 | | | | | | |
| |
|
check out www.mindstorms.com/press
lego just put out a press release all about the NeXT version of mindstorms, they
put a whole spec out on it..
heres a bit from the article explaining the specs
LEGO MINDSTORMS NXT highlights include:
• All-new NXT intelligent brick
• 3 interactive servo motors feature inbuilt rotation sensors to align speed for
precise control
• New ultrasonic sensor makes robots “see” by responding to movement
• New sound sensor enables robots to react to sound commands, including sound
pattern and tone recognition
• Improved light sensor detects different colors and light intensity
• Improved touch sensor reacts to touch or release and allows robots to feel
• 519 hand-selected, stylized elements from the LEGO TECHNIC® building system
ensure robot creations will be sturdy and durable while also looking authentic
• Opportunities for physical programming of robots and interaction with robots
during programming
• 18 building challenges with clear, step-by-step instructions help acclimate
users to the new system to create robots ranging from humanoids and machinery to
animals and vehicles
• Digital wire interface allows for third-party developments
• Information, inspiration, news, community programs and more at
www.mindstorms.com
whaaa!!
LeE
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.announce, Lee Magpili wrote:
> check out www.mindstorms.com/press
>
> lego just put out a press release all about the NeXT version of mindstorms, they
> put a whole spec out on it..
>
> heres a bit from the article explaining the specs
>
> LEGO MINDSTORMS NXT highlights include:
>
> • All-new NXT intelligent brick
> • 3 interactive servo motors feature inbuilt rotation sensors to align speed for
> precise control
> • New ultrasonic sensor makes robots “see” by responding to movement
> • New sound sensor enables robots to react to sound commands, including sound
> pattern and tone recognition
> • Improved light sensor detects different colors and light intensity
> • Improved touch sensor reacts to touch or release and allows robots to feel
> • 519 hand-selected, stylized elements from the LEGO TECHNIC® building system
> ensure robot creations will be sturdy and durable while also looking authentic
> • Opportunities for physical programming of robots and interaction with robots
> during programming
> • 18 building challenges with clear, step-by-step instructions help acclimate
> users to the new system to create robots ranging from humanoids and machinery to
> animals and vehicles
> • Digital wire interface allows for third-party developments
> • Information, inspiration, news, community programs and more at
> www.mindstorms.com
>
>
>
> whaaa!!
> LeE
Might want to try this link-
http://www.lego.com/eng/info/default.asp?page=pressdetail&contentid=17278&countrycode=2057&yearcode=&archive=false
Adr.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Now this I like.
The most important thing for LEGO is to make the thing open.
Complete documents for the following should be on the LEGO mindstorms web
site somewhere:
The physical pinout and makeup of the new wire jacks (looks similar to RJ45
or RJ11 plugs but not quite)
The logical wire protocol for those jacks & cables.
The complete wire protocol for the USB port (either as a set of spec docs
or as source code to the drivers and such)
Specs for the firmware and hardware (so people can write their own firmware
in C++ or other languages if they choose)
etc
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
I do wonder what microprocessor they are using in this thing. They mention
32-bit which (to me) suggests something from the ARM family (common in
embedded platforms like PDAs, mobile phones, portable game consoles like
the Gameboy Advance and Nintendo DS etc)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Yet another link:
http://us.gizmodo.com/gadgets/ces/live-from-ces-lego-mindstorms-nxt-146625.php
Great stuff. :)
-Rob
www.brickmodder.net
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.announce, Lee Magpili wrote:
> check out www.mindstorms.com/press
>
> lego just put out a press release all about the NeXT version of mindstorms, they
> put a whole spec out on it..
BEST NEWS I HEARD ALL DAY!
e
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, Eric Sophie wrote:
> In lugnet.announce, Lee Magpili wrote:
> > check out www.mindstorms.com/press
> >
> > lego just put out a press release all about the NeXT version of mindstorms, they
> > put a whole spec out on it..
>
> BEST NEWS I HEARD ALL DAY!
>
> e
A small side note to my jubilation:
While I usually never critique the efforts of the Lego Company, mostly because I
am sure scores of corporate brainy brains consider many of the issues us fans
mull over, I do have one small gripe about the NXT.
Studs.
What's the one thing people all over the world think of when they think Lego.
Studs!
While the components are all studless, that's fine.
The main CPU the NXT unit itself, should have a few studs on the front of the
unit! IMHO.
To keep the brand name in people's mind when they see the system.
I myself would have liked to be able to add some printed tiles to the front of
the NXT. Plus like I said, when people see some studs, they instantly recognize
them as being Lego. Studs and Lego, that's in people's minds.
That is the brand quality and studs make even this newest system instantly
recognizeable as being compatable with people's Lego collections.
You know what people say to me when they see my robots in person?
Wow, this is not the Lego "I" used to have.
Then I say, look closer, see this is an old window, this is a regular Lego
Brick, this is a chair, this is a wheel well etc....and so on....
Some folks (non-fans and potential customers) see these new components as being
far from what they remember when they think Lego.
Seeing some Studs on the front of this unit would be instantly recognizeable as
being a part of the Lego system we all know and love.
Just my thoughts.
I am still impressed and excited by the Mindstorms NXT system.
Now add some Studs!
e
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Eric Sophie wrote:
| |
A small side note to my jubilation:
While I usually never critique the efforts of the Lego Company, mostly because
I am sure scores of corporate brainy brains consider many of the issues us
fans mull over, I do have one small gripe about the NXT.
Studs.
What’s the one thing people all over the world think of when they think Lego.
Studs!
While the components are all studless, that’s fine.
The main CPU the NXT unit itself, should have a few studs on the front of the
unit! IMHO.
|
I completely disagree. Their is no need for studs on the NXT. It’s sleek, and
modern the way it is. I don’t think I’ve ever used the studs on the RCX for a
moc. I love the I-pod styling.
And the components should have studs.
| |
To keep the brand name in people’s mind when they see the system.
I myself would have liked to be able to add some printed tiles to the front of
the NXT. Plus like I said, when people see some studs, they instantly
recognize them as being Lego. Studs and Lego, that’s in people’s minds.
That is the brand quality and studs make even this newest system instantly
recognizable as being compatible with people’s Lego collections.
|
Lego could though add studs to the logo. You have that box with “Lego” written
inside it. It looks exactly 2x2, well you could have four studs next to it, both
in print and in plastic, only when in plastic they’d be real studs you could
attach bricks to. Just think it would be the worlds first logo that actually
does something!
| |
You know what people say to me when they see my robots in person?
Wow, this is not the Lego “I” used to have.
Then I say, look closer, see this is an old window, this is a regular Lego
Brick, this is a chair, this is a wheel well etc....and so on....
|
Christ, what kind of freaky robots are you building?
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, Steve Lane wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, Eric Sophie wrote:
>
> >
> > A small side note to my jubilation:
> >
> > While I usually never critique the efforts of the Lego Company, mostly
> > because I am sure scores of corporate brainy brains consider many of the
> > issues us fans mull over, I do have one small gripe about the NXT.
> >
> > Studs.
> >
> > What's the one thing people all over the world think of when they think
> > Lego.
> >
> > Studs!
> >
> > While the components are all studless, that's fine.
> >
> > The main CPU the NXT unit itself, should have a few studs on the front of
> > the unit! IMHO.
>
> I completely disagree. Their is no need for studs on the NXT. It's sleek, and
> modern the way it is. I don't think I've ever used the studs on the RCX for a
> moc. I love the I-pod styling.
Your POV, my POV.
> And the components {should} have studs.
Your POV, my POV.
> >
> > To keep the brand name in people's mind when they see the system.
> >
> > I myself would have liked to be able to add some printed tiles to the front
> > of the NXT. Plus like I said, when people see some studs, they instantly
> > recognize them as being Lego. Studs and Lego, that's in people's minds.
> >
> > That is the brand quality and studs make even this newest system instantly
> > recognizable as being compatible with people's Lego collections.
>
> Lego could though add studs to the logo. You have that box with "Lego"
> written inside it. It looks exactly 2x2, well you could have four studs next
> to it, both in print and in plastic, only when in plastic they'd be real
> studs you could attach bricks to. Just think it would be the worlds first
> logo that actually does something!
Cool idea!
>
> >
> > You know what people say to me when they see my robots in person?
> >
> > Wow, this is not the Lego "I" used to have.
> >
> > Then I say, look closer, see this is an old window, this is a regular Lego
> > Brick, this is a chair, this is a wheel well etc....and so on....
>
> Christ, what kind of freaky robots are you building?
Don't ya know?
> Steve
e
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 Jan 2006 04:46:36 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Mr S <[szinn_the1@yahoo.com]StopSpammers[]>
|
Viewed:
|
7037 times
|
| |
|
I'm sure that I'm not the only one doing this, but how
many other people are looking at the pics and trying
to figure out how to put those motors into their
existing designs? How many have figured it out or even
figured out better ways to use those new motors?
I was thinking that the USB port is the programming
port (works with many different types of systems) as
it has proven to be rather durable even with young
kids and cameras/mp3 players... so I don't think it
would be a host port, but a client port is not too
difficult to implement. To use the client port with
another system would require that the other system
have USB Host port... sigh
Most of my robot designs depend heavily on how I have
embedded the motors into the structural system of the
robot. The new motor means I will have to re-engineer
that... I'm not complaining mind you, just wondering
if anyone has whipped out the LCAD and figured out
some build ideas yet?
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.announce, Lee Magpili wrote:
> check out www.mindstorms.com/press
>
> lego just put out a press release all about the NeXT version of mindstorms, they
> put a whole spec out on it..
>
> heres a bit from the article explaining the specs
>
> LEGO MINDSTORMS NXT highlights include:
>
> • All-new NXT intelligent brick
> • 3 interactive servo motors feature inbuilt rotation sensors to align speed for
> precise control
> • New ultrasonic sensor makes robots “see” by responding to movement
> • New sound sensor enables robots to react to sound commands, including sound
> pattern and tone recognition
> • Improved light sensor detects different colors and light intensity
> • Improved touch sensor reacts to touch or release and allows robots to feel
> • 519 hand-selected, stylized elements from the LEGO TECHNIC® building system
> ensure robot creations will be sturdy and durable while also looking authentic
> • Opportunities for physical programming of robots and interaction with robots
> during programming
> • 18 building challenges with clear, step-by-step instructions help acclimate
> users to the new system to create robots ranging from humanoids and machinery to
> animals and vehicles
> • Digital wire interface allows for third-party developments
> • Information, inspiration, news, community programs and more at
> www.mindstorms.com
>
>
>
> whaaa!!
> LeE
Wow that looks so cool and it looks like an ipod! Can't wait to get my hands on
one... They need a pre-order link, I’d order one now:)
Robin W
GFLUG
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Here is more on the Mindstorms NXT...
http://wired.com/news/technology/0,69946-0.html?tw=wn_story_page_prev2
Robin W
GFLUG
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jan 2006 06:01:10 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
dan miller <DANBMIL99@YAHOOavoidspam.COM>
|
Viewed:
|
6705 times
|
| |
|
all I can say is, Wow. Kudos to anyone who had a hint about this and kept
mum. And we were all griping that they had dropped the ball!
Again: Wow.
--- Robin Werner <robstormer@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Here is more on the Mindstorms NXT...
>
> http://wired.com/news/technology/0,69946-0.html?tw=wn_story_page_prev2
>
> Robin W
> GFLUG
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jan 2006 06:38:56 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Chris 'Xenon' Hanson <xenon@3dnature+AvoidSpam+.com>
|
Viewed:
|
6799 times
|
| |
|
Robin Werner wrote:
> Here is more on the Mindstorms NXT...
> http://wired.com/news/technology/0,69946-0.html?tw=wn_story_page_prev2
I noticed that Wired doesn't say how to apply to be one of the advance testers.
Presumably, this is a test. If you know how to apply, you might be considered.
> Robin W
> GFLUG
--
Chris 'Xenon' Hanson | Xenon @ 3D Nature | http://www.3DNature.com/
"I set the wheels in motion, turn up all the machines, activate the programs,
and run behind the scenes. I set the clouds in motion, turn up light and sound,
activate the window, and watch the world go 'round." -Prime Mover, Rush.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Chris 'Xenon' Hanson <xenon@3dnature.com> wrote:
> Robin Werner wrote:
> > Here is more on the Mindstorms NXT...
> > http://wired.com/news/technology/0,69946-0.html?tw=wn_story_page_prev2
>
> I noticed that Wired doesn't say how to apply to be one of the advance testers.
> Presumably, this is a test. If you know how to apply, you might be considered.
Not hard - You just have to click on a box at http://www.mindstorms.com and fill
out a form.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jan 2006 16:57:39 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Kyle McDonald <kyle.mcdonald@sun.comSPAMCAKE>
|
Viewed:
|
6866 times
|
| |
|
Robin Werner wrote:
> In lugnet.announce, Lee Magpili wrote:
> LEGO MINDSTORMS NXT highlights include:
>
> • All-new NXT intelligent brick
> • 3 interactive servo motors feature inbuilt rotation sensors to align speed for
> precise control
> • New ultrasonic sensor makes robots “see” by responding to movement
> • New sound sensor enables robots to react to sound commands, including sound
> pattern and tone recognition
> • Improved light sensor detects different colors and light intensity
> • Improved touch sensor reacts to touch or release and allows robots to feel
> • 519 hand-selected, stylized elements from the LEGO TECHNIC® building system
> ensure robot creations will be sturdy and durable while also looking authentic
> • Opportunities for physical programming of robots and interaction with robots
> during programming
> • 18 building challenges with clear, step-by-step instructions help acclimate
> users to the new system to create robots ranging from humanoids and machinery to
> animals and vehicles
> • Digital wire interface allows for third-party developments
> • Information, inspiration, news, community programs and more at
> www.mindstorms.com
>
> Wow that looks so cool and it looks like an ipod! Can't wait to get my hands on
> one... They need a pre-order link, I’d order one now:)
It does look cool. My only first reaction is that it looks like there
are only 3 motor and 3 sensor ports (plus one ultrasonic port?) on this
new one just like the original RCX. Hopefully though since it's a much
more intelligent brick, and through the new 6 wire digital interface,
hopefully sensor and motor 'breakout' or multiplexor boxes will be much
more striaght forward to make and more importantly *use* than they were
with the RCX. Hopefully LEGO will sell the motors and sensors seperately
also.
The idea that the motor has the RPM sensor built-in is soooo cool. I
remember thinking a long time ago that should have been that way from
the begining. I read the touch sensors can signal touch or release. I
wonder if the interface will allow a sensor to communicate pressure some
day? With a digital design, and a flexible protocol I suppose anything
is possible now even more than with the RCX, and look what this
community did with that!
This is great news.
