This subject invention relates to robots, preferably an autonomous garden weeding robot.
Weeds reduce yields because they steal water, nutrients, and sunlight from food crops. This represents a significant challenge to all growers. One source states, “Currently, weed control is ranked as the number one production cost by organic and many conventional growers” see Fundamentals of Weed Science, 4th edition, Robert L. Zimdahl, page 308 incorporated herein by this reference. Furthermore, the weed problem is worsening as weeds become resistant to common herbicides. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIyphosate incorporated herein by this reference.
Mechanical eradication of weeds would solve the problem of herbicide resistance. Accordingly, this strategy has been pursued by many. See, for example, http://www.bosch-presse.de/presseforum/details.htm?txtID=7361&tk_id=166, incorporated herein by this reference. The challenge is constructing cost-effective implements able to discriminate between weeds and desired crops. Purely mechanical methods are available commercially (see, e.g. http://www.lely.com/uploads/original/Turfcare_US/Files/WeederSpecSheet_FINAL.pdf, incorporated herein by this reference) but are limited in scope. Vision-based methods have not yet proven commercially successful possibly because of the great similarity between weeds and crops during some parts of the growth cycle. See also U.S. Published Patent Application Serial No. 2013/0,345,876 and U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,442,552 and 8,381,501 all incorporated herein by this reference.
The present invention offers a mechanical eradication method directed by sensors able to discriminate between weeds and crops.
Featured in one embodiment is a weeding robot comprising a chassis, a motorized cutting subsystem, a drive subsystem for maneuvering the chassis, a weed sensor subsystem on the chassis, and an acceleration sensing subsystem mounted to the chassis. A controller subsystem controls the drive subsystem and is responsive to the weed sensor subsystem and the acceleration sensing subsystem. The controller subsystem is configured to control the drive subsystem to maneuver the chassis about a garden by modulating the velocity of the chassis. Upon detection of a weed, the motorized cutting subsystem cuts the weed. The acceleration of the chassis is determined from an output of the acceleration sensing subsystem, and control drive subsystem is controlled according to one or more preprogrammed behaviors if the determined acceleration of the chassis falls below a predetermined level.
The controller subsystem may further be configured to de-energize the motorized cutting subsystem after the chassis has moved a predetermined distance and/or after a predetermined period of time. Preferably, the controller subsystem is configured to maneuver the chassis about the garden in a random or deterministic pattern. The weeding robot may further include at least one battery carried by the chassis for powering the motorized cutting subsystem and the drive subsystem and at least one solar panel carried by the chassis for charging the at least one battery. The controller subsystem may be configured to de-energize the drive subsystem when the battery power is below a predetermined level. In one example, the motorized cutting subsystem includes a motor with a shaft carrying a string rotated below the chassis. The weed sensor subsystem may include at least one capacitance sensor located under the front of the chassis. The preferred capacitance sensor is a capaciflector proximity sensor. Also included may be a crop/obstacle sensor subsystem including at least one forward mounted capacitance sensor. Again, a capaciflector proximity sensor is preferred. The acceleration sensing subsystem may include an inertial measurement unit. The one or more preprogrammed behaviors may include controlling the drive subsystem to reverse the direction of the chassis, to turn the chassis, to cycle reversal and forward movement of the chassis, and/or to increase the velocity of the drive subsystem.
In one example, the controller subsystem modulates the velocity of the chassis by modulating a voltage applied to the drive subsystem according to a predetermined waveform. The controller subsystem preferably determines the acceleration of the chassis by applying a convolution to a signal output by the acceleration sensing subsystem and by computing a root means square value of the convolution of the signal output by the acceleration sensing subsystem.
In one version, the drive subsystem includes a plurality of wheels and a drive motor for each wheel controlled by the controller subsystem. There are preferably four disc shaped wheels and four drive motors and all of the wheels are negatively cambered (e.g., at an angle of 60°). The disc shaped wheels preferably include edge fingers.
Also featured is a ground robot comprising chassis, a drive subsystem for maneuvering the chassis, and an acceleration sensing subsystem mounted to the chassis. A controller subsystem controls the drive subsystem and is responsive to the acceleration sensing subsystem. The controller subsystem is configured to control the drive subsystem to maneuver the chassis by modulating the velocity of the chassis, determine the acceleration of the chassis, and control the drive subsystem according to one or more preprogrammed behaviors if the determined acceleration of the chassis falls below a predetermined level. In some examples, the robot further includes a motorized weed cutting subsystem, and a weed sensor subsystem on the chassis. The controller subsystem is configured to energize the motorized weed cutting subsystem in response to a weed detected by the weed sensing subsystem.
