more realistic.

Your analogy also doesn't work, because to continue to 'hide behind a tree' means you wouldn't win anyway, you still had to jump out and go attack; requiring your sensors to work and defending yourself from their 'poisonous gas'.

Like i said, it's a competition where all players are aware there could be jamming used; and it's up to them to design defenses to guard against it. How does this differ from expecting there be axes and saws used, and to defend against that?

[madsci1016]

Soeren, we can go back and forth all day on what we think is right by our opinions and beliefs, but the only objective truth is what's written in the contests rules.

If there's no clause against sensor counter-measures, it's fair game, just as much as a saw or axe would be fair game if not ruled out by regulation as well. Either the competition rules will be updated to exclude such tactics, or everyone the following year will be prepared.

My old school's competition allows for such tactics, because they present a fairly large technical challenge to implement. It's hard to jams someone else's sensors without taking your own out. And there are ways to make your own sensors less jam-able.

There is no object reason (especially 'Established practice', had we always just followed 'Established practice' this world would be much different) anyone can give for why this shouldn't be an avenue to explore in a competition other then that particular competition doesn't allow for it in their rules.  If that's not the case, go for it!

[Razor Concepts]

In one competition I saw and participated last year, the two teams robots were on a single game board, and had to score points. There were no rules against sensor jamming, but there was a rule that one couldn't deliberately destroy the other opponents robots. Basically, the idea was do the best you can in making a robot with sensors that can react to changing situations (the game board had some moving pieces as well). The idea behind the rule was that you focus on making your robot the best, and not just designed to fK up the opponents robots.

Pretty much all the teams did their best,  nobodys robots were battlebots or stuff like that, except for one team.

THEY decided to bend the rules a bit and create a robot whos sole purpose was, at the very begging of the game, go to the center of the board, grab onto as many points as possible, and it expanded sideways with many little lego barbs and hooks to keep the opposing robots in the starting area. That robot would just sit there, holding on to points and blocking opponents robots so that the opponents robots couldn't score a single point. Their second robot was designed to pick up and score 5 points. The game was over in about 10 seconds after the first robot blocked, and the second one scored 5 points.

Needless to say, they ended up winning the competition, with an impressive point score of 5 to 0, out of a 400 point game. EVERYBODY thought they were complete A-holes. Sure the rules technically allowed their passive-aggression, but come on, seriously. This year they changed it significantly so that things like these won't ever happen again.

Just saying, use your judgment wisely... just because rules allow for it, doesn't really mean you should do it. If everyone else is doing it, it may be okay...

[madsci1016]

Like it or not, those guys will make good engineers. They thought out of the box and came up with a very clever and legal approach to increase there chances of winning. If you and apparently everyone else there thought it was unfair, then you should have taken your anger out on the contest organizers for failing to make the rules clear, if that truly was against the spirit of the challenge.

And there was nothing stopping the other teams from doing the same thing that year, except there own preconceived notion about what was 'fair' in the challenge. Such notions will cause you real problems in your adult life.

[blackbeard]

In one competition I saw and participated last year, the two teams robots were on a single game board, and had to score points. There were no rules against sensor jamming, but there was a rule that one couldn't deliberately destroy the other opponents robots. Basically, the idea was do the best you can in making a robot with sensors that can react to changing situations (the game board had some moving pieces as well). The idea behind the rule was that you focus on making your robot the best, and not just designed to fK up the opponents robots.

Pretty much all the teams did their best,  nobodys robots were battlebots or stuff like that, except for one team.

THEY decided to bend the rules a bit and create a robot whos sole purpose was, at the very begging of the game, go to the center of the board, grab onto as many points as possible, and it expanded sideways with many little lego barbs and hooks to keep the opposing robots in the starting area. That robot would just sit there, holding on to points and blocking opponents robots so that the opponents robots couldn't score a single point. Their second robot was designed to pick up and score 5 points. The game was over in about 10 seconds after the first robot blocked, and the second one scored 5 points.

Needless to say, they ended up winning the competition, with an impressive point score of 5 to 0, out of a 400 point game. EVERYBODY thought they were complete A-holes. Sure the rules technically allowed their passive-aggression, but come on, seriously. This year they changed it significantly so that things like these won't ever happen again.

Just saying, use your judgment wisely... just because rules allow for it, doesn't really mean you should do it. If everyone else is doing it, it may be okay...

ok i see where your going. the thing about that is that it takes advantage of the fact that you can't damage their robot and really isn't a skillfull win. I would like to point out though that i am NOT TALKING ABOUT AN EMP or any other thing like that i.e. halon gas, glue spray ect. all i'm thinking is that i write a portion into my code that allows my sensors to detect other peoples sensor frequencies and either A) cancel them out if it's sonar or B) give false directions if it's IR. it could also detect their sensors and use them to find the other robots. this would be countered by rotating the frequency that your sensors use (sort of like Borg ) so it's not a cheep and instant end. my robot is going to be a spinner which is it's main weapon.