-Kyle
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.announce, Lee Magpili wrote:
| |
check out www.mindstorms.com/press
lego just put out a press release all about the NeXT version of mindstorms,
they put a whole spec out on it..
heres a bit from the article explaining the specs
LEGO MINDSTORMS NXT highlights include:
• All-new NXT intelligent brick
• 3 interactive servo motors feature inbuilt rotation sensors to align speed
for precise control
• New ultrasonic sensor makes robots “see” by responding to movement
• New sound sensor enables robots to react to sound commands, including sound
pattern and tone recognition
• Improved light sensor detects different colors and light intensity
• Improved touch sensor reacts to touch or release and allows robots to feel
• 519 hand-selected, stylized elements from the LEGO TECHNIC® building system
ensure robot creations will be sturdy and durable while also looking authentic
• Opportunities for physical programming of robots and interaction with robots
during programming
• 18 building challenges with clear, step-by-step instructions help acclimate
users to the new system to create robots ranging from humanoids and machinery
to animals and vehicles
• Digital wire interface allows for third-party developments
• Information, inspiration, news, community programs and more at
www.mindstorms.com
whaaa!!
|
Wow! I’m not sure of what to say. It looks like they decided to start using
phone cord for wire, which is actually a good idea I think. I’m a little
disappointed in the over stylization though. What ever happened to good old
fashioned studded bricks? Ondrew
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Ondrew Hartigan wrote:
| |
Wow! I’m not sure of what to say. It looks like they decided to start using
phone cord for wire, which is actually a good idea I think. I’m a little
disappointed in the over stylization though. What ever happened to good old
fashioned studded bricks? Ondrew
|
The slide on the Wired article mentions that it is a 6-wire digital cable. I
can’t remember if RJ-11 can do 6-wire. It might be something between RJ-11 and
RJ-45. Impressive regardless.
Ray
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jan 2006 13:26:19 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
"Simon Bogaert" <simon.bogaert@advalvas.be>
|
Viewed:
|
6996 times
|
| |
|
RJ11 indeed does 6-wire. Normal phone cord only has 4 metal contacts in
place, but there's space for another two...
Regards, SuSEQ aka Simon Bogaert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Sanders"
> The slide on the Wired article mentions that it is a 6-wire digital cable.
> I
> can't remember if RJ-11 can do 6-wire. It might be something between RJ-11
> and
> RJ-45. Impressive regardless.
>
> Ray
>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Simon Bogaert wrote:
> RJ11 indeed does 6-wire. Normal phone cord only has 4 metal contacts in
> place, but there's space for another two...
RJ11, yes. But not standard type: if you look closely the cable retainer is
uncentered...
Philo
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jan 2006 19:46:15 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
"Simon Bogaert" <simon.bogaert@advalvas.be>
|
Viewed:
|
7155 times
|
| |
|
You're right... But if the other dimensions are still within close range of
those of a RJ11, I guess roll-your-own connectors can 't be that hard...
Regards, Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philippe Hurbain"
> RJ11, yes. But not standard type: if you look closely the cable retainer
> is
> uncentered...
>
> Philo
>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jan 2006 21:35:30 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Kyle McDonald <Kyle.McDonald@Sun^ihatespam^.COM>
|
Viewed:
|
7542 times
|
| |
|
Simon Bogaert wrote:
> You're right... But if the other dimensions are still within close
> range of those of a RJ11, I guess roll-your-own connectors can 't be
> that hard...
Actually the offcenter connector has a name already. If I recall
correctly it was RJ-12.
6 wires, off center. I think DEC used them on keyboards and serial ports
on VT-xx0 terminals a long time ago. I'm pretty sure they can still be
found.
It's probably good LEGO didn't pick a standard RJ-11 jack, I'd hate to
think of what could happen to the NXT (or the child) if a kid eve
plugged it into a real live phone line.
-Kyle
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Kyle McDonald wrote:
> Simon Bogaert wrote:
> > You're right... But if the other dimensions are still within close
> > range of those of a RJ11, I guess roll-your-own connectors can 't be
> > that hard...
>
> Actually the offcenter connector has a name already. If I recall
> correctly it was RJ-12.
> 6 wires, off center. I think DEC used them on keyboards and serial ports
> on VT-xx0 terminals a long time ago. I'm pretty sure they can still be
> found.
>
> It's probably good LEGO didn't pick a standard RJ-11 jack, I'd hate to
> think of what could happen to the NXT (or the child) if a kid eve
> plugged it into a real live phone line.
I am sure that safety was the reason. But I checked out the old DEC connectors
and I think they were polarized to the opposite side! grrrrrr
JB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> > Actually the offcenter connector has a name already. If I recall
> > correctly it was RJ-12.
> > 6 wires, off center. I think DEC used them on keyboards and serial ports
> > on VT-xx0 terminals a long time ago. I'm pretty sure they can still be
> > found.
Yes, quite easily! but...
> I am sure that safety was the reason. But I checked out the old DEC connectors
> and I think they were polarized to the opposite side! grrrrrr
...from connectors drawings and LEGO images, I think that John is right. grrrr!
I scoured AMP online catalog - phew :P - and found nothing with the latch on
the right side.
Standard RJ connector with filed retainer will enable some tests anyway...
Philo
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Philippe Hurbain wrote:
> Standard RJ connector with filed retainer will enable some tests anyway...
Yes, I plan on trying that. Since the connectors fit flush into the receptacle,
a simple structure of half wide beams may be able to be placed in such a way as
to hold the connectors in place.
JB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> I am sure that safety was the reason. But I checked out the old DEC
> connectors
> and I think they were polarized to the opposite side! grrrrrr
>
> JB
Well, if LEGO is encouraging third party involvement, then I would assume
they wouldn't mind releasing information on how to get these connectors
(reverse MMJ?).
-Rob
www.brickmodder.net
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Rob Hendrix wrote:
>
> > I am sure that safety was the reason. But I checked out the old DEC
> > connectors
> > and I think they were polarized to the opposite side! grrrrrr
> >
> > JB
>
> Well, if LEGO is encouraging third party involvement, then I would assume
> they wouldn't mind releasing information on how to get these connectors
> (reverse MMJ?).
>
> -Rob
> www.brickmodder.net
I read this on http://nxtbot.com/blog/?p=9#comments :
----------
Raphael Jacquot Says: January 6th, 2006 at 4:03 pm. Those connectors are in
fact strandard. they are the DEC 6c (similar to RJ-12 with offset catch) for
instance, available here: http://www.actionelectronic.com/pppto.htm#Dec
----------
If it comes up right, the RJ12 plug with offset catch should be at the top of
the screen, otherwide it's about half way down the page. I hope that's the
right plug. Who's up for a pack of 100 and a reel of cable?
Mark
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, John Barnes wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, Kyle McDonald wrote:
> > Simon Bogaert wrote:
> > > You're right... But if the other dimensions are still within close
> > > range of those of a RJ11, I guess roll-your-own connectors can 't be
> > > that hard...
> >
> > Actually the offcenter connector has a name already. If I recall
> > correctly it was RJ-12.
> > 6 wires, off center. I think DEC used them on keyboards and serial ports
> > on VT-xx0 terminals a long time ago. I'm pretty sure they can still be
> > found.
> >
> > It's probably good LEGO didn't pick a standard RJ-11 jack, I'd hate to
> > think of what could happen to the NXT (or the child) if a kid eve
> > plugged it into a real live phone line.
>
>
> I am sure that safety was the reason. But I checked out the old DEC connectors
> and I think they were polarized to the opposite side! grrrrrr
>
> JB
It just dawned on me, and I'm not sure if this has been suggested yet but…
It would be simple to take the LEGO connectors and attach a standard socket to
it (such as RJ11) thus making an adaptor so standard plugs could be used in
making custom sensors.
NXT - LEGO plug - small wire - RJ11 socket - RJ11 plug - long wire - custom
sensor
Which makes me ask: Can anyone tell if the new sensors have the wires attached
or if they have sockets just like on the NXT? If they are not permanently
attached then we won't have to sacrifice a sensor to get the plugs. One wire
would yield two adaptors. I'm really hoping that the sensors have sockets so we
will be able to use various lengths of wires depending on the construction of
the robot.
-Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Tim Byrne wrote:
> Which makes me ask: Can anyone tell if the new sensors have the wires attached
> or if they have sockets just like on the NXT? If they are not permanently
> attached then we won't have to sacrifice a sensor to get the plugs. One wire
> would yield two adaptors. I'm really hoping that the sensors have sockets so we
> will be able to use various lengths of wires depending on the construction of
> the robot.
Well, the press-kit renderings show the motors have sockets. The only shot I
could find of the back of a sensor is an un-connected touch(?) sensor on the
Tribot. It's pointed toward the floor, underneath another touch sensor mounted
below the ultrasonic sensor. But it doesn't sport the printed orange icon shown
on the sensors, so maybe it's not what I think it.
The important thing is the Tribot image shows an empty socket on the mystery
sensor!
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jan 2006 22:37:22 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Juergen Stuber <JUERGEN@antispamJSTUBER.NET>
|
Viewed:
|
7016 times
|
| |
|
Hi Philippe,
"Philippe Hurbain" <philohome@free.fr> writes:
> In lugnet.robotics, Simon Bogaert wrote:
> > RJ11 indeed does 6-wire. Normal phone cord only has 4 metal contacts in
> > place, but there's space for another two...
>
> RJ11, yes. But not standard type: if you look closely the cable retainer is
> uncentered...
we have uncentered RJ11 on DSL splitters here in Germany.
But I never saw them other than on the end of a special cable,
and they won't fit into my crimp tool.
Cheers
Jürgen
--
Jürgen Stuber <juergen@jstuber.net>
http://www.jstuber.net/
gnupg key fingerprint = 2767 CA3C 5680 58BA 9A91 23D9 BED6 9A7A AF9E 68B4
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Sat, 7 Jan 2006 06:55:44 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr(ihatespam).com>
|
Viewed:
|
6896 times
|
| |
|
Ray Sanders writes:
> The slide on the Wired article mentions that it is a 6-wire digital
> cable. I can't remember if RJ-11 can do 6-wire. It might be
> something between RJ-11 and RJ-45. Impressive regardless.
RJ-13 is 6-wire.
--
--my blog is at blog.russnelson.com | A computer without Python is
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | like a CPU without memory:
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 | it runs, but you can't do
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog | anything useful with it.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Ondrew Hartigan wrote:
| |
What ever happened to good old fashioned studded bricks? Ondrew
|
You can connect some technic bricks to the sides and have studded bricks very
easily. Studless design allows you to access the batteries, display, and
buttons much easier. Also technic connection are significantly stronger than
the old fashioned studs.
Plus this thing is sleek. Something the kids today will like.
Matthew C. Ruschmann
http://superpositioned.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
*drool*
I'ma buyin' one fer sure.
-Stefan-
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.announce, Lee Magpili wrote:
> check out www.mindstorms.com/press
>
> lego just put out a press release all about the NeXT version of mindstorms, they
> put a whole spec out on it..
>
> heres a bit from the article explaining the specs
>
> LEGO MINDSTORMS NXT highlights include:
>
> • All-new NXT intelligent brick
> • 3 interactive servo motors feature inbuilt rotation sensors to align speed for
> precise control
> • New ultrasonic sensor makes robots “see” by responding to movement
> • New sound sensor enables robots to react to sound commands, including sound
> pattern and tone recognition
> • Improved light sensor detects different colors and light intensity
> • Improved touch sensor reacts to touch or release and allows robots to feel
> • 519 hand-selected, stylized elements from the LEGO TECHNIC® building system
> ensure robot creations will be sturdy and durable while also looking authentic
> • Opportunities for physical programming of robots and interaction with robots
> during programming
> • 18 building challenges with clear, step-by-step instructions help acclimate
> users to the new system to create robots ranging from humanoids and machinery to
> animals and vehicles
> • Digital wire interface allows for third-party developments
> • Information, inspiration, news, community programs and more at
> www.mindstorms.com
Darn it, you beat me to posting this! :-P
Anyway, I can't WAIT until this is released. I help my local elementary school
every year with the FIRST LEGO League competition, so hopefully they will use
this kit. I will more than likley save up money and purchase this. :-)
Best thing I have read all day. This is so COOL! :-D
- Daniel
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
>
> Best thing I have read all day. This is so COOL! :-D
>
> - Daniel
Is this going to be totally incompatible with the old Mindstorms?? That would be
devastating to people with investments in the existing system.
Gyl
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
-----Original Message-----
From: news-gateway@lugnet.com [mailto:news-gateway@lugnet.com] On Behalf Of
Gyl Midroni
Sent: Thursday, 5 January 2006 11:13 PM
To: lego-robotics@crynwr.com
Subject: Re: mindstorms NXT
>
> Best thing I have read all day. This is so COOL! :-D
>
> - Daniel
Is this going to be totally incompatible with the old Mindstorms?? That
would be
devastating to people with investments in the existing system.
Gyl
Yes I want to know if it is going to be compatible or incompatible with the
current system. Can someone please find out.
Jim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
RE: mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 Jan 2006 05:03:38 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Mr S <szinn_the1@=StopSpammers=yahoo.com>
|
Viewed:
|
6973 times
|
| |
|
I'm not sure about other AFOLs, but I'm not purist and
have been considering (quite energetically) adding an
Atmel ARM7 board to my robot, interfacing to the RCX
via I2C/IR (from Mindsensors.com) and using BT or USB
just changes the interface issue a little bit rather
than completely. I'm sure that someone will hack a
BT/IR interface for the RCX soon enough.
--- jim <jim@labyrinth.net.au> wrote:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: news-gateway@lugnet.com
> [mailto:news-gateway@lugnet.com] On Behalf Of
> Gyl Midroni
> Sent: Thursday, 5 January 2006 11:13 PM
> To: lego-robotics@crynwr.com
> Subject: Re: mindstorms NXT
>
> >
> > Best thing I have read all day. This is so COOL! • :-D
> >
> > - Daniel
>
> Is this going to be totally incompatible with the
> old Mindstorms?? That
> would be
> devastating to people with investments in the
> existing system.
>
> Gyl
>
> Yes I want to know if it is going to be compatible
> or incompatible with the
> current system. Can someone please find out.
>
> Jim
>
>
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 Jan 2006 05:25:50 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Chris 'Xenon' Hanson <xenon@3+NoMoreSpam+dnature.com>
|
Viewed:
|
7254 times
|
| |
|
jim wrote:
> Is this going to be totally incompatible with the old Mindstorms?? That
> would be
> devastating to people with investments in the existing system.
> Yes I want to know if it is going to be compatible or incompatible with the
> current system. Can someone please find out.
Nothing about the new system appears to be electrically compatible. I suspect that
someone will make an electronic bridge device. Obviously, being LEGO, it is all
mechanically compatible.
> Jim
--
Chris 'Xenon' Hanson | Xenon @ 3D Nature | http://www.3DNature.com/
"I set the wheels in motion, turn up all the machines, activate the programs,
and run behind the scenes. I set the clouds in motion, turn up light and sound,
activate the window, and watch the world go 'round." -Prime Mover, Rush.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
RE: mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jan 2006 18:44:18 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Jonathan Spitz <jspiar@yahoo.com.[antispam]ar>
|
Viewed:
|
6928 times
|
| |
|
Wow, that really looks very cool and as someone already said, kudos to the
few that followed that NDA to the line, that's a BIG secret to keep for a
mindstorms fan. Now we know who to blame for the things we don't like ;D .
Anyway, I don't want to start taking those things appart before they are
already out but since I've seen that there are still only 3 outputs, there
are some questions I have to ask...
> . Digital wire interface allows for third-party developments
Does having 6-wire digital cables means a whole new realm of possible custom
sensors and output applications? And, how is bluetooth compared to IR on
speed and reliability? Finally, can you use your Bluetooth headphones as a
baby monitor for your new NXT?