Also featured is a method of maneuvering a ground robot. The velocity of the robot is modulated according to a predetermined waveform. The acceleration of the robot is sensed in its direction of travel. If the acceleration of the robot in the direction of travel falls under a predetermined level, the robot is maneuvered according to one or more preprogrammed behaviors. The method may further include maneuvering the robot in a garden, detecting any weeds in the garden, and cutting the weeds.
The subject invention, however, in other embodiments, need not achieve all these objectives and the claims hereof should not be limited to structures or methods capable of achieving these objectives.
Other objects, features and advantages will occur to those skilled in the art from the following description of a preferred embodiment and the accompanying drawings, in which:
Aside from the preferred embodiment or embodiments disclosed below, this invention is capable of other embodiments and of being practiced or being carried out in various ways. Thus, it is to be understood that the invention is not limited in its application to the details of construction and the arrangements of components set forth in the following description or illustrated in the drawings. If only one embodiment is described herein, the claims hereof are not to be limited to that embodiment. Moreover, the claims hereof are not to be read restrictively unless there is clear and convincing evidence manifesting a certain exclusion, restriction, or disclaimer.
Disclosed is a mobile robot-based system that eradicates weeds from home gardens. The robot preferably includes an outdoor mobility platform, a renewable power source, sensors able to detect the boundary of the robot's designated operating area, sensors able to detect obstacles, one or more sensors that can detect weeds, and a mechanism for eliminating weeds. Optionally included are a mechanism for driving pests out of the garden, a system for collecting information about soil and plants, and a system for collecting images of plants in the garden for offline analysis of plant health and/or visualization of growth over time. Note that the images may be correlated with robot position for tracking individual plants.
The mobility platform may include four drive wheels each powered by an independent motor controlled by a common microprocessor. One or two top-mounted photovoltaic cells provide power. A preferred garden boundary sensor may be based on capacitance. An obstacle detection sensor may be used as a secondary boundary detection sensor. The primary obstacle detection sensor is preferably based on capacitance. The secondary obstacle sensor may be virtual. It may monitor wheel rotation, drive motor PWMs, three orthogonal accelerometers, three orthogonal gyros, and/or other signals. A computer algorithm combines these signals to determine when the robot is being prevented from moving by an obstacle. The weed sensor, mounted on the bottom of the robot's chassis, is also preferably based on capacitance.
Not all objects the robot encounters are conductive and connected to ground. Because of this, the robot may have at least one additional collision sensing modality. As one example, observing wheel rotation, commanded wheel power, accelerometers, and gyroscopes are used. See for example, A Dynamic-Model-Based Wheel Slip Detector for Mobile Robots on Outdoor Terrain, Iagnemma & Ward, IEEE Transactions on Robotics, Vol. 24, No 4, August 2008, incorporated herein by this reference.
When robot 10,
The drive subsystem of robot 10,
The preferred weed cutting subsystem includes motor 40 driving a line segment 42. Chassis 14 also carries battery 44 charged by one or more solar cells 46a, 46b, and one or more circuit boards for the controller subsystem. The weed sensor 12 is shown and the crop/obstacle sensors 16a, 16b are forward of the robot.
As shown in
When the battery is sufficiently charged above a predetermined level (e.g., 80%), the controller subsystem controls the drive wheel motors so that the robot maneuvers about the garden preferably in a random fashion for complete coverage, step 56.
When the controller subsystem receives a signal from the weed sensor, step 58, the controller subsystem energizes the weed cutting motor, step 59, and may control the drive wheel motors to drive the robot forward, step 60, over the weed, cutting it. After a predetermined distance traveled and/or after a predetermined time of travel, the controller subsystem de-energizes the weed cutter motor, step 61. In other embodiments, the chassis is not maneuvered forward in order to cut the weed. Then, the weed cutting motor is de-energized after a predetermined time.