[madsci1016]

What's also ambiguous about all this is most sensors can create interference for other sensors. So if you just stuck as many ultrasonic and Sharp IR sensors on all four sides of your robot, it would be a real good source of noise for the other robots.

Is there a rule on how many sensors you are allowed to use?

[Soeren]

So, if it can be masked as an accident, it would be a brilliant move to poke out the eyes of your opponent in a boxing match (or a game of card for that matter)?

I beg to differ, on the "if you aren't prepared to hit below the belt, your adult life will suffer" as well - well behaved people are not the ones that gets rejected... Those allways trying to bend the rules, on the other hand... 

[madsci1016]

It's one thing if it's a competition for young teens. I expect there to be much hand holding and "don't worry little jimmy, no one will mess with your little sensor".

But I was introduced to robotic competitions in college. There's no hand holding, and no place to make assumptions that your enemy will not try to exploit every weakness they can without breaking the rules.

well behaved people are not the ones that gets rejected... Those allways trying to bend the rules, on the other hand... 

I'm living proof of the opposite. My current boss has told me one of the things that made me stand out among many applicants was my impressive senior design robot. A robot that we as a group did take a short-cut on, something not against the rules, but what many in the other groups thought was "unfair". It destroyed all the other groups in score at the locally competitions, and would have won regionals had it went. Out professors applauded our ingenuity and foresight on making the decision we did, and we were the only group to make As in the class.

My peers that thought it was unfair? I know some of them are still trying to find jobs.

You can call it whatever you want and try to insult my country some more, but remember, we beat the British the first time by attacking them at night and wearing camo while they were decked out in red and only attacked during the day. I'm sure they thought it was unfair too. 

[madsci1016]

We can go back and forth all day debating our opinions, but my original statement stands.

Can you give me a objective reason why sensor jamming should not be a avenue to explore in robotic competitions that don't rule it out?

And "it's not what i'm used too" doesn't cut it.

[Soeren]

Hi,

well behaved people are not the ones that gets rejected... Those allways trying to bend the rules, on the other hand... 

I'm living proof of the opposite. My current boss has told me one of the things that made me stand out among many applicants was my impressive senior design robot. A robot that we as a group did take a short-cut on, something not against the rules, but what many in the other groups thought was "unfair". It destroyed all the other groups in score at the locally competitions,[...]

Well, your current boss is the Navy, so naturally, anything goes when trying to take down an opponent - a game played between peers is somewhat different from warfare IMO.

You can call it whatever you want and try to insult my country some more, [...]

Not trying to insult anyone, but looking from this side of the water, Americans seem to appreciate the John Wayne image of Real Men^TM and the "To ride and shoot straight" that is part of that - I simply cannot imagine The Duke hidden in the bushes with a Dragunov SVD (and not because of it's origin), bumping off baddies one by one, but perhaps you are fed up with that image and wanna be more "French" now?

but remember, we beat the British the first time

"We"?  How old exactly were you then?   

by attacking them at night and wearing camo while they were decked out in red and only attacked during the day. I'm sure they thought it was unfair too. 

Yeah, they probably thought "Oh, them ex-europeans and ex-russians sure picked up some bad habits mixing with all the other nationalities" 

The behavior you describe doesn't seem so different from what some people do today, and then the US brands them as terrorists... Well, would you admit to "you" being terrorists back then? 


Actually, red coats were considered a kind of "camo" back then, masking somewhat when people were wounded, to keep fighting spirit up.

Hehe, you should know I'm just teasing you a bit - my personal entry to that (being a former pro soldier btw.) is that I hate war and all what that entails, but I know I have to accept military forces - You just won't find me developing any kind of weapon system though, as I would know that someone, somewhere, would get seriously hurt or die because of it... And his/hers family would suffer, even if they didn't even agree with the disputes among leaders that allways cast people of little say into the mayhem of war.

Hey, I wouldn't even consider RoboWars, but that's just because I prefer to keep my investments (money or perspiration-wise), so I better like the competitions where it's only how well your 'bot negotiate the track and the tasks involved, that counts.
Perhaps it's an age thing, I was wild when young, now I've got more insight (and much less energy to destroy stuff )

Can you give me a objective reason why sensor jamming should not be a avenue to explore in robotic competitions that don't rule it out?