> . Opportunities for physical programming of robots and interaction with
robots during programming
That idea probably came from the Gameboy Advanced driven robots.
I wonder when will they be available in Israel...
Jonathan
___________________________________________________________
1GB gratis, Antivirus y Antispam
Correo Yahoo!, el mejor correo web del mundo
http://correo.yahoo.com.ar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jan 2006 20:52:03 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Chris 'Xenon' Hanson <xenon@3dnature.com+nomorespam+>
|
Viewed:
|
7014 times
|
| |
|
Jonathan Spitz wrote:
> > . Digital wire interface allows for third-party developments
> Does having 6-wire digital cables means a whole new realm of possible custom
> sensors and output applications?
Speculation: I think we're looking at some sort of i2c-like type interface here, where
you'll find continuous power on one of the pairs and the other two pairs being used as
some sort of high-speed digital bidirectional full-duplex or point-to-point half-duplex
bus with an arbitration scheme. This would theoretically allow for any number of sensors
and motors to be used at once (power limitations permitting). Ports 1,2,3 and A,B,C might
all be identical, really. Some sort of passive or active hub device (like a USB hub) would
be needed to connect more devices, but electronically you wouldn't be limited to 6. It's
just 6 ports on the main brick.
Wilder speculation: For all we know, it _is_ USB in there, just on a custom connector
with extra pins for some purpose. I kinda doubt it, as USB is a heavier more complicated
protocol than this calls for.
This picture:
http://cache.lego.com/upload/contentTemplating/LEGOAboutUs-PressReleases/images/2057/picAA00C400-D0CE-4118-8762-82A18499E875.jpg
Shows ports 1-3 connected to sensors, but the rangefinder sensor is connected to a
fourth (unlabeled) port next to them. The motors are connected to ports marked A-C on the
other end of the brick. The USB port is apparently the fourth port on that end.
Of course, I don't know if that's actually a photo, it looks more like a 3D rendering
of a prototype, so it may not reflect the final final configuration anyway.
> And, how is bluetooth compared to IR on
> speed and reliability?
Bluetooth should SMOKE Infrared for speed and reliability.
> Finally, can you use your Bluetooth headphones as a
> baby monitor for your new NXT?
It seems like a definite possibility. Depends on how much expandability the NXT offers
in its BT (bluetooth) communications profiles. I am _very_ excited about the BT options.
Wireless mice, keyboards, NXT-to-host communications, GPSes (somehow), almost any digital
device can potentially be cobbled onto bluetooth or the 6-wire digital bus. NXT is much
more in the class of a real robot than RCX was. RCX was impressive for it's time, but NXT
is the robot for today.
--
Chris 'Xenon' Hanson | Xenon @ 3D Nature | http://www.3DNature.com/
"I set the wheels in motion, turn up all the machines, activate the programs,
and run behind the scenes. I set the clouds in motion, turn up light and sound,
activate the window, and watch the world go 'round." -Prime Mover, Rush.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Chris 'Xenon' Hanson <xenon@3dnature.com> wrote:
> Ports 1,2,3 and A,B,C might all be identical, really.
I will speculate with you here. If I was a betting man, I would bet that they
just made 3 of them "motor" ports because of power limitations.
I highly doubt they used USB. Of course, you could always plop a usb hub into
that port and make your own usb extensions...
> NXT is much more in the class of a real robot than RCX was.
> RCX was impressive for it's time, but NXT is the robot for today.
Most importantly its a better toy. Could this be the Bluetooth "killer app"?
hehe.
Matthew Ruschmann
http://superpositioned.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Daniel Jackson wrote:
> Anyway, I can't WAIT until this is released. I help my local elementary school
> every year with the FIRST LEGO League competition, so hopefully they will use
> this kit. I will more than likley save up money and purchase this. :-)
>
> Best thing I have read all day. This is so COOL! :-D
>
> - Daniel
from the botmag page...
"A special version for school and institutional use is also releasing later this
year."
http://botmag.com/articles/lego_mindstorms_robot_news_2.shtml
Bigger (and better) than the consumer version ?
Ray
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, Ray Sanders wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, Daniel Jackson wrote:
> > Anyway, I can't WAIT until this is released. I help my local elementary school
> > every year with the FIRST LEGO League competition, so hopefully they will use
> > this kit. I will more than likley save up money and purchase this. :-)
> >
> > Best thing I have read all day. This is so COOL! :-D
> >
> > - Daniel
>
> from the botmag page...
>
> "A special version for school and institutional use is also releasing later this
> year."
> http://botmag.com/articles/lego_mindstorms_robot_news_2.shtml
>
> Bigger (and better) than the consumer version ?
>
> Ray
That probably just means it will have
1. a more powerful programming environment, just like the ROBOLAB software in
the Mindstorms for Schools sets is better than the RCX Code software that ships
with Mindstorms 2.0 sets.
2. specific sets for different subjects, which is what Mindstorms for Schools is
all about.
3. a higher price -- seriously, have you ever read through a Pitsco catalog?
Some of those kits are outrageously overpriced.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Sun, 8 Jan 2006 15:30:36 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Ignacio Martinez Vazquez <ignamv@gmail.!saynotospam!com>
|
Viewed:
|
6902 times
|
| |
|
> 3. a higher price -- seriously, have you ever read through a Pitsco catalog?
> Some of those kits are outrageously overpriced.
I bought my mindstorms from pitsco to save $50... (cost $150)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Ignacio Martinez Vazquez wrote:
>
> > 3. a higher price -- seriously, have you ever read through a Pitsco catalog?
> > Some of those kits are outrageously overpriced.
>
> I bought my mindstorms from pitsco to save $50... (cost $150)
I'm talking about stuff like this:
http://www.legoeducation.com/store/detail.aspx?ID=814
$1250 for the start-up pack, which is for eight paired students.
The Team Challenge with USB set is $200, and you get four of them. That's still
just $800, so there's another $450 worth of stuff. 4 extra motors, 4 extra
rotation sensors, and a temperature sensor add up to about $175, so that leaves
$275, which must be for the software.
That's the point I was making . . . the ROBOLAB software in those sets make them
cost more for schools. However, it has a site license, so maybe it's not so bad
after all.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.announce, Lee Magpili wrote:
> check out www.mindstorms.com/press
>
> lego just put out a press release all about the NeXT version of mindstorms, they
> put a whole spec out on it..
>
> heres a bit from the article explaining the specs
>
> LEGO MINDSTORMS NXT highlights include:
>
> • All-new NXT intelligent brick
> • 3 interactive servo motors feature inbuilt rotation sensors to align speed for
> precise control
> • New ultrasonic sensor makes robots “see” by responding to movement
> • New sound sensor enables robots to react to sound commands, including sound
> pattern and tone recognition
> • Improved light sensor detects different colors and light intensity
> • Improved touch sensor reacts to touch or release and allows robots to feel
> • 519 hand-selected, stylized elements from the LEGO TECHNIC® building system
> ensure robot creations will be sturdy and durable while also looking authentic
> • Opportunities for physical programming of robots and interaction with robots
> during programming
> • 18 building challenges with clear, step-by-step instructions help acclimate
> users to the new system to create robots ranging from humanoids and machinery to
> animals and vehicles
> • Digital wire interface allows for third-party developments
> • Information, inspiration, news, community programs and more at
> www.mindstorms.com
>
>
>
> whaaa!!
> LeE
WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But...
Is there any sort of retro-compatibility???
Luca
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
The Wired magazine article says no backward compatibility, apparently because
they're using digital wire, new language, new everything, pretty much.
-Stefan-
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.announce, Lee Magpili wrote:
> check out www.mindstorms.com/press
<snip>
>
> whaaa!!
> LeE
Wow! Very cool! I want two to start with!
Kev
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Just out of interest, who'd going to sell their old Mindstorms stuff.
According to the Wired article, the new NXT series sets won't be
compatible with the old Mindstorms stuff which is a bit alarming. It
makes me wonder if it is worth holding onto the old stuff or trying to
recoup some value from it now.
Having said all this, the new NXT looks superb. Three, count 'em, three
motors with built in rotation sensors!! and and ultrasound sensor. Don't
even get me started on BlueTooth connectivity!
The wait until August 2006 is going to be very very long!
Allen.
Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> In lugnet.announce, Lee Magpili wrote:
>
>
> > check out www.mindstorms.com/press
> >
> >
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > whaaa!!
> > LeE
> >
> >
>
>
> Wow! Very cool! I want two to start with!
>
> Kev
>
>
>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Allen Foster wrote:
> Just out of interest, who'd going to sell their old Mindstorms stuff.
>
> According to the Wired article, the new NXT series sets won't be
> compatible with the old Mindstorms stuff which is a bit alarming. It
> makes me wonder if it is worth holding onto the old stuff or trying to
> recoup some value from it now.
>
>
My main worry is that the programming interfaces for the new and the old systems
won't be able to co-exist on the same computer system, so if you want to use
your old RCX you have to program it on different PC from the one you use for the
new RCX. THAT would be a royal pain and force many people to use one or the
other.
Also, are these motors going to be "better" than the old ones (i.e. in terms of
workload, torque, etc)? Certainly they look bigger and harder to incorporate
into a structure...
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Gyl Midroni wrote:
> Also, are these motors going to be "better" than the old ones (i.e. in terms of
> workload, torque, etc)? Certainly they look bigger and harder to incorporate
> into a structure...
And where are the studs????????????? It looks 100% liftarms to me
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jan 2006 15:39:44 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Matthew Davidson <matthew@*StopSpammers*blank.org>
|
Viewed:
|
7476 times
|
| |
|
I guess 'digital wire interface' implies the output from the sensor
itself is digital? The RCX inputs are analog and the A/D occurs
inside the RCX, does it not?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jan 2006 16:36:30 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Ignacio Martinez Vazquez <ignamv@gmail.comSTOPSPAMMERS>
|
Viewed:
|
7792 times
|
| |
|
Maybe they're just making it sound better, but it'd certainly be
better to have digital sensors... although homebrew will be harder.
However, I don't think I'll be able to ask my dad for NeXT after the
HuGE expense of the cnc machine...
On 1/5/06, Matthew Davidson <matthew@blank.org> wrote:
>
> I guess 'digital wire interface' implies the output from the sensor
> itself is digital? The RCX inputs are analog and the A/D occurs
> inside the RCX, does it not?
>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
I don't see why you wouldn't be able to install both progs on one comp. People
could use NCQ progs and stock Mindstorms on the same comp, after all.
-Stefan-
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Stefan Garcia wrote:
> I don't see why you wouldn't be able to install both progs on one comp. People
> could use NCQ progs and stock Mindstorms on the same comp, after all.
>
> -Stefan-
It sounds simple, but Mindstorms has never been very friendly with things like
ports and interrupts. If both systems are installed and competing for the same
computer resources..... trouble will occur. If they over-write each others'
DLLs, etc.
I guess only a hands-on trial will tell, and usually people find workarounds
either way.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Allen Foster wrote:
> Just out of interest, who'd going to sell their old Mindstorms stuff.
Not me. From the press release it looks like this new NXT is going to
outclass the RCX, but that doesn't mean I won't play with the "old" stuff a
whole lot as well - I've not come near the limits of it as yet (I'm fine tuning
my 3T robot as I type... well, actually waiting for the program to download to
the brick).
> According to the Wired article, the new NXT series sets won't be
> compatible with the old Mindstorms stuff which is a bit alarming.
If they both are LEGO, then I can at least stick them on the same robot
platform and use them for different things. "Compatible" for Wired may not be
the same as "compatible" for me!
> The wait until August 2006 is going to be very very long!
Then apply to be in the test group (I'm *certain* you'll not be the first...
or last!):
http://mindstorms.lego.com/community/default.aspx
--
Brian Davis
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jan 2006 14:08:48 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
"Simon Bogaert" <simon.bogaert@advalvas.be>
|
Viewed:
|
7272 times
|
| |
|
If this new sensor interface indeed is digital and indeed has an "open"
protocol, there will soon enough be some eletronics engineer designing an
interface or a multiplexer for the old sensors... Lego won't be the one
providing that interface, I guess, because it would slow down sales of their
new sensors. I'm confident the same will happen for the "old" motors...
Regards, Simon Bogaert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Allen Foster"
> According to the Wired article, the new NXT series sets won't be
> compatible with the old Mindstorms stuff which is a bit alarming. It
> makes me wonder if it is worth holding onto the old stuff or trying to
> recoup some value from it now.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Allen Foster wrote:
> Just out of interest, who'd going to sell their old Mindstorms stuff.
>
> According to the Wired article, the new NXT series sets won't be
> compatible with the old Mindstorms stuff which is a bit alarming. It
> makes me wonder if it is worth holding onto the old stuff or trying to
> recoup some value from it now.
Yeah it woulda been nice if the new one had IR as well and be able to control
the "legacy" bricks. I'm sure the old ones will find a myriad of uses doing
simpler jobs like moving cows heads on train layouts ;)
> Having said all this, the new NXT looks superb. Three, count 'em, three
> motors with built in rotation sensors!! and and ultrasound sensor. Don't
> even get me started on BlueTooth connectivity!
Well, I hope they are also planning a smaller motor, without RPM sensor. I'm
sure there will be many situations when I'm happy to sacrifice accuracy for
size.
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jan 2006 22:14:06 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Matthew Davidson <matthew@blank.!spamless!org>
|
Viewed:
|
7359 times
|
| |
|
On Jan 5, 2006, at 8:21 PM, Ross Crawford wrote:
> Yeah it woulda been nice if the new one had IR as well and be able
> to control
> the "legacy" bricks. I'm sure the old ones will find a myriad of
> uses doing
> simpler jobs like moving cows heads on train layouts ;)
Interesting scenario. Perhaps someone can work up a homebrew
bluetooth to IR repeater. Sound crazy? I'll believe anything after
what I've seen people accomplish with the RCX, extending it with
gameboys and such. I'm sure there are existing portable devices with
both bluetooth and IR that can be hacked.
> Well, I hope they are also planning a smaller motor, without RPM
> sensor. I'm
> sure there will be many situations when I'm happy to sacrifice
> accuracy for
> size.
Me too. Those motors look bulky. Sometimes a micromotor is just what
you need for the job.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Matthew Davidson matthew@blank.org wrote:
| |
On Jan 5, 2006, at 8:21 PM, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
Yeah it woulda been nice if the new one had IR as well and be able
to control
the “legacy” bricks. I’m sure the old ones will find a myriad of
uses doing
simpler jobs like moving cows heads on train layouts ;)
|
Interesting scenario. Perhaps someone can work up a homebrew
bluetooth to IR repeater. Sound crazy? I’ll believe anything after
what I’ve seen people accomplish with the RCX, extending it with
gameboys and such. I’m sure there are existing portable devices with
both bluetooth and IR that can be hacked.
|
I thought of this yesterday. If I end up as one of the 100 people who get it
early, I’ll connect a LEGO USB tower to the NXT USB port and see if I can get
the NXT to control the tower. I assume I’ll need a USB type-A to type-B
converter. As for the actual control, I’m hoping it’s just a matter of hacking
the USB driver in the Mindstorms SDK.
It would be cool to control the NXT from a Gameboy Advance using Bluetooth. I’ll
maybe tackle that, too.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Jordan Bradford wrote:
On Jan 5, 2006, at 8:21 PM, Ross Crawford wrote:
I'm hoping it's just a matter of hacking the USB driver in
the Mindstorms SDK.