As shown in step 62-64, if the controller subsystem receives a signal from the crop/obstacle sensor, the controller subsystem controls the drive wheel motors to turn and steer away from the crop/obstacle. The weed cutter motor is not energized. In other designs, microcontrollers, application specific integrated circuitry, or the like are used. The controller subsystem preferably includes computer instructions stored in an on-board memory executed by a processor or processors. The computer instructions are designed and coded per the flow chart of
Thus, the robot maneuvers about the garden on a periodic basis automatically cutting weeds and avoiding crops, seedlings, and obstacles. The robot may be 6 to 7 inches wide and 9 to 10 inches long to allow operation in rows of crops. The chassis may also be round (e.g., 7-8 inches in diameter). The robot may weigh approximately 1 kilogram to avoid soil compaction. The robot chassis is preferably configured so the weed sensors are about 1 inch off the ground and the crop/obstacle sensor(s) are about 1½ inch off the ground. The weed cutting line may be 0.5 inches off the ground. Upstanding forward facing right 16a,
The following discloses several methods for enhancing the performance of small, inexpensive, outdoor mobile robots—especially robots applied to lawn, garden, and agricultural applications and the robot described previously.
A widely used method for collision detection in mobile robots relies on an instrumented mechanical bumper. See U.S. Pat. No. 6,809,490, incorporated herein by this reference. Although often adequate, such bumpers are mechanically complex, heavy, and prone to failure—especially when working in dusty, dirty, or wet environments. To minimize cost and maximize reliability for small, inexpensive mobile robots we disclose a novel inertial collision detection system.
MEMS-based Inertial Measurement Units, IMUs, have become inexpensive and widely available in recent years. In principle, the signals (accelerations and rotations) measured by an IMU can be integrated to yield the pose (position and orientation) of the robot at any time. Thus one way to determine when the robot has suffered a collision is to monitor the robot's trajectory (as computed by integrating the outputs of the IMU) and declare a collision has occurred when power is applied to the motors but the robot's pose is not changing. Unfortunately, low-cost IMUs may be susceptible to both noise and bias drift to such a degree that the trajectory followed by the robot cannot be computed with sufficient accuracy for this purpose.
The acceleration of the robot along its intended direction of motion is measured using an on-board IMU. An abrupt deceleration in this direction reliably indicates a collision. However, an outdoor robot may encounter loose soil or vegetation that cause it to slow down gradually. Under many circumstances the deceleration caused by collisions with soft obstacles may fall below the noise/drift bias floor of the IMU and the immobilization of the robot becomes undetectable.
In one example, the controller of the robot, controlling the drive subsystem, may constantly modulate the robot's velocity—periodically the robot accelerates then decelerates. When the robot is unimpeded, this modulated acceleration appears prominently in the signal from the IMU. But when the robot presses against an obstacle—whether it has decelerated rapidly or slowly—the modulated acceleration signal disappears from the IMU output.
In one example, a controller subsystem (e.g., microcontroller 70,
Those skilled in the art will recognize that there are many ways to measure the level of modulation present in the acceleration signal. Our preferred embodiment for a robot with a mass of approximately 1 kg is to modulate the commanded velocity of the robot with a square wave having a period of 3.3 Hz. The amplitude of the velocity modulation (and thus acceleration modulation) is chosen to match the capabilities of the IMU. A unit with lower noise can detect a smaller amplitude.
In one preferred implementation, the forward acceleration signal from the on-board IMU is convolved with one cycle of a 3.3 Hz sine wave. The RMS value of the convolution is then compared with a fixed threshold. When the RMS value falls below the threshold the robot is assumed to be in collision with an obstacle or stuck. In response, the controller is programmed to de-energize the drive subsystem, output a signal, or the like.
Note that other convolution kernels are possible but all preferably have zero mean. When the robot points up or down a slope a DC bias is added to the forward acceleration. The zero-mean kernel averages this value out so that only the periodic modulation imposed by the robot appears in the output.
It may possible for the velocity modulation collision detection scheme to be spoofed by certain environmental features. Suppose, for example, that the robot's wheels are stuck in small depressions such that each time an acceleration is applied the robot rocks forward and each time it attempts to decelerate it rocks backward. The acceleration signal is depressed in this case but might still be interpreted as normal forward motion.
An additional sensor 12,
It is advisable to have a means of depowering the robot that is intuitive and always accessible to the user. Because the robot described here is small and light-weight an especially simple method is available. When the robot is inverted it disables all motion. The robot does not reactivate until the user deliberately presses the start button. This scheme also serves as a fail safe method. Should the robot tumble down a slope or otherwise fall over it automatically shuts down until assisted by the user.