Oh I really got you riled up I see. Easy now 

An objective reason:
When making rules, it's impossible to get all in, but that is a poor reason to exploit missing parts - are you aspiring to become a lawyer looking for loopholes or do you want to show that you can "throw a punch" without resorting to this, let's see if we can exploit the fact that they didn't cover this or that - what about nukes, would that be good conduct if the rules didn't disallow them in plain writing?
I don't think the rules in Chess competitions mentions anything about poking your opponents eyes out or stabbing them (slightly and in a very polite way) with a 10" blade, so would that be OK in your opinion?

Robot battles aren't life and death issues, so it's fair to expect some unwritten rules to apply as well and blinding your opponent, however much it might make you win easily, will only reveal a cowardly streak - if you enter such a competition, you shouldn't be afraid to go mano y mano.
Besides, you rob the entire show by such a thing, so it's no better than EMP or a Nuke (which will create the EMP as well).

Would it be OK to give your opponents a bit of flunitrazepam in a drink right before a RoboWars competition?  I bet the rules don't mention that either and I'm equally sure that would give you the upper hand big time as well! Or to hire a bunch of topless beauty queens to parade in front of the competition (no wait, that may distract you too much as well )

If sensor destruction/hindrance IS part of the allowed rules, then it's OK of course and everyone will know beforehand.

If you cannot distinguish between the means allowable in real life war and in robo-wars, then you probably wouldn't honor the Geneva convention either (which is rules of what goes in a war) and then we shouldn't be debating this, because then we will never agree, nor would you be able to get my points.

[madsci1016]

We seem to be going no where so I'll make this my last post.

I'm picking out only the parts that apply, from the rather long satire where you once again take jabs at me and the country I live in. Not to mention the outright wild examples to make your point.

Robot battles aren't life and death issues, so it's fair to expect some unwritten rules to apply as well and blinding your opponent,

If there are 'expected' rules, what is the point of the written rules? Why not make them all 'expected'? That way whenever someone doesn't like the fact they lost they can claim the other team broke an 'expected' rule. The written rules are there to bound the different aspects of the competition. If they fail to bound some aspect you believe should be bounded, then that's your subjective opinion.

We engineers work with what's on paper. Can you image how hard it would be to use a PIC if the designers didn't write the spec sheets, and just 'expected' everyone to know how a PIC works? ( I can use wild examples too!)

however much it might make you win easily, will only reveal a cowardly streak - if you enter such a competition, you shouldn't be afraid to go mano y mano.

You keep calling sensor jamming easy. It's not easy. Whatever noise you put out will also jam your own sensors. So if you want your robot to continue as well, then you have to design your own sensors from scratch that use encoded pulses to filter out the noise (one approach). That's not easy nor cowardly, that a significant technical challenge much like other aspects of a given competition.

I bet the rules don't mention that either and I'm equally sure that would give you the upper hand big time as well! \

If sensor destruction/hindrance IS part of the allowed rules, then it's OK of course and everyone will know beforehand.

You feel that if sensor jamming isn't explicitly allowed, that means it's banned. This is your subjective belief, I believe different. Neither of us is wrong or right because when it comes down to who wins, it's whoever did best following the rules objectively.

I bet there are many things a set of rules don't explicitly allow. If it doesn't say: You CAN use a motor, you CAN use wire, you CAN use plastic to build your frame, you CAN use an Atmel AVR, you CAN move in 4 direction; are you to assume it against the rules to use such devices/tactics?

The OP said it's not in the rules. You can say you FEEL that it's wrong to do that, but the truth is that the only objective measure of wrong and right is the rules of the competition. So there is no objective reason why he shouldn't use sensor jamming you can give.

I'd say if he doesn't want to look like a jerk, he could go to the competition organizers to make them aware of his intentions to see if they decide to add it to the rules.

[blackbeard]

since we're talking about the morality of jamming i'd like to point out that there are other perfectly acceptable systems that could be considered "cheep" such as spinners that cover the full robot body. their goal is obviously not JUST to immobilize the opponent but to do serious damage to it whenever it comes in contact. in fact so long as the spinner is well designed the opponent must either be MUCH heavier or made out of very strong armor to avoid any damage caused from contact. does this make them cheep or unsportsmanlike? no because there are workarounds such as fast wedges or flippers. good programming can make most jamming ineffective for more then a few seconds and it would be impracticle to jam sensors by filling the area with noise since your robot needs to sense things too. even if a robot is driving it's self into a wall because it doesn't know there's a wall there is still mobile and so jamming alone is NOT an effective primary weapon. what razor concepts mentioned was something that couldn't be easily worked around because they weren't permitted to deliberately attack the other opponent.