Which SDK would that be?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Dick Swan wrote:
| |
In lugnet.robotics, Jordan Bradford wrote:
On Jan 5, 2006, at 8:21 PM, Ross Crawford wrote:
I’m hoping it’s just a matter of hacking the USB driver in
the Mindstorms SDK.
Which SDK would that be?
|
http://mindstorms.lego.com/eng/community/resources/default.asp
The Ghost communication stack and API would have to be implemented in the NXT.
That’s actually what I meant when I said “driver.” A custom driver for the tower
would probably have to be written for the tower to run from within the NXT.
I think.
:)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 Jan 2006 18:46:25 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
"Simon Bogaert" <simon.bogaert@advalvas.be>
|
Viewed:
|
7780 times
|
| |
|
If Lego obeys the USB standard and uses fullsize receptacles, it'll be a "B"
type connector on the NXT. Hence, you'd need a B-male to A-female cable,
which is "illegal" according to the USB standards. You might hack up your
own, but that's cheating... ;-) So there's nog "legal" way to hook up the
low speed IR tower (fixed A-male connector) to the NXT brick. Also, I
repeat my concerns that Lego won't be putting a host-capable USB solution in
the NXT brick. Until we have certainty about that, It's all just guesswork,
and I certainly wouldn't count on using the USB port as a means of out-bound
communications other than to a computer.
Regards, Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jordan Bradford"
> I thought of this yesterday. If I end up as one of the 100 people who get
> it
> early, I'll connect a LEGO USB tower to the NXT USB port and see if I can
> get
> the NXT to control the tower. I assume I'll need a USB type-A to type-B
> converter. As for the actual control, I'm hoping it's just a matter of
> hacking
> the USB driver in the Mindstorms SDK.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Simon Bogaert wrote:
| |
If Lego obeys the USB standard and uses fullsize receptacles, it’ll be a “B”
type connector on the NXT. Hence, you’d need a B-male to A-female cable,
which is “illegal” according to the USB standards.
|
Indeed, see this image, also clearly showing motor connectors :
(from the article now available here http://www.nxtbot.com/)
| |
Also, I
repeat my concerns that Lego won’t be putting a host-capable USB solution in
the NXT brick.
|
An USB On The Go (host+slave) chip is not so expansive. But a host software
stack is much more complex, and would expose LEGO to a new heap of
incompatibilities with exotic device. Anyway, according to USB rules, a type B
connector is slave only, period.
Philo
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Philippe Hurbain wrote:
| |
B connector is slave only, period.
|
Just as lego says:
What is the usability of the USB port in the NXT brick?
The USB port is a “slave” which means that it can only communicate with USB
“master” ports, e.g. computers. The usage of the USB port is for fast download
from PC to the NXT brick via USB cable and does not require any Bluetooth
capabilities in the computer.
http://www.lego.com/eng/service/faqs.asp?section=ConsumerService-FAQ-Products&catid=E8D0CD47-16B8-4B2F-900C-8FC40C163598&faqid=17264#17264
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Simon Bogaert wrote:
| |
If Lego obeys the USB standard and uses fullsize receptacles, it’ll be a “B”
type connector on the NXT. Hence, you’d need a B-male to A-female cable,
which is “illegal” according to the USB standards. You might hack up your
own, but that’s cheating... ;-)
|
You mean like one of these? ;)
http://www.pacificcable.com/Picture_Page.asp?DataNAme=USBAFBM
| |
So there’s nog “legal” way to hook up the
low speed IR tower (fixed A-male connector) to the NXT brick. Also, I
repeat my concerns that Lego won’t be putting a host-capable USB solution in
the NXT brick. Until we have certainty about that, It’s all just guesswork,
and I certainly wouldn’t count on using the USB port as a means of out-bound
communications other than to a computer.
Regards, Simon
|
I’ve read the replies to this post, but I’ll respond here. As far as the cable
is concerned, the plug type is irrelevant; it’s just a standard. The real
determination of “master” and “slave” happens in the hardware/firmware. Could a
slave port be hacked into a master port in the firmware? We’ll see.
I suppose it would be easier, though, to set up a Bluetooth to computer to IR
tower communication protocol rather than try to run the tower directly from the
NXT.
Heh, this is an ivory tower academic project for me -- I’ve never built a robot
that needed more than one RCX! It’s like the time I briefly worked on a
communication protocol using the motor outputs and PWM as a code. :D
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
hitechnic compass
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Sun, 8 Jan 2006 08:24:57 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
dan miller <danbmil99@yahoo.{nospam}com>
|
Viewed:
|
7982 times
|
| |
|
I know everyone is psyched about the NXT, but on another topic--
does anyone have experience with the new compass sensor from Hitechnic? In
particular, I'm wondering what chip they use, and how sensitive it is to
non-horizontal placement. Also, can you use raw readings to get better than
3.6-degree accuracy?
any info appreciated
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Sun, January 8, 2006 3:24 am, dan miller wrote:
> I know everyone is psyched about the NXT, but on another topic--
>
> does anyone have experience with the new compass sensor from Hitechnic? In
> particular, I'm wondering what chip they use, and how sensitive it is to
> non-horizontal placement. Also, can you use raw readings to get better than
> 3.6-degree accuracy?
I got one a little while ago. It's pretty cool. With that, and one rotation
sensor, I was able to make a robot that could navigate a pre-defined course around
my house.
I'm not sure what chip is used, but I doubt you'll get better accuracy with raw
values.
I was just checking out the HiTechnic web site <http://www.hitechnic.com>. They
must have just redone it, because it looks like they're planning on making compasses
for the NXT, too.
I think he knows something... :)
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Ross Crawford wrote:
>
> Well, I hope they are also planning a smaller motor, without RPM sensor. I'm
> sure there will be many situations when I'm happy to sacrifice accuracy for
> size.
>
> ROSCO
Actually, the RCX outputs 0's and 1's to power the motors as it is right now.
It uses Pulse Width Modulation (PWM). Basically for 1/3 power 1/3 of the pulse
is 1 and the other 2/3 is 0. For full power, the signal is all 1. This creates
a non-linear input/output curve, but works.
http://www.restena.lu/convict/Jeunes/ultimate_stuff/speed.htm
So all all you have to do is crimp your lego wires into a RJ11 and connect it to
the NXT and send it a digital PWM signal. Voila! Your old motor works again.
Of course, someone will have to build a block in "LabVIEW" to send the PWM
signal to the motor. Easy as pie if the software allows this.
Matthew C. Ruschmann
http://superpositioned.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Matthew Ruschmann wrote:
> Actually, the RCX outputs 0's and 1's to power the motors as it is right now.
> So all all you have to do is crimp your lego wires into a RJ11 and connect it to
> the NXT and send it a digital PWM signal. Voila! Your old motor works again.
I doubt that will do what you want. The RCX motor ports are equipped with motor
drivers - ICs that can provide rather a lot of current, switch direction, and
even short circuit the port. The digital wires would be I/O, not meant for
noticeable current, and only 1 or 0. So you'd wind up with an NXT shutting
itself off as the signal lines draw too much current.
No, what will be needed in the adapter will be such a motor driver, speaking the
appropriate serial protocol. Probably that means the device will contain a PIC
or PLC along with one or more motor drivers, and will be inefficient to build
for less than two motors per port. Personally I'm hoping for such a device with
separate power input.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, Yann Vernier wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, Matthew Ruschmann wrote:
> > Actually, the RCX outputs 0's and 1's to power the motors as it is right now.
> > So all all you have to do is crimp your lego wires into a RJ11 and connect it to
> > the NXT and send it a digital PWM signal. Voila! Your old motor works again.
>
> I doubt that will do what you want. The RCX motor ports are equipped with motor
> drivers - ICs that can provide rather a lot of current, switch direction, and
> even short circuit the port. The digital wires would be I/O, not meant for
> noticeable current, and only 1 or 0. So you'd wind up with an NXT shutting
> itself off as the signal lines draw too much current.
> No, what will be needed in the adapter will be such a motor driver, speaking the
> appropriate serial protocol. Probably that means the device will contain a PIC
> or PLC along with one or more motor drivers, and will be inefficient to build
> for less than two motors per port. Personally I'm hoping for such a device with
> separate power input.
I see no other wires into the motors, which means all the current is coming from
that one connection. Whether or not there is separate supply and control lines
in that connector is debatable until we get our hands on one - I would prefer
not, because that may make it harder to use the motor for non-NXT applications.
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, Ross Crawford wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, Yann Vernier wrote:
> > In lugnet.robotics, Matthew Ruschmann wrote:
> > > Actually, the RCX outputs 0's and 1's to power the motors as it is right now.
> > > So all all you have to do is crimp your lego wires into a RJ11 and connect it to
> > > the NXT and send it a digital PWM signal. Voila! Your old motor works again.
> >
> > I doubt that will do what you want. The RCX motor ports are equipped with motor
> > drivers - ICs that can provide rather a lot of current, switch direction, and
> > even short circuit the port. The digital wires would be I/O, not meant for
> > noticeable current, and only 1 or 0. So you'd wind up with an NXT shutting
> > itself off as the signal lines draw too much current.
> > No, what will be needed in the adapter will be such a motor driver, speaking the
> > appropriate serial protocol. Probably that means the device will contain a PIC
> > or PLC along with one or more motor drivers, and will be inefficient to build
> > for less than two motors per port. Personally I'm hoping for such a device with
> > separate power input.
>
> I see no other wires into the motors, which means all the current is coming from
> that one connection. Whether or not there is separate supply and control lines
> in that connector is debatable until we get our hands on one - I would prefer
> not, because that may make it harder to use the motor for non-NXT applications.
>
> ROSCO
From the LEGO NXT FAQ...
"An electric motor whose speed or position is controlled by a closed loop
feedback circuit that can sense its position. The speed of the motor is measured
by a tachometer. The tachometer produces a voltage that is proportional to the
speed. This voltage is compared to a reference point and the difference, or
error, is used to adjust the speed of the motor, either up or down."
http://www.lego.com/eng/service/faqs.asp?section=ConsumerService-FAQ-Products&catid=E8D0CD47-16B8-4B2F-900C-8FC40C163598&faqid=17251#17251
So the motors operate in a variable voltage/current mode, where a target RPM in
the objective. Two wires for the tach (as a sensor), two for the motor current,
two for something else.
Ray
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, Matthew Ruschmann wrote:
> Actually, the RCX outputs 0's and 1's to power the motors as it is right now.
> It uses Pulse Width Modulation (PWM). Basically for 1/3 power 1/3 of the pulse
> is 1 and the other 2/3 is 0. For full power, the signal is all 1. This creates
> a non-linear input/output curve, but works.
>
> http://www.restena.lu/convict/Jeunes/ultimate_stuff/speed.htm
>
> So all all you have to do is crimp your lego wires into a RJ11 and connect it to
> the NXT and send it a digital PWM signal. Voila! Your old motor works again.
>
> Of course, someone will have to build a block in "LabVIEW" to send the PWM
> signal to the motor. Easy as pie if the software allows this.
I think that saying the RCX outputs 0's and 1's to the motor may be a bit
misleading with respect to considerations of digital signalling.
It is true that the CPU inside the RCX creates a logic level (1's and 0's) PWM
signal intended for the motors. But there is a key element between the RCX's CPU
and the motor outputs - an H bridge chip. This converts the switching logic
levels to switching power outputs. These switching power outputs are what makes
the motor go. Regular logic outputs are typically limited to a few tens of
milliamps at most, so a "digital" (ie; logic level) output would not be adequate
to drive the motor. But the H bridge outputs can handle upto about 800mA at
above logic level voltages, 9v for the RCX which is perfect for small DC motors.
JB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Robot Magazine:
http://botmag.com/articles/lego_mindstorms_robot_news_1.shtml
Not much technical detail but have pictures and video of 3 other models.
From the Developer Program page, the new unit still use 6 AA battery:
http://mindstorms.lego.com/press/LEGO%20MINDSTORMS%20Issues%20Call%20for%20NXT%20Great%20Developers.aspx
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Ka-On Lee wrote:
> From the Developer Program page, the new unit still use 6 AA battery:
> http://mindstorms.lego.com/press/LEGO%20MINDSTORMS%20Issues%20Call%20for%20NXT%20Great%20Developers.aspx
But it's got USB. And USB is powered, right? Is there any reason not to use
that source?
Forget the USB-powered coffee mug hotplate -- I want to run my MINDSTORMS on
USB!
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Steve Bliss wrote:
| |
In lugnet.robotics, Ka-On Lee wrote:
| |
From the Developer Program page, the new unit still use 6 AA battery:
http://mindstorms.lego.com/press/LEGO%20MINDSTORMS%20Issues%20Call%20for%20NXT%20Great%20Developers.aspx
|
But it’s got USB. And USB is powered, right? Is there any reason not to use
that source?
|
Powered USB port can deliver up to
5V and 500mA, so that is
insufficent for LEGO motors.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On 06/01/06, Steve Bliss <steve.bliss@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, Ka-On Lee wrote:
> > From the Developer Program page, the new unit still use 6 AA battery:
> > http://mindstorms.lego.com/press/LEGO%20MINDSTORMS%20Issues%20Call%20for%20NXT%20Great%20Developers.aspx
>
> But it's got USB. And USB is powered, right? Is there any reason not to use
> that source?
>
> Forget the USB-powered coffee mug hotplate -- I want to run my MINDSTORMS on
> USB!
>
> Steve
While I realise you mean USB powering the NXT, one thing that also
sprang to mind is would it be possible to get the NXT in some cases to
act as a USB host as opposed to a device. This would depend on how
much of its USB stack is implemented in hardware DSPs, or how much is
simply Firmware.
Then adding a 9v powered hub and some USB based IO makes it hugely
extensible. Again - going back round to the PC powering the NXT as a
device, it could mean for a very large bot, you could add a larger
battery and power the NXT from it.
--
Danny Staple MBCS
OrionRobots
http://orionrobots.co.uk
(Full contact details available through website)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.announce, Lee Magpili wrote:
> check out www.mindstorms.com/press
>
> lego just put out a press release all about the NeXT version of mindstorms, they
> put a whole spec out on it..
>
> heres a bit from the article explaining the specs
>
> LEGO MINDSTORMS NXT highlights include:
>
> • All-new NXT intelligent brick
> • 3 interactive servo motors feature inbuilt rotation sensors to align speed for
> precise control
> • New ultrasonic sensor makes robots “see” by responding to movement
> • New sound sensor enables robots to react to sound commands, including sound
> pattern and tone recognition
> • Improved light sensor detects different colors and light intensity
> • Improved touch sensor reacts to touch or release and allows robots to feel
> • 519 hand-selected, stylized elements from the LEGO TECHNIC® building system
> ensure robot creations will be sturdy and durable while also looking authentic
> • Opportunities for physical programming of robots and interaction with robots
> during programming
> • 18 building challenges with clear, step-by-step instructions help acclimate
> users to the new system to create robots ranging from humanoids and machinery to
> animals and vehicles
> • Digital wire interface allows for third-party developments
> • Information, inspiration, news, community programs and more at
> www.mindstorms.com
>
>
>
> whaaa!!
> LeE
This is SO cool. Kudos to Lego, and kudos to the folks who could keep this
secret while they worked on it!