If the sensors are arranged as has been described, it is possible that a user may accidentally trigger the weed whacker sensor with their hand if they pick the robot up in an unexpected way. It is possible to detect this situation, however, and disable the weed whacker, even before the robot is inverted, as described above. Due to the arrangement of the plant and weed sensors above, it is extremely likely that the user's hand will trigger one or more of the plant sensors at nearly the same time as the weed sensor. Of course, this combination of sensor inputs happens during normal operation, as well (when a weed sprouts near a plant, for example).
In order to allow for normal operation, while also disabling the weed whacker during pickup, the robot can choose to wait a specified amount of time before enabling the whacker motor. Since the robot will have stopped driving at that point, if the robot detects motion via an onboard accelerometer, inclinometer, or other embedded sensor, it can disable motion in a way similar to the inversion motion disable. See
A small, inexpensive, mobile robot designed for outdoor use faces daunting mobility challenges. The surface on which the robot operates may include loose soil, mud, rocks, steep slopes, holes, obstacles, and other difficult elements. Yet the size of the robot dictates that its wheelbase is short and ground clearance is small. Furthermore, the robot typically has no advance notice of many imminent hazards. It learns of a mobility problem only after its mobility has been impeded.
As shown in
Four wheel drive (4WD) is beneficial to achieving high mobility but configuring the four drive wheels is challenging. To achieve best performance, the mobility system of, say a weeding robot should have the characteristics listed below. First, the width, w, of the robot is as small as possible. See
The drive wheels are also as close to the shell/chassis as possible. The distance between the shell and the wheel, b and b′ in
The extreme camber wheel configuration (e.g., 60°) offers an improvement over conventional 4WD in eight of the nine desirable listed characteristics. Propulsive efficiency is reduced to achieve all the other desirable traits.
Propulsive efficiency is somewhat reduced when wheel camber becomes extreme because a point on the rim of the drive wheel makes a small motion in the y direction while the wheel is in contact with the ground. The deeper the wheel sinkage the greater the loss of efficiency.
Note that the contact patches of the wheels are configured such that driving the wheels in the same direction causes the robot to move in the +x or −x direction. Driving the wheels on opposite sides of the robot in opposite directions cause the robot to spin in place making a positive or negative rotation.
Note that moving the contact patches of the outwards increases the overall stability of the robot by providing a wider wheelbase.
One disadvantage of traditional (zero-camber) wheels is that they will fling dirt or debris upwards, where it is more likely to settle on top of the robot (which is a disadvantage in the case of robots that have a solar cell mounted on top of the robot). By using wheels with an extreme camber, this loose dirt and debris stays close to the ground.
When emerging weeds are in their “white-thread” or cotyledon development stage they are highly susceptible to disturbances of the soil. Toe-in, toe-out, or high camber configurations cause the wheels to scuff the ground as the robot moves. This action tends to kill weeds before they become visible and is part of the robot's weed eradication strategy.
This strategy may be used on its own, or in conjunction with the previously-described approach of cutting the weeds with a string trimmer.
Although specific features of the invention are shown in some drawings and not in others, this is for convenience only as each feature may be combined with any or all of the other features in accordance with the invention. The words “including”, “comprising”, “having”, and “with” as used herein are to be interpreted broadly and comprehensively and are not limited to any physical interconnection. Moreover, any embodiments disclosed in the subject application are not to be taken as the only possible embodiments.
In addition, any amendment presented during the prosecution of the patent application for this patent is not a disclaimer of any claim element presented in the application as filed: those skilled in the art cannot reasonably be expected to draft a claim that would literally encompass all possible equivalents, many equivalents will be unforeseeable at the time of the amendment and are beyond a fair interpretation of what is to be surrendered (if anything), the rationale underlying the amendment may bear no more than a tangential relation to many equivalents, and/or there are many other reasons the applicant can not be expected to describe certain insubstantial substitutes for any claim element amended.
Other embodiments will occur to those skilled in the art and are within the following claims.
This application claims benefit of and priority to U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 62/546,081 filed Aug. 16, 2017, under 35 U.S.C. §§ 119, 120, 363, 365, and 37 C.F.R. § 1.55 and § 1.78, which is incorporated herein by this reference. This application is related to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/435,660, Feb. 17, 2017 which is incorporated herein by this reference.
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
62546081 | Aug 2017 | US |