[Soeren]

Hi,

since we're talking about the morality of jamming i'd like to point out that there are other perfectly acceptable systems that could be considered "cheep" such as spinners that cover the full robot body. their goal is obviously not JUST to immobilize the opponent but to do serious damage to it whenever it comes in contact.

Sure, but they're mechanical and very visual, so nobody will be in any doubt about them.

in fact so long as the spinner is well designed the opponent must either be MUCH heavier or made out of very strong armor to avoid any damage caused from contact. does this make them cheep or unsportsmanlike? no because there are workarounds [...]

There are counter measures for any attack, as long as it's expectable (even to EMP), but there's nothing sneaky in that, as long as it isn't just a coward trying to immobilize the opponent to avoid real battle.

such as fast wedges or flippers. good programming can make most jamming ineffective for more then a few seconds and it would be impracticle to jam sensors by filling the area with noise since your robot needs to sense things too. even if a robot is driving it's self into a wall because it doesn't know there's a wall there is still mobile and so jamming alone is NOT an effective primary weapon.

It could be made to absolutelu stun the opponent. One of the reason it's not allowed in most competitions is probably that it would be extremely boring to spectators to see two 'bots constantly jamming each other and never get to the infight.

what razor concepts mentioned was something that couldn't be easily worked around because they weren't permitted to deliberately attack the other opponent.

If it isn't a Robot Wars competition (or whatever the name), it makes sense - you're not allowed to box your opponents in a running competition either.
In my favorite (Danish) competition, you are not allowed to mangle other 'bots either, but there's only one 'bot on the track at any time (except for the initial testing period), so it would be hard to do anyway.

[Soeren]

Hi,

since we're talking about the morality of jamming i'd like to point out that there are other perfectly acceptable systems that could be considered "cheep" such as spinners that cover the full robot body. their goal is obviously not JUST to immobilize the opponent but to do serious damage to it whenever it comes in contact.

Sure, but they're mechanical and very visual, so nobody will be in any doubt about them.

They also require you to get up close and personal and isn't that what Robot Wars are all about?

[blackbeard]

There are counter measures for any attack, as long as it's expectable (even to EMP), but there's nothing sneaky in that, as long as it isn't just a coward trying to immobilize the opponent to avoid real battle.

ok for the last friggen time i'm not talking about EMP OR IMMOBILIZATION THROUGH JAMMING!!

i'm talking about giving it false info. how would sending a robot false info of where an obstacle is be immobilizing? and it's not like it's going to be able to completely spam the other robots sensors at any given time. it needs to use it's own sensors at some point. now for another point

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT ONLY USING ELECTRONIC WARFARE SO STOP SAYING THAT

i've said this before. i'm building a spinner and the sole purpose of asking this would be to see how it would work if i designed a program to pick up sensors from something like a wedge and convince it that there is nothing in front of it. this would likely cause it to continue at a a slower pace or turn around at which point the spinner could make a side attack. now for robot overlord's sakes cut out the whole bravery and cowardice thing bud.

It could be made to absolutelu stun the opponent. One of the reason it's not allowed in most competitions is probably that it would be extremely boring to spectators to see two 'bots constantly jamming each other and never get to the infight.

i've done a bit of reaserch since then and i've only found what i already know, that jamming of radios is the only rule on jamming in most competitions and this is a rule i agree with completely. jamming sensors on the other hand has barely even come up. also you seem like a reasonably competent person in regards to electronics and probably more so then i am. i've already thought of ways to completely nullify and even use jamming against other opponents and your saying you couldn't do that? now lets say that's all sensible and robots would shut down as soon as they get any interference with their sensors. you know what else does that? wedges! how many robots have you seen get immobilized after getting flipped on their back? without a self righting system it's like a beetle and it's only hope is to get bashed around the arena enough to get flipped back over. is that cheep? sure! is it a perfectly acceptable way to play? ABSOLUTELY!

anyway guys are we done here ?

[paulstreats]

can I just stick in my 2 cents worth

 The minisumo contest held by TIC birmingham (UK) state that
•
The robot must not include a device that obstructs the opponent's operation, such as a jammer or strobe light.

 The rules are based on "Fuji Soft ABC, Inc. for All Japan Robot-Sumo Tournament."

http://www.tic.ac.uk/micromouse/RULES/MiniSumoRules.pdf

 However a regular design is to use a thin strip of material coated in the same colour as the arenas boundary line and sliding it under the opponents robot (where the line sensors are making it think that its at the perimeter), confusing the other robots sensors and causing it to back itself out of the arena.