Sign me up for at least two of them... :-)
JohnG, GMLTC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.announce, Lee Magpili wrote:
| |
check out www.mindstorms.com/press
lego just put out a press release all about the NeXT version of mindstorms,
they put a whole spec out on it..
heres a bit from the article explaining the specs
LEGO MINDSTORMS NXT highlights include:
• All-new NXT intelligent brick
• 3 interactive servo motors feature inbuilt rotation sensors to align speed
for precise control
• New ultrasonic sensor makes robots “see” by responding to movement
• New sound sensor enables robots to react to sound commands, including sound
pattern and tone recognition
• Improved light sensor detects different colors and light intensity
• Improved touch sensor reacts to touch or release and allows robots to feel
• 519 hand-selected, stylized elements from the LEGO TECHNIC® building system
ensure robot creations will be sturdy and durable while also looking authentic
• Opportunities for physical programming of robots and interaction with robots
during programming
• 18 building challenges with clear, step-by-step instructions help acclimate
users to the new system to create robots ranging from humanoids and machinery
to animals and vehicles
• Digital wire interface allows for third-party developments
• Information, inspiration, news, community programs and more at
www.mindstorms.com
whaaa!!
LeE
|
Slashdotted.
Marc Nelson Jr.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
OK MUP members, spill the beans :-)
We know who you are :-)
How do you connect multiple motors now? Also, what type of processor is it,
speed, and memory??
Thanks,
Ram
PS: I REALLY WANT ONE!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Ram Meenakshisundaram wrote:
> OK MUP members, spill the beans :-) We know who you are :-)
Since the known MUP members haven't added a whole lot yet, I suspect that the
NDA mentioned in the Wired article is (sadly) still in effect. But still,
there's a lot to see in those juicy pictures and the wealth of specifications in
the LEGO press release.
> PS: I REALLY WANT ONE!
You and a small army of AFOLs storming the walls of Billund. This is shaping
up to be a GREAT new year!
--
Brian Davis
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Well, I suppose that the speculation will begin any
moment now, but a digital I/O with 6 lines could be
enough for power, ground, tx, rx, clock, and signal
ground.... wonder what type of interface it actually
is?
Bluetooth is good! Not as much range as WiFi etc. but
very good. That would minimize the number of wired
connections in multiple NXT systems. It might also
lead to BT/I2C interfacing to tie the RCX systems into
the NXT as well.
thoughts... thoughts... thoughts...
--- Brian Davis <brdavis@iusb.edu> wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, Ram Meenakshisundaram wrote:
>
> > OK MUP members, spill the beans :-) We know who
> you are :-)
>
> Since the known MUP members haven't added a whole
> lot yet, I suspect that the
> NDA mentioned in the Wired article is (sadly) still
> in effect. But still,
> there's a lot to see in those juicy pictures and the
> wealth of specifications in
> the LEGO press release.
>
> > PS: I REALLY WANT ONE!
>
> You and a small army of AFOLs storming the walls
> of Billund. This is shaping
> up to be a GREAT new year!
>
> --
> Brian Davis
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Mr S <szinn_the1@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bluetooth is good! Not as much range as WiFi etc. but
> very good. That would minimize the number of wired
> connections in multiple NXT systems. It might also
> lead to BT/I2C interfacing to tie the RCX systems into
> the NXT as well.
>
> thoughts... thoughts... thoughts...
>
> --- Brian Davis <brdavis@iusb.edu> wrote:
I *hope* that they use of BT will allow one control source (like my iBook ;) to
control multiple NXT units simultaneously. The mind boggles !
Ray
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Ram Meenakshisundaram wrote:
> OK MUP members, spill the beans :-)
> We know who you are :-)
>
> How do you connect multiple motors now? Also, what type of processor is it,
> speed, and memory??
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ram
>
> PS: I REALLY WANT ONE!
The NDA is still firmly in place. And they know where we live ;)
But, I am very interested by your multiple motor question however. Why do you
need to connect multiple motors?
JB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, John Barnes wrote:
>
> Why do you need to connect multiple motors?
>
> JB
To make multiple things move! Duh! (that's a joke, people!)
I'd like to see if I could hook one of these things up to 'standard' 9volt stuff
- lights, sound elements, technic motors, *trains*...
JohnG, GMLTC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, John Barnes wrote:
> The NDA is still firmly in place. And they know where we live ;)
>
> But, I am very interested by your multiple motor question however. Why do you
> need to connect multiple motors?
>
> JB
How would you create a rover-based robot with just three motors? I want to
design more complex rovers other than the two-wheeled plus caster designs.
Something like the shrimp for instance. The old rcx allows you to connect
multiple motors to the same port. Also, the motor port could be used for other
sensors and powering other things as well...
Ram
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Ram Meenakshisundaram wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, John Barnes wrote:
>
> > The NDA is still firmly in place. And they know where we live ;)
> >
> > But, I am very interested by your multiple motor question however. Why do you
> > need to connect multiple motors?
> >
> > JB
>
> How would you create a rover-based robot with just three motors? I want to
> design more complex rovers other than the two-wheeled plus caster designs.
> Something like the shrimp for instance. The old rcx allows you to connect
> multiple motors to the same port. Also, the motor port could be used for other
> sensors and powering other things as well...
Hope its possible to create an I2C port using the sensor ports. Its a shame
they didnt create an I2C port for daisychaining sensors. Or is the sonar port a
I2C port....
Ram
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jan 2006 23:16:37 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Chris 'Xenon' Hanson <XENON@antispam3DNATURE.COM>
|
Viewed:
|
7011 times
|
| |
|
Ram Meenakshisundaram wrote:
> Hope its possible to create an I2C port using the sensor ports. Its a shame
> they didnt create an I2C port for daisychaining sensors. Or is the sonar port a
> I2C port....
My conclusion that the bus is multipurpose stems from the evidence that there is a
speed sensor (optoencoder of some sort?) on the motors. I presume that means that the
motor ports have both output (motor control) and input (sensor feedback). It would seem
like the easiest way would be to make the whole mess of ports identical multipurpose ports.
But this is all simply hope and speculation until we get some real data. I do feel
confident that with the 4 MUPs offering guidance, we'll like the result.
--
Chris 'Xenon' Hanson | Xenon @ 3D Nature | http://www.3DNature.com/
"I set the wheels in motion, turn up all the machines, activate the programs,
and run behind the scenes. I set the clouds in motion, turn up light and sound,
activate the window, and watch the world go 'round." -Prime Mover, Rush.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Chris 'Xenon' Hanson <xenon@3dnature.com> wrote:
> But this is all simply hope and speculation until we get some real data. I do feel
> confident that with the 4 MUPs offering guidance, we'll like the result.
I do hope so :)
As the wired article pointed out, we didn't get everything we asked for. But
there are features we did ask for and got.
So just as soon as the shackles come off ....
JB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, John Barnes wrote:
> As the wired article pointed out, we didn't get everything we asked for. But
> there are features we did ask for and got.
>
> So just as soon as the shackles come off ....
> JB
will that be before Aug 2006?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Chris Magno wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, John Barnes wrote:
>
> > As the wired article pointed out, we didn't get everything we asked for. But
> > there are features we did ask for and got.
> >
> > So just as soon as the shackles come off ....
>
> > JB
>
> will that be before Aug 2006?
Ask the guy with the keyring.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Chris Magno wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, John Barnes wrote:
>
> > As the wired article pointed out, we didn't get everything we asked for. But
> > there are features we did ask for and got.
> >
> > So just as soon as the shackles come off ....
>
> > JB
>
> will that be before Aug 2006?
Stop hassling the "Sensor Sensei" ... Grin. (I bet it really gets you going that
Steve got a connect4 bot into his pic. No, more seriously I think we all want to
know as soon as people are allowed to tell.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,69946-1.html
This is pretty darn cool news. Wonder if my MS 1.0 sets are going to have
antique value soon?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Ram Meenakshisundaram wrote:
>
> How would you create a rover-based robot with just three motors? I want to
> design more complex rovers other than the two-wheeled plus caster designs.
> Something like the shrimp for instance. The old rcx allows you to connect
> multiple motors to the same port. Also, the motor port could be used for other
> sensors and powering other things as well...
So you parallel motors on the same port to do different things? As opposed to
using a single motor mechanically coupled to different things? Is this as a
result of a single motor not being powerful enough? Or because the two
paralleled motors are moving with respect to each other so mechanical
distribution from a single more powerful motor wouldn't do it?
JB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, John Barnes wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, Ram Meenakshisundaram wrote:
>
> >
> > How would you create a rover-based robot with just three motors? I want to
> > design more complex rovers other than the two-wheeled plus caster designs.
> > Something like the shrimp for instance. The old rcx allows you to connect
> > multiple motors to the same port. Also, the motor port could be used for other
> > sensors and powering other things as well...
>
> So you parallel motors on the same port to do different things? As opposed to
> using a single motor mechanically coupled to different things? Is this as a
> result of a single motor not being powerful enough? Or because the two
> paralleled motors are moving with respect to each other so mechanical
> distribution from a single more powerful motor wouldn't do it?
Or they are far enough apart or in a difficult arrangement so that a mechanical
link is impractical. (eg: moving WRT each other.)
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Ross Crawford wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, John Barnes wrote:
> > So you parallel motors on the same port to do different things? As opposed to
> > using a single motor mechanically coupled to different things? Is this as a
> > result of a single motor not being powerful enough? Or because the two
> > paralleled motors are moving with respect to each other so mechanical
> > distribution from a single more powerful motor wouldn't do it?
>
> Or they are far enough apart or in a difficult arrangement so that a mechanical
> link is impractical. (eg: moving WRT each other.)
Right. You cant always do things mechanically as it would complicate the design
and might be too far apart. Also, sometimes a single motor doesnt have enough
power, so doubling it up helps....
Ram
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Ram Meenakshisundaram wrote:
> The old rcx allows you to connect
> multiple motors to the same port. Also, the motor port could be used for other
> sensors and powering other things as well...
>
>
> Ram
I agree with this part of your statement. I'd like to be able to connect other
things besides motors to the outputs, and I've noticed that so far it appears as
if you won't be able to daisy chain things like touch sensors on the inputs.
That's something I've done many times with the current RCX. If we can get our
hands on some of those proprietary connectors, I'm sure we'll make a few goodies
like adapter cables and multiplexors first! ;)
-Rob
www.brickmodder.net
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 Jan 2006 23:48:14 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
William Grant <{tanarrifujitsu@optusnet.}Spamcake{com.au}>
|
Viewed:
|
7063 times
|
| |
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Rob Hendrix wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, Ram Meenakshisundaram wrote:
>
> > The old rcx allows you to connect multiple motors to the same
> > port. Also, the motor port could be used for other sensors and
> > powering other things as well...
> >
> >
> > Ram
>
>
> I agree with this part of your statement. I'd like to be able to
> connect other things besides motors to the outputs, and I've
> noticed that so far it appears as if you won't be able to daisy
> chain things like touch sensors on the inputs. That's something
> I've done many times with the current RCX. If we can get our hands
> on some of those proprietary connectors, I'm sure we'll make a few
> goodies like adapter cables and multiplexors first! ;)
>
> -Rob www.brickmodder.net
Those connectors aren't proprietary! They are common RJ11 phone
plugs/sockets!
They can be got at any electronics store, so they are much easier to
get than the previous ones. Is this Lego being nice to us so we can
easily make new devices to connect to the NXT?
William.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDvwG9Gr2rfWFeutsRAj2lAJ4gFQ2Y4JEdCDBJighwkAzSykfN+wCfQGbv
cKeDUNZ386Nefs70ILoNAY4=
=XXuU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, William Grant <tanarrifujitsu@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Those connectors aren't proprietary! They are common RJ11 phone
> plugs/sockets!
>
> They can be got at any electronics store, so they are much easier to
> get than the previous ones. Is this Lego being nice to us so we can
> easily make new devices to connect to the NXT?
Can you possibly go visit one of these stores, confirm that the necessary offset
latch is on the correct side and provide us with part numbers. This is really
important information!
JB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, John Barnes wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, William Grant <tanarrifujitsu@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Those connectors aren't proprietary! They are common RJ11 phone
> > plugs/sockets!
> >
> > They can be got at any electronics store, so they are much easier to
> > get than the previous ones. Is this Lego being nice to us so we can
> > easily make new devices to connect to the NXT?
>
> Can you possibly go visit one of these stores, confirm that the necessary offset
> latch is on the correct side and provide us with part numbers. This is really
> important information!
>
> JB
I posted this information earlier:
http://news.lugnet.com/robotics/?n=24888
Mark
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> I posted this information earlier:
> http://news.lugnet.com/robotics/?n=24888
>
> Mark
Here is a sample of the DEC RJ12 connector:
http://www.rpelectronics.com/Data/100-306-10.JPG
Looks like the same connection.
-Rob A>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Rob Antonishen <rob.antonishen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I posted this information earlier:
> > http://news.lugnet.com/robotics/?n=24888
> >
> > Mark
>
>
>
> Here is a sample of the DEC RJ12 connector:
>
> http://www.rpelectronics.com/Data/100-306-10.JPG
>
> Looks like the same connection.
Except the new Lego connector has the latch on the opposite side I think.
JB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"John Barnes" <barnes@sensors.com> wrote in message
news:Isr07J.1rvn@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.robotics, Rob Antonishen <rob.antonishen@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I posted this information earlier:
> > > http://news.lugnet.com/robotics/?n=24888
> > >
> > > Mark
> >
> >
> >
> > Here is a sample of the DEC RJ12 connector:
> >
> > http://www.rpelectronics.com/Data/100-306-10.JPG
> >
> > Looks like the same connection.
>
>
> Except the new Lego connector has the latch on the opposite side I think.
>
> JB
I'm with JB on this one. The press release photos (unless they are
backwards!!) clearly show that clip being on the opposite side.
-Rob
www.brickmodder.net
JB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, Rob Hendrix wrote:
> "John Barnes" <barnes@sensors.com> wrote in message
> news:Isr07J.1rvn@lugnet.com...
> > In lugnet.robotics, Rob Antonishen <rob.antonishen@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I posted this information earlier:
> > > > http://news.lugnet.com/robotics/?n=24888
> > > >
> > > > Mark
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Here is a sample of the DEC RJ12 connector:
> > >
> > > http://www.rpelectronics.com/Data/100-306-10.JPG
> > >
> > > Looks like the same connection.
> >
> >
> > Except the new Lego connector has the latch on the opposite side I think.
> >
> > JB
>
> I'm with JB on this one. The press release photos (unless they are
> backwards!!) clearly show that clip being on the opposite side.
>
> -Rob
> www.brickmodder.net
>
> JB
On brightening up a picture looking into the ports, I see you're right about
where the connector key is. Looking on Google, I found that other people cut
the key off normal RJ12 connectors in order to use them with RJ12 DEC MMJ
sockets: http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Text-Terminal-HOWTO-11.html#rj_conn
I also found that unkeyed RJ12 plugs are available:
http://www.cxtec.com/products/item_detail.php?mfg_id=66&manufacturer_part=5-555042-3
. Looks like this might be the way for us to go when making up our own leads.
We'll have to watch the pin-outs though, and whether just one pair of wires is
reversed in the protocol etc...
