Examples of Programming Languages For Industrial Robots
Due to the highly proprietary nature of robot software, most manufacturers of robot hardware also provide their own software. While this is not unusual in other automated control systems, the lack of standardization of programming methods for robots does pose certain challenges. For example, there are over 30 different manufacturers of industrial robots, so there are also 30 different robot programming languages required. Fortunately, there are enough similarities between the different robots that it is possible to gain a broad-based understanding of robot programming without having to learn each manufacturer's proprietary language.
Some examples of published robot programming languages are shown below.
Task in plain English:
Move to P1 (a general safe position) Move to P2 (an approach to P3) Move to P3 (a position to pick the object) Close gripper Move to P4 (an approach to P5) Move to P5 (a position to place the object) Open gripper Move to P1 and finishVAL was one of the first robot ‘languages’ and was used in Unimate robots. Variants of VAL have been used by other manufacturers including Adept Technology. Stäubli currently use VAL3.
Example program:
PROGRAM PICKPLACE 1. MOVE P1 2. MOVE P2 3. MOVE P3 4. CLOSEI 0.00 5. MOVE P4 6. MOVE P5 7. OPENI 0.00 8. MOVE P1 .ENDEpson RC+ (example for a vacuum pickup)
Function PickPlace Jump P1 Jump P2 Jump P3 On vacuum Wait .1 Jump P4 Jump P5 Off vacuum Wait .1 Jump P1 FendROBOFORTH (a language based on FORTH).
: PICKPLACE P1 P3 GRIP WITHDRAW P5 UNGRIP WITHDRAW P1 ;(With Roboforth you can specify approach positions for places so you do not need P2 and P4.)
Clearly the robot should not continue the next move until the gripper is completely closed. Confirmation or allowed time is implicit in the above examples of CLOSEI and GRIP whereas the On vacuum command requires a time delay to ensure satisfactory suction.
Read more about this topic: Robot Software
Famous quotes containing the words examples of, examples, programming, languages, industrial and/or robots:
“It is hardly to be believed how spiritual reflections when mixed with a little physics can hold people’s attention and give them a livelier idea of God than do the often ill-applied examples of his wrath.”
—G.C. (Georg Christoph)
“In the examples that I here bring in of what I have [read], heard, done or said, I have refrained from daring to alter even the smallest and most indifferent circumstances. My conscience falsifies not an iota; for my knowledge I cannot answer.”
—Michel de Montaigne (1533–1592)
“If there is a price to pay for the privilege of spending the early years of child rearing in the driver’s seat, it is our reluctance, our inability, to tolerate being demoted to the backseat. Spurred by our success in programming our children during the preschool years, we may find it difficult to forgo in later states the level of control that once afforded us so much satisfaction.”
—Melinda M. Marshall (20th century)
“The less sophisticated of my forbears avoided foreigners at all costs, for the very good reason that, in their circles, speaking in tongues was commonly a prelude to snake handling. The more tolerant among us regarded foreign languages as a kind of speech impediment that could be overcome by willpower.”
—Barbara Ehrenreich (b. 1941)
“I believe in human liberty as I believe in the wine of life. There is no salvation for men in the pitiful condescension of industrial masters. Guardians have no place in a land of freemen.”
—Woodrow Wilson (1856–1924)
“The danger of the past was that men became slaves. The danger of the future is that men may become robots. True enough, robots do not rebel. But given man’s nature, robots cannot live and remain sane, they become “Golems,” they will destroy their world and themselves because they cannot stand any longer the boredom of a meaningless life.”
—Erich Fromm (1900–1980)