Looking at a PDF of these plugs, it seems that there's a standard key shape that
could theoretically be moved to any position sideways. Also, I found at least
one site where people make rubber surrounds for these connectors - perhaps
someone else makes custom plugs too?
Mark
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Sat, 7 Jan 2006 00:56:29 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
William Grant <tanarrifujitsu@optusnet.com^Spamless^.au>
|
Viewed:
|
7031 times
|
| |
|
William Grant wrote:
> Rob Hendrix wrote:
>
>
> > > In lugnet.robotics, Ram Meenakshisundaram wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > The old rcx allows you to connect multiple motors to the same
> > > > port. Also, the motor port could be used for other sensors and
> > > > powering other things as well...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ram
> > >
> > >
> > > I agree with this part of your statement. I'd like to be able to
> > > connect other things besides motors to the outputs, and I've
> > > noticed that so far it appears as if you won't be able to daisy
> > > chain things like touch sensors on the inputs. That's something
> > > I've done many times with the current RCX. If we can get our hands
> > > on some of those proprietary connectors, I'm sure we'll make a few
> > > goodies like adapter cables and multiplexors first! ;)
> > >
> > > -Rob www.brickmodder.net
>
>
> Those connectors aren't proprietary! They are common RJ11 phone
> plugs/sockets!
>
> They can be got at any electronics store, so they are much easier to
> get than the previous ones. Is this Lego being nice to us so we can
> easily make new devices to connect to the NXT?
>
> William.
Well, I stand corrected. They look just like RJ11, yet they are not.
Oops. >_<
William.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Sat, 7 Jan 2006 02:42:18 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Ignacio Martinez Vazquez <ignamv@gmail.comNOMORESPAM>
|
Viewed:
|
7186 times
|
| |
|
I bet they are regular motors, but the NXT senses back EMF to know how
fast the motor is going. I wonder why they are so bulky, then...
Also, stupid request: I hope the buttons on the NXT don´t take too
much strength, because I don´t want to tear the robot apart to start a
program.
Also, doesn´t it seem like LEGO is trying to make it harder to
homebrew stuff, while they are actually turning to a standard
connector?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Sat, 7 Jan 2006 02:45:30 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Ignacio Martinez Vazquez <ignamv@gmail.com^Spamcake^>
|
Viewed:
|
7167 times
|
| |
|
Umm sorry, I gotta work on my writing. Disregard the repetition of "also".
Also :P, I wonder how long till they make a C language for NXT. I
think there´s a thread on this I haven´t read.
On 1/6/06, Ignacio Martinez Vazquez <ignamv@gmail.com> wrote:
> I bet they are regular motors, but the NXT senses back EMF to know how
> fast the motor is going. I wonder why they are so bulky, then...
> Also, stupid request: I hope the buttons on the NXT don´t take too
> much strength, because I don´t want to tear the robot apart to start a
> program.
> Also, doesn´t it seem like LEGO is trying to make it harder to
> homebrew stuff, while they are actually turning to a standard
> connector?
>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> Those connectors aren't proprietary! They are common RJ11 phone
> plugs/sockets!
>
> They can be got at any electronics store, so they are much easier to
> get than the previous ones. Is this Lego being nice to us so we can
> easily make new devices to connect to the NXT?
Wrong. They are not RJ11.
They appear to be RJ12 (with 6 wires) with an offset catch thing
Someone said they might be the same as an old DEC connector but someone
else has said that the DEC connector has the catch on the opposite side to
the mindstorms NXT.
I suspect they didnt go with normal RJ11/12 because, if someone plugged a
phone cable into it, bad things could happen to the NXT brick, whatever is
at the other end of the phone cable or the person who plugged it in.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jan 2006 22:20:17 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
"Simon Bogaert" <simon.bogaert@advalvas.be>
|
Viewed:
|
6888 times
|
| |
|
Well, 3 motors/output ports never were enough... (at least, when the bot
wasn't big enough for multiple RCX's, or if you don't own more than one) I
guess that's something that won't change easily... :) Off course, there's
all sorts of workarounds to this problem, but there's a point when you
definitely NEED more than three motors.
Also, with these new connectors, you cannot easily piggyback a second motor
off of the same output port, making it impossible to use two motors for the
same purpose; propulsion, for instance... So I guess we all would like to
see some way to connect more than one motor to an output port, even if this
means you don't have monitoring.
One more question: will the USB connection have a host function, like you
see in various handheld applisances? This way, the NXT could control stuff
over USB...
Regards, Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Barnes" <barnes@sensors.com>
> But, I am very interested by your multiple motor question however. Why do
> you
> need to connect multiple motors?
>
> JB
>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Simon Bogaert wrote:
>
> Also, with these new connectors, you cannot easily piggyback a second motor
> off of the same output port, making it impossible to use two motors for the
> same purpose; propulsion, for instance... So I guess we all would like to
> see some way to connect more than one motor to an output port, even if this
> means you don't have monitoring.
If you look at the picture of the new motor, you may notice that the orange disk
with the cross axle hole in the center appears to be a single piece with four
pin holes in addition. This might give the impression that the available torque
may be high enough to endanger the integrity of a single cross axle if it were
the only torque transfer structure.
JB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, John Barnes wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, Simon Bogaert wrote:
> >
> > Also, with these new connectors, you cannot easily piggyback a second motor
> > off of the same output port, making it impossible to use two motors for the
> > same purpose; propulsion, for instance... So I guess we all would like to
> > see some way to connect more than one motor to an output port, even if this
> > means you don't have monitoring.
>
>
> If you look at the picture of the new motor, you may notice that the orange disk
> with the cross axle hole in the center appears to be a single piece with four
> pin holes in addition. This might give the impression that the available torque
> may be high enough to endanger the integrity of a single cross axle if it were
> the only torque transfer structure.
Sure, but that's only a benefit if you're attaching it direct to shatever needs
the high torque. If you need some kind of transmission (which will probably be
often with such big motors) the advantage is lost.
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Ross Crawford wrote:
> Sure, but that's only a benefit if you're attaching it direct to shatever needs
> the high torque. If you need some kind of transmission (which will probably be
> often with such big motors) the advantage is lost.
This is, of course, true. However, I would point out the general construction of
rear engined race cars typically include the transmission and engine as a single
unit which also forms part of the vehicle structure. With the apparent
improvement in the available attachment points as seen in the pictures, the new
motor may also serve as the structural wheel attachment element.
JB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 Jan 2006 15:00:03 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
"Simon Bogaert" <simon.bogaert@advalvas.be>
|
Viewed:
|
7115 times
|
| |
|
Personally, I think of the four extra "technics" holes as an added plus, not
exactly a necessity... But then again, I'm not as seasoned a builder as you
all are... :)
Now, when you're talking car-like vehicles, I'd like to point some issues.
First of all, since you can 't piggyback two motors on the same output port,
you'll have to use a differential of some kind if you want 2 wheels for
propulsion. Out goes the advantage of a direct-wheel connection. Should
you want to use two motors directly connected to a wheel, you'll have to use
two ouput ports, leaving no ports to do something sensible with. (because
we're talking cars, you'll need a third motor for steering ;-) Differences
in speed between both motors should be correctable, though, for all new
style motors sport a rotational sensor. Last point: what about independent
suspension? I wouldn't like the idea of putting a motor so close to the
wheel/ground in an ATV...
Regards, Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Barnes"
> This is, of course, true. However, I would point out the general
> construction of
> rear engined race cars typically include the transmission and engine as a
> single
> unit which also forms part of the vehicle structure. With the apparent
> improvement in the available attachment points as seen in the pictures,
> the new
> motor may also serve as the structural wheel attachment element.
>
> JB
>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 Jan 2006 15:21:21 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
"Simon Bogaert" <simon.bogaert@advalvas.be>
|
Viewed:
|
7148 times
|
| |
|
That's what I've been asking before... ;)
Since USB is completely host-centric, a simple client device (such as the
lego nxt) cannot directly speak to another client device. You'd really need
a USB host, being most commonly a home computer. I know there are digital
cameras and cell phones which can connect directly to peripherals by USB,
AND can function as a client device, but those are exceptions. As Lego's on
a budget, I guess they opted for a far more simple USB chip, being a
client-only one. It is my guess the bluetooth interface is what tlg regards
as the one and only highway to other devices...
Regards, Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Spitz"
> Is there a possibility (I'm pretty sure there is) of using the NXT's USB
> port to connect the good old IR Tower? That could provide a straight
> forward
> compatibility. Imagine programing a swarm of RCXs from a central NXT rover
> with all the new sensor capabilities...
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, Ram Meenakshisundaram wrote:
> OK MUP members, spill the beans :-)
> We know who you are :-)
>
> How do you connect multiple motors now? Also, what type of processor is it,
> speed, and memory??
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ram
>
> PS: I REALLY WANT ONE!
If these lines are purely digital communication lines, adding additional motors
will be easy via a multiplexor attached to one of the RJ11 output. Building the
multiplexor (or any custom sensors) may not be as easy though. It looks like
you will need some sort of microcontroller in the sensor. Luckily PIC
programmers and the like are cheap now.
If you think about it, the seven RJ11 should not be any different from each
other. There is obviously two way communication going on over all seven jacks.
Why would they waste time making 2 or 3 different types of jacks if the same
things were going over them?
If all these ports are the same, it should be easy to hack the software to
attach motors to any port. However, 6 AA batteries is only enough to power
three motors... (and that's also why they would limit it)
Matthew C. Ruschmann
http://superpositioned.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I'm embarrassingly new to Mindstorms. My first Mindstorms system (RIS 2.0) was
purchased just two weeks ago. I'm still very much a novice. With that in
mind...I have a few observations/questions of my own:
1) I'm stunned by this announcement! After buying my RIS system and doing a
little more reading in the forums, I was utterly convinced that Lego had
abandoned the Mindstorms line. I regarded any posts to the contrary to be
pretty much wishful thinking. Turns out I was wrong. Well..mostly wrong. The
existing RIS/RCX system does appear to be abandoned, but Mindstorms lives on.
2) In addition to the desire for multiple motors on a single port, hasn't there
been some use found in the past for multiple sensors on a single port? For
instance, two touch sensors can be connected in parallel on RCX to create an
"OR" touch sensor. It appears that the NXT does not allow parallel connection
of sensors in this way. Perhaps an external multiplexer will be one of the
first things that the Mindstorms community creates, but it won't be as simple as
just plugging multiple ones in to a single port.
3) Although I should be more upset than anyone about the obsolescence RIS 2.0
(considering that I *just* paid $200 for one two weeks ago and it is now
official obsolete), I am cool with a new version being created that is
unencumbered by an attempt to be backward compatible. With all that being said,
I still think it would be cool to build robots that use both the RCX and the
NXT. I mean, if you've got the RCX and all those sensors, why not use them?
But, how would the two communicate? Since the NXT does not have IR and the RCX
does not have bluetooth...
4) I wonder what this will do to the price/availability of the existing RIS/RCX
systems and parts? On the one hand, prices could go up because parts will no
longer be available retail (not that they really were anyway). On the other
hand, many people could start dumping their RIS/RCX systems and parts in
preparation for buying NXT. Maybe I should consider dumping mine, considering
that it is "almost new" at this point. But, I don't think I will because I've
just gotten started on it and I'd like to do a lot of things with it before I
ever get around to buying NXT. In fact, I just might keep an eye out for cheap
RCX systems that others are dumping.
5) I wonder if there will be Technic parts kits made available specifically for
expanding NXT?
Mike
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Mike Walters wrote:
| |
2) In addition to the desire for multiple motors on a single port, hasn’t
there been some use found in the past for multiple sensors on a single port?
For instance, two touch sensors can be connected in parallel on RCX to create
an “OR” touch sensor. It appears that the NXT does not allow parallel
connection of sensors in this way. Perhaps an external multiplexer will be
one of the first things that the Mindstorms community creates, but it won’t be
as simple as just plugging multiple ones in to a single port.
|
My hope is that this is some sort of bus system which will allow someone
(possible LEGO itself) to make a “hub” which you could use for this. There are
three ways to do this:
- the hub could do the logic operations itself (perhaps with a switch on the unit to make it do AND or OR)
- each sensor could have a unique ID (like an ethernet MAC address) and you do the operation in software .. this one seems unlikely as it might be confusing for kids (it’s easier to identify things by where they’re connected rather than an arbitrary ID number .. and if a sensor died and you had to replace it, then you’d have to edit your program to reflect the change)
- each sensor could be identified by how it is connected (ie. if you had a two port hub on port 1, then the sensors could be 1.1 and 1.2 .. if you had another hub rather than a sensor in the second port on the hub, then you could end up with 1.2.1 and 1.2.2, etc.) and again you’d do the logic in software
I assume the motors are limited to three for power issues.. there’s only so many
milliamps to go around. (also, with the rotation sensor, how would you handle
conflicting rotation information from different motors??)
It would be cool to have an external unit with its own battery pack and motor
ports to supply extra motors. (It could be connected through the motor or
sensor ports, or through USB, or through bluetooth.. of course, for those
willing to spend a lot extra, you could probably use an extra NXT for this by
having a master NXT send commands to a slave NXT over bluetooth)
| |
3) Although I should be more upset than anyone about the obsolescence RIS 2.0
(considering that I *just* paid $200 for one two weeks ago and it is now
official obsolete), I am cool with a new version being created that is
unencumbered by an attempt to be backward compatible. With all that being
said, I still think it would be cool to build robots that use both the RCX and
the NXT. I mean, if you’ve got the RCX and all those sensors, why not use
them? But, how would the two communicate? Since the NXT does not have IR and
the RCX does not have bluetooth...
|
What I’d love to see would be an adaptor which would plug into one of the NXT
ports which would provide 2x2 electrical stud connectors for old parts. Some
for sensors, plus some others to drive motors, lights, etc. you could probably
also build one which would connect to the RCX in order to exchange data. (use
an RCX motor output to send data to the NXT, use a sensor port to receive data
from the NXT. or an IR unit, to avoid using up the RCX’s ports)
| |
5) I wonder if there will be Technic parts kits made available specifically
for expanding NXT?
|
There were some expansion packs for the RCX kits, so I’d certainly expect some
for the NXT. Plus, LEGO’s announcement mentions third party development, so
hopefully we’ll see some third party sensors and such as well. Perhaps the move
away from putting studs on the parts is to allow for third party parts.. LEGO
probably would authorize third parties to make brick-compatible ones (to protect
the public’s association between studded bricks and the LEGO brand) but a few
technic holes would be permissible, I’d think.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Timothy Carl Buchheim wrote:
| |
It would be cool to have an external unit with its own battery pack and motor
ports to supply extra motors. (It could be connected through the motor or
sensor ports, or through USB, or through bluetooth.. of course, for those
willing to spend a lot extra, you could probably use an extra NXT for this by
having a master NXT send commands to a slave NXT over bluetooth)
|
I was just thinking .. the rumors about this year’s trains are that they’ll be
remote controlled battery-powered units (probably so LEGO can use cheaper track
without the metal conductors) .. those would fit the bill exactly. Bluetooth
controllable battery packs capable of driving motors. That would be the best
way to handle both trains (for compatibility with existing train motors .. just
attach it to the studs normally used for attaching light bricks) and old technic
motors.
This is just speculation, of course. And if LEGO hadn’t already thought of
that.. well, go ahead and steal my idea. Please. :-)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Timothy Carl Buchheim wrote:
| |
In lugnet.robotics, Timothy Carl Buchheim wrote:
| |
It would be cool to have an external unit with its own battery pack and
motor ports to supply extra motors. (It could be connected through the
motor or sensor ports, or through USB, or through bluetooth.. of course,
for those willing to spend a lot extra, you could probably use an extra NXT
for this by having a master NXT send commands to a slave NXT over bluetooth)
|
I was just thinking .. the rumors about this year’s trains are that they’ll
be remote controlled battery-powered units (probably so LEGO can use cheaper
track without the metal conductors) .. those would fit the bill exactly.
Bluetooth controllable battery packs capable of driving motors. That would
be the best way to handle both trains (for compatibility with existing train
motors .. just attach it to the studs normally used for attaching light
bricks) and old technic motors.
This is just speculation, of course. And if LEGO hadn’t already thought of
that.. well, go ahead and steal my idea. Please. :-)
|
Well, I am pretty sure the control for the trains is IR. That’s what Jake said
and that is what the little black bump is on the side of the trains. I am sure
TLG will do their Manas type IR serial interface, with message packets at
different rep. rates with different address bits to accomplish a similar
multi-channel control thing.
JB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, Mike Walters wrote:
> 1) I'm stunned by this announcement!
Don't worry, that has nothing to do with you being new to all this - we all
are! Well, all but a luckey few...
> The existing RIS/RCX system does appear to be abandoned,
> but Mindstorms lives on.
I doubt it will be completely abandoned. After all, the first thing I want is
to kludge a way to interface a NXT with and RCX, and use all my existing stuff.
Even if LEGO makes it completely non-backwards-compatible, that doesn't mean we
(AFOLs) will let it stay that way! Second, I wonder if this means FLL will try
to switch. If so, great for the new product... if not, there will be at least
some continued support.
> It appears that the NXT does not allow parallel connection
> of sensors in this way.
Maybe, but that might just be a case of needing to make some connector blocks
for the sensor wires. It might come down to a question of if the NXT uses
digital or analog inputs, and we don't know yet.
> it won't be as simple as just plugging multiple ones in to a
> single port.
It could if they're analog. I fear we'll have to wait and see.
> I still think it would be cool to build robots that use both the
> RCX and the NXT. I mean, if you've got the RCX and all those sensors,
> why not use them?
Absolutely! I just hope the eBay market price drops so I can get RCXs cheaper
;-). That said, yeah, inter-brick communication is going to be a high priority
for me.
> I wonder if there will be Technic parts kits made available
> specifically for expanding NXT?
I have a theory on that - expanssion packs are called "everything that LEGO
produces ;-). Seriously, one place I'd love to see things headed is to LEGO
Factory NXT... oh, just the idea... :-).
--
Brian Davis
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On 1/5/06, Brian Davis wrote:
> I doubt it will be completely abandoned. After all, the first thing I want
> is
> to kludge a way to interface a NXT with and RCX, and use all my existing
> stuff.
> Even if LEGO makes it completely non-backwards-compatible, that doesn't mean
> we
> (AFOLs) will let it stay that way! Second, I wonder if this means FLL will try
> to switch. If so, great for the new product... if not, there will be at least
> some continued support.
I threw my name in as one of the 100 early testers (who here hasn't :)
and one of the questions was on FLL involvement, and a willingness to
write FLL documentation.
That leads me to think that they are definitely considering extending
the NXT to the FLL, though what that means to the schools with a large
investment already, I don't really know.
-Rob A>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Rob Antonishen <rob.antonishen@gmail.com> wrote:
> That leads me to think that they are definitely considering extending
> the NXT to the FLL, though what that means to the schools with a large
> investment already, I don't really know.
The NXT FAQ addresses this question - it says that both the RCX and NXT will
*both* be allowed in the 2006 FLL season. That should make for some very
interesting decisions and comparisions. It also suggests to me that along with
the MUPs we know, there must have been some input from the FLL folks.
--
Brian Davis
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Sun, 8 Jan 2006 03:26:38 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
dan miller <danbmil99@yahooNOMORESPAM.com>
|
Viewed:
|
7227 times
|
| |
|
If they're looking to the future, I would expect it to be a digital bus,
much like something my robo-club has been thinking about. It could be I2C
or CANN-based, or proprietary (unlikely). Six wires makes sense -- ground,
bi-directional signal (2 wires; or maybe differential signal + shared bus),
power for the controllers in the sensor/motors (5V regulated), power for
analog parts (motors, LED's, sonar, 9V unregulated), and one for good luck
(usually an extra ground for noise suppression).
If so, then the encoders would be digital too, and you could imagine
daisychaining (or star config with a muxer) multiple devices on a single
port. It would just be a software matter to address them individually, and
maybe some timing considerations.
I really hope this is the case, but then again it may have been too
expensive.
When do we find out?
--- Steve Hassenplug <Steve@TeamHassenplug.org> wrote:
> A friend Gabe is having a hard time posting to LUGNET, so he asked me to
> post this
> for him.
>
> His analysis may not be completely correct, because he says the motors are
> like
> servos with a built in rotation sensor. However, I think it's been said
> they can
> 'act like servos', because they are motors with a built in rotation
> sensor.
>
> Small difference.
>
> But, here's what Gabe said...
>
> --------------------------------- Original Message
> ---------------------------------
> From: "Gabriel Petrut" <gpetrut@yahoo.com>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> They are saying the motors are sero like with built in rotation sensor.
> Now for
> driving the servos you will need PPM, that is Pulse Proportional
> Modulation signal.
> That takes just one I/O from the controller, but the driver is built
> inside the
> servo.
> For DC motors you need to drive them through an H bridge, and you can
> have PWM
> signal to change speed (that's how it is done in RCX), but this takes 2
> I/O from the
> controller. And the driver is inside the RCX. With this method, it is easy
> to stack
> motors on the same port.
> You can do the same with servos, considering the fact that they get the
> power
> directly from the batteries. So, with just one I/O you can controll more
> that one
> servo, if they are connected in parralel. Usualy, when 2 servos are
> connected to
> work together, one has to have the signal inverted, so they have to use
> different
> I/Os.
> Regular quadrature encoders, use 2 I/O, one for chanel A and one for
> chanel B.
> Lego rotation sensors work almost the same way, but they transform the
> signal to
> voltage, so it can be used by the RCX.
> So, thinking about all I just sayed, I would say that the motor ports
> have the
> following wires:
> - power positive for servo (9V)
> - servo signal
> - power ground
> - channel A
> - channel B
> - power positive for encoder (5V)
> That be considered, I don't think one can connect 2 of these motors in
> parralel,
> because of encoder mixed signals. The motors can work in parralel, but not
> the
> encoders. However, if one makes a Y connector, which has the connections
> for the
> encoder only for one branch, 2 motors can be connected on the same port!
> For the sensors is different, because each sensor gives out a different
> signal.
> Remember it's digital, not analog. It all depends how much brain is
> incorporated
> into the sensor. I believe it's at least a PIC inside all sensors. The PIC
> may use
> up to 4 lines to send it's data to the NXT. If so, all ports may be
> identical, and
> they work like a bus, thus more than 4 sensors may be connected. If not,
> then each
> sensor has to have it's particular port to be connected to, which is
> unlikely.
> After all this rambling, I have to say that a sensor extender should be
> fairly
> easy to build. A motor extender, may be more problematic, because of the
> encoders.
> That's my humble opinion.
>
> Gabriel Petrut
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, dan miller <danbmil99@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If they're looking to the future, I would expect it to be a digital bus,
> much like something my robo-club has been thinking about. It could be I2C
> or CANN-based, or proprietary (unlikely). Six wires makes sense -- ground,
> bi-directional signal (2 wires; or maybe differential signal + shared bus),
> power for the controllers in the sensor/motors (5V regulated), power for
> analog parts (motors, LED's, sonar, 9V unregulated), and one for good luck
> (usually an extra ground for noise suppression).
>
> If so, then the encoders would be digital too, and you could imagine
> daisychaining (or star config with a muxer) multiple devices on a single
> port. It would just be a software matter to address them individually, and
> maybe some timing considerations.
>
> I really hope this is the case, but then again it may have been too
> expensive.
>
> When do we find out?
I just saw Lego's definiton of a servo motor. It resembles a industry servo, not
a hobby servo. In the hobby servo, the closed loop is done in the servo
electronics, but in the industry servo, the closed loop is done in the
controller. However, a digital bus would require that some "brain" to be
installed in the servos (like it is in the sensors). Also looking at the specs
for the NXT brick, one can see there are 2 controllers. A 32 bit ARM7 and a 8
bit controller. The latter one is probably the motor control unit. It's like
having 2 RCXs in one package: one takes care of the higher computations and the
other takes care of the motor control (one motor and one rotation sensor per
channel). This would reduce the price of the servos, by taking out the "brain"
from the servos and putting it in the NXT. But also this would make sharing one
port harder. Like I sayd in my previous post that Steve Hassenplug was so kind
to post it for me (thanks Steve!), 2 motors can share one port if only one
rotation sensor is in use. The power ussage of 2 motors running in parallel from
the same port would be similar to 2 motors running from the same port on an RCX,
which works fine. So it's all just making Y cables. But this works only in some
cases, not all. Oh well, we just have to wait and see...
Gabe
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Sun, 8 Jan 2006 20:42:35 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
dan miller <danbmil99@yahoo.!spamcake!com>
|
Viewed:
|
7270 times
|
| |
|
--- Titus Gabriel Petrut <gpetrut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I just saw Lego's definiton of a servo motor. It resembles a industry
> servo, not
> a hobby servo. In the hobby servo, the closed loop is done in the servo
> electronics, but in the industry servo, the closed loop is done in the
> controller. However, a digital bus would require that some "brain" to be
> installed in the servos (like it is in the sensors). Also looking at the
> specs
> for the NXT brick, one can see there are 2 controllers. A 32 bit ARM7 and
> a 8
> bit controller. The latter one is probably the motor control unit.
This all makes some sense, though it seems strange to put a digital board in
the servos, but not do the control there.
In any case, I think my first project will be to figure out how to use the
USB port to connect the NXT to a more powerful brain, like my iPaq. I know,
slave2slave USB is a nono; but I've heard that some low-level hacking can
turn USB ports into something closer to dumb, point-to-point connections
(completely non-USB compatible).
Another option would be bluetooth -- in fact that might be much more
elegant. Obviously in some cases, the computer could be ground-based, but I
like the iPaq idea because you can get flash-card cameras.
Just daydreaming here...
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, dan miller <danbmil99@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Titus Gabriel Petrut <gpetrut@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > I just saw Lego's definiton of a servo motor. It resembles a industry
> > servo, not
> > a hobby servo. In the hobby servo, the closed loop is done in the servo
> > electronics, but in the industry servo, the closed loop is done in the
> > controller. However, a digital bus would require that some "brain" to be
> > installed in the servos (like it is in the sensors). Also looking at the
> > specs
> > for the NXT brick, one can see there are 2 controllers. A 32 bit ARM7 and
> > a 8
> > bit controller. The latter one is probably the motor control unit.
>
> This all makes some sense, though it seems strange to put a digital board in
> the servos, but not do the control there.
>
> In any case, I think my first project will be to figure out how to use the
> USB port to connect the NXT to a more powerful brain, like my iPaq. I know,
> slave2slave USB is a nono; but I've heard that some low-level hacking can
> turn USB ports into something closer to dumb, point-to-point connections
> (completely non-USB compatible).
>
> Another option would be bluetooth -- in fact that might be much more
> elegant. Obviously in some cases, the computer could be ground-based, but I
> like the iPaq idea because you can get flash-card cameras.
>
> Just daydreaming here...
I was wondering if one could make a two port host device with its own power
source (battries). It could be relatively simple, where one host port polls the
device port of the NXT to find out if there is anything to do, and then the
second host port would drive that to devices that the NXT can use.
Just daydreaming here too.
Kev
>
>
>
> __________________________________________
> Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
> Just $16.99/mo. or less.
> dsl.yahoo.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
>
> I was wondering if one could make a two port host device with its own power
> source (battries). It could be relatively simple, where one host port polls the
> device port of the NXT to find out if there is anything to do, and then the
> second host port would drive that to devices that the NXT can use.
>
> Just daydreaming here too.
So you are saying you have a sort of mini-host acting as a bridge between
connected devices like a NXT and something else.
That sounds like an interesting idea .....
I think one of the reasons why hosts are tricky and devices are easier is that
USB is pretty much a standard from the device's view of it whereas from the host
end, there are numerous different devices which could show up and each requires
its own driver. So the little host bridge idea is probably very doable from a
hardware standpoint, but the amount of software it would need would be quite
large, typically consisting of a whole array of drivers for all the different
kinds of things that might get plugged in.
So for example, with the NXT plugged into bridge port A, anything from a USB
storage device to a data acquisition device even another NXT could be plugged
into port B. Somewhere, some really clever softare has to reside to be able to
negotiate between what's on port A and port B. I was wondering if this might be
the kind of thing that Windows CE might be able to be programmed to do. I assume
it has a whole raft of USB drivers, the same way XP/2000 has. Is there such a
thing as a Windows CE type platform that has USB? An external USB splitter and
some code sitting on top of the O/S USB drivers might make the kind of compact
device you are describing?
What do you think?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
John Barnes wrote:
I was wondering if this might be
> the kind of thing that Windows CE might be able to be programmed to do. I assume
> it has a whole raft of USB drivers, the same way XP/2000 has. Is there such a
> thing as a Windows CE type platform that has USB? An external USB splitter and
> some code sitting on top of the O/S USB drivers might make the kind of compact
> device you are describing?
I think I have one : )
It's an HP Jornada 820.
Runs CE from ROM, but people are busily hacking at getting Linux to run
on it. It's a nice little machine and I suspect the perfect device to
try this with. It's light enough to be haule around on a decent sized
bot and has very good battery life. IIRC it's got an ARM in it. Strong
Arm 1100?
-JSM
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, John Barnes wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> >
> > I was wondering if one could make a two port host device with its own power
> > source (battries). It could be relatively simple, where one host port polls the
> > device port of the NXT to find out if there is anything to do, and then the
> > second host port would drive that to devices that the NXT can use.
> >
> > Just daydreaming here too.
>
>
> So you are saying you have a sort of mini-host acting as a bridge between
> connected devices like a NXT and something else.
>
> That sounds like an interesting idea .....
Yes, this was what I was brainstorming of...
>
> I think one of the reasons why hosts are tricky and devices are easier is that
> USB is pretty much a standard from the device's view of it whereas from the host
> end, there are numerous different devices which could show up and each requires
> its own driver. So the little host bridge idea is probably very doable from a
> hardware standpoint, but the amount of software it would need would be quite
> large, typically consisting of a whole array of drivers for all the different
> kinds of things that might get plugged in.
Yes, this is very true. If you always used A for the NXT then you'd still need
device drivers for whatever is plugged into B.
>
> So for example, with the NXT plugged into bridge port A, anything from a USB
> storage device to a data acquisition device even another NXT could be plugged
> into port B. Somewhere, some really clever softare has to reside to be able to
> negotiate between what's on port A and port B. I was wondering if this might be
> the kind of thing that Windows CE might be able to be programmed to do. I assume
> it has a whole raft of USB drivers, the same way XP/2000 has. Is there such a
> thing as a Windows CE type platform that has USB? An external USB splitter and
> some code sitting on top of the O/S USB drivers might make the kind of compact
> device you are describing?
Yes, as long as the WindowsCE has host capabilities.
My WindowsCE phone only has USB device :^(
>
> What do you think?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Sun, 8 Jan 2006 03:27:49 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
dan miller <[danbmil99@]IHateSpam[yahoo.com]>
|
Viewed:
|
7225 times
|
| |
|
[apologies to Steve, I sent these to him instead of the list -- this is the
only list I'm on that puts the last poster's email in the 'reply to' field]
I've been playing with technics-dominated ideas for some time, but little
things like this always tripped me up.
Among other things, moving from studs to rivets can make for much sturdier
constructions. But it also allows you to make things that have a little
bounce or flex, by controlling the degrees of freedom you allow.
Along these lines, I'm hoping to post some pix (& an mpeg) of a new
creation, a 4-wheeler differential drive with a novel suspension system.
Last nite I amazed the wife by having it crawl over the lawn, up the berm of
our patio (about 2 inches), then over a bed of flat stones, gravel, and
rocks. The thing was unstoppable!
-dbm
--- Steve Hassenplug <Steve@TeamHassenplug.org> wrote:
> On Fri, January 6, 2006 11:16 am, Bob Kojima wrote:
> > I'm looking forward to stocking up on this new part:
> >
> > <<http://klickitat.fial.com/bob/lego/newpart.jpg>>
> >
> > it is so hard to do 90 degree studless conections. i hope this part • comes out
> > in sets before august. service pack.... pick a brick... just • dreaming....
> >
> > bob
>
>
> Ahhh. The power of listening.
>
> If you read the "wired" article, you'll know I made that piece. Well,
> actually, we
> made it.
>
> We (the MUPs) were quick to point out (exactly like you did) that it's
> very hard to
> do 90 degree studless connections (in the same plane). We were told there
> is no
> budget for making new pieces (beyond the NXT, sensors & motors).
>
> Imagine our suprise a short time later, when they showed us the piece.
>
> Given that it's now a "real" LEGO piece, I expect it will find its way
> into other sets.
>
> If you look close, you can see how using one or two of these pieces and a
> couple
> pins, there are MANY ways to connect beams together.
>
> They wouldn't have made that piece, if they weren't listening to us (MUPs
> & AFOLs).
>
> I've actually said this many times over the last year, but now everyone
> can see what
> I mean...
>
> They really are listening to us.
>
> Steve
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Generally looks pretty good, but there's a few issues.
Those motors are great as long as you don't want to bury them inside a model so
they're hidden. Think large cranes, backhoes, loaders, etc.
Lego should remember that robots aren't the only thing people build with
Mindstorms.
I also think the number of ports is still too low. 8 of each would be far more
realistic. Perhaps a MUX system using the new cables will be a new accessory.
Regards
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 Jan 2006 14:06:05 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Matthew Davidson <MATTHEW@BLANKnomorespam.ORG>
|
Viewed:
|
6919 times
|
| |
|
On Jan 6, 2006, at 4:47 AM, Gordon Bentley wrote:
> I also think the number of ports is still too low. 8 of each would
> be far more
> realistic. Perhaps a MUX system using the new cables will be a new
> accessory.
I suspect power is the primary limiting factor for 8 outputs. With
Bluetooth, another NXT is your port expansion, is it not? The
downside is bulk, but the entire package contains another power
source as well.
- matthew
http://www.stretta.com/~matthew
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Have you seen this video yet?
http://botmag.com/video/01-06_lego_mindstorms.wmv
Looks VERY cool indeed :-)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
I’m looking forward to stocking up on this new part:
it is so hard to do 90 degree studless conections. i hope this part comes out
in sets before august. service pack.... pick a brick... just dreaming....
bob
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Bob Kojima wrote:
> I'm looking forward to stocking up on this new part:
>
> <<http://klickitat.fial.com/bob/lego/newpart.jpg>>
>
> it is so hard to do 90 degree studless conections. i hope this part comes out
> in sets before august. service pack.... pick a brick... just dreaming....
>
>
> bob
There is also this related part
http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/44809
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
NXT Spec From
LEGO Service FAQ
• 32-bit ARM7 microprocessor
• 256 Kbytes FLASH, 64 Kbytes RAM
• 8-bit microprocessor
• 4 Kbytes FLASH, 512 Byte RAM
• Bluetooth wireless communication
• USB 2.0 port
• 4 input ports, 6 wire digital platform
• 3 output ports, 6 wire digital platform
• Dot matrix display 60 x 100 pixels
• Loudspeaker – 8 KHz sound quality
• Power, 6 AA Batteries
Some flash is nice but 64K RAM is just too little. We can forget about doing
voice processing.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Ka-On Lee wrote:
| |
Some flash is nice but 64K RAM is just too little. We can forget about doing
voice processing.
|
My thought exactly. Perfect opportunity to build an outboard speech recognition
device using new technology speech recognition chips hooked to the new digital
interface (whatever that turns out to be) to communicate recognition “hits” back
to the NXT CPU.
I tried it with the RCX, but the low quality of the then available off-the-shelf
recognition chip sets added to the difficulty of encoding the “hits” back to the
RCX made it an ungainly proposition. There are a few people out there with some
of my original prototypes, but it wasn’t something you’d make in quantity.
JB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Sat, 7 Jan 2006 03:33:35 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Chris 'Xenon' Hanson <XENON@3DNATUREspamcake.COM>
|
Viewed:
|
7856 times
|
| |
|
Ka-On Lee wrote:
> • 32-bit ARM7 microprocessor¬
> • 256 Kbytes FLASH, 64 Kbytes RAM¬
Niiice.
> • 8-bit microprocessor¬
> • 4 Kbytes FLASH, 512 Byte RAM¬
Interesting. I wonder if this is an H8? Maybe the NXT can emulate an RCX somehow?
Doesn't seem like that would be all that valuable. Maybe I'm reading too much into it.
--
Chris 'Xenon' Hanson | Xenon @ 3D Nature | http://www.3DNature.com/
"I set the wheels in motion, turn up all the machines, activate the programs,
and run behind the scenes. I set the clouds in motion, turn up light and sound,
activate the window, and watch the world go 'round." -Prime Mover, Rush.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Ka-On Lee wrote:
| |
NXT Spec From
LEGO Service FAQ
• 32-bit ARM7 microprocessor
• 256 Kbytes FLASH, 64 Kbytes RAM
• 8-bit microprocessor
• 4 Kbytes FLASH, 512 Byte RAM
• Bluetooth wireless communication
• USB 2.0 port
• 4 input ports, 6 wire digital platform
• 3 output ports, 6 wire digital platform
• Dot matrix display 60 x 100 pixels
• Loudspeaker – 8 KHz sound quality
• Power, 6 AA Batteries
Some flash is nice but 64K RAM is just too little. We can forget about doing
voice processing.
|
So- it’s a 32-bit processor and an 8-bit? With both 512 bytes and 64k bytes of
RAM?
Wonder who wrote that spec?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Sat, 7 Jan 2006 06:56:59 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
William Grant <tanarrifujitsu@optusnet.SPAMLESScom.au>
|
Viewed:
|
8126 times
|
| |
|
Ka-On Lee wrote:
> NXT Spec From
> <http://www.lego.com/eng/service/faqs.asp?section=ConsumerService-FAQ-Products&catid=E8D0CD47-16B8-4B2F-900C-8FC40C163598&faqid=17262#17262
> LEGO Service FAQ>
>
> • 32-bit ARM7 microprocessor¬
> • 256 Kbytes FLASH, 64 Kbytes RAM¬
> • 8-bit microprocessor¬
> • 4 Kbytes FLASH, 512 Byte RAM¬
> • Bluetooth wireless communication¬
> • USB 2.0 port¬
> • 4 input ports, 6 wire digital platform¬
> • 3 output ports, 6 wire digital platform¬
> • Dot matrix display 60 x 100 pixels¬
> • Loudspeaker – 8 KHz sound quality¬
> • Power, 6 AA Batteries¬
>
>
> Some flash is nice but 64K RAM is just too little. We can forget about doing
> voice processing.
64K RAM!? That's absolutely ludicrous! The RCX has 32kb entirely of
programmable memory (if I remember correctly), and that is just alright.
64kb is not much space to work in at all in this era!
Anyway, a dot-matrix display is nice, as is Bluetooth (especially as it
can communicate between robots), and should be significantly more
reliable than Infrared (albeit probably more power hungry).
William.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, William Grant tanarrifujitsu@optusnet.com.au wrote:
| |
Ka-On Lee wrote:
| |
NXT Spec From
LEGO Service FAQ
• 32-bit ARM7 microprocessor
• 256 Kbytes FLASH, 64 Kbytes RAM
• 8-bit microprocessor
• 4 Kbytes FLASH, 512 Byte RAM
Some flash is nice but 64K RAM is just too little. We can forget about doing
voice processing.
|
64K RAM!? That’s absolutely ludicrous! The RCX has 32kb entirely of
programmable memory (if I remember correctly), and that is just alright.
64kb is not much space to work in at all in this era!
|
Actually, 64K of RAM is quite a bit. You have to remember that with the RCX you
had 32K for everything. With the NXT all of the program code will go into
(and run directly from) the 256K of flash -- this includes things that take up
the most space: text, constant tables for state machines, etc.
The amount of RAM you need is very small. Micro-controllers I’ve used for custom
handhelds, engine controllers and transmission controllers (all real-world and
done in the last 2-3 years) have had at most 8K of RAM. As long as you have
enough flash and know how to make the most of it you can do a lot of really
interesting stuff.
All around this is a really big step up.
I’m curious if we’ll be able to use the 8-bit uC or if it is dedicated to
managing the motors and sensors (off loading basic driver functionality but not
being re-programmable).
Michael
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Michael Zapp wrote:
> Actually, 64K of RAM is quite a bit. You have to remember that with the RCX you
> had 32K for [everything]. With the NXT all of the program code will go into
> (and run directly from) the 256K of flash -- this includes things that take up
> the most space: text, constant tables for state machines, etc.
It depends where your ambitions lie.
If you want to analyse audio or video or map your environment somehow -
then 64Kb is pathetically small.
If all you want is something that's just a small step ahead of an RCX
then it's plenty.
Of course you should be able to treat Flash memory as writable (slowly)
backing store and page data in and out of RAM as you need to - but even
so, it's not a whole lot.
Let's look at some concrete examples:
VIDEO:
One frame of video from a cheap digital video camera might be 640x480
RGB pixels of three bytes each is almost a Megabyte. That's four times
the amount of flash memory in the NXT. Yes, you *could* use monochrome
or you *could* use lower resolutions - but this is the brand shiney new
machine for the future, accepting these kinds of restrictions seems
harsh. Plus, if you are doing motion detection or something, you'll
need more than one frame of data and lots of space for intermediate
steps in the calculations.
AUDIO:
If you are grabbing audio at (say) 12Khz for speech analysis - then
64Kb is six seconds of audio.
MAPPING:
If you are mapping a 30' x 30' room - and (say) you need a byte for
every square inch of the floor so you can map the position of chair
legs and such - then you've just eaten 128Kbytes right there.
So 64Kb (or even 256Kb + 64Kb) is pretty limiting for some of the
kinds of things a robot might want to do.
As a money-saving measure, keeping the amount of memory small makes
sense for Lego. But you can buy a 256 MEGABYTE USB flash drive for
$8.50. That's one thousand times more than the 256Kbytes that the NXT
has.
> The amount of RAM you need is very small. Micro-controllers I've used for custom
> handhelds, engine controllers and transmission controllers (all real-world and
> done in the last 2-3 years) have had at most 8K of RAM.
Sure - and I've built an entire telephone exchange in an Intel 8008 with
512 bytes of RAM and 4kb of ROM.
You can always find applications that don't need that much memory - but
that's not the question. The question is: Can you find useful and
important applications that are impossible with only 64Kb. I think
there are lots of those.
> As long as you have
> enough flash and know how to make the most of it you can do a lot of really
> interesting stuff.
Sure - *some* interesting stuff - but not video, audio or mapping.
> All around this is a really big step up.
Well, it's a step up - but not all that big.
> I'm curious if we'll be able to use the 8-bit uC or if it is dedicated to
> managing the motors and sensors (off loading basic driver functionality but not
> being re-programmable).
Probably it's dedicated - but even if it's not, given the microscopic
amount of flash and RAM that it has - and given that it's probably
100 times slower than the ARM7, it's hard to see what you'd gain by
messing with it.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, steve <sjbaker1@airmail.net> wrote:
> It depends where your ambitions lie.
Well, then let's hope there's some way we can increase the amount of memory
availible. I don't know about the hard-wired aspect of adding memory, but with
Bluetooth... anybody thinking about a Bluetooth external memory module? Perhaps
we can toss a Blackberry piggyback on the NXT for memory... or for that matter,
processing. It would seem to me for a community that reverse-engineered a much
less accesible device, the NXT may be turning us loose in the candy store...
after hours at that.
--
Brian Davis
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Hi Steve,
> > As long as you have
> > enough flash and know how to make the most of it you can do a lot of
> > really
> > interesting stuff.
>
> Sure - *some* interesting stuff - but not video, audio or mapping.
Not so sure about that. I would try to use the bluetooth link and let my
computer do the video, audio or mapping work. I did that kind of thing
with the RCX and the IR connection and it was a nightmare sometimes, it
only worked reliable with stationary robots ( i did a sorter with vision
command and a learning neural net, that worked fine, but a moving bot
lost connection all the time)
I imagine a seekbot that runs through my livingroom, saves his data with
bluetooth, can use 500MB of my notebook's RAM if it likes and... well,
in the moment I count my money and wait...
Regards,
Michael
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> Of course you should be able to treat Flash memory as writable (slowly)
> backing store and page data in and out of RAM as you need to - but even
> so, it's not a whole lot.
Not all flash ram is slow,
ferro flash ram (e.g. FRAM) has zero write cycle time.
Stef
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> > Of course you should be able to treat Flash memory as writable (slowly)
In the case of room mapping, would speed be so important? Isn't it it
in the ms range? (A lot compared to an instruction cycle, but good
enough for a moving bot)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> If you are mapping a 30' x 30' room - and (say) you need a byte for
> every square inch of the floor so you can map the position of chair
> legs and such
You could use a bit per square inch
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Ignacio Martinez Vazquez wrote:
> > If you are mapping a 30' x 30' room - and (say) you need a byte for
> > every square inch of the floor so you can map the position of chair
> > legs and such
>
> You could use a bit per square inch
You could - but I might want to store more than one bit of information
per square inch (eg a 'confidence' figure or a 'time since last mapped'
number - or to store multiple maps so I can see how the
map is changing over time).
The point is that having such an incredibly small amount of memory
(by modern standards) forces you into ugly compromise solutions from
your shiney new system from day #1.
If this system is going to be around for the same amount of time as
the RCX (what? nearly 10 years now?) - it ought not to look antiquated
from the very beginning.
You can buy Flash memory USB 'thumb drives' for $8.50 in quantity
with anywhere from 128Mbytes upwards. (Check out - for example
www.customflashsolutions.com - but even in one-off quantities,
128Mb flash drives can be bought for $14).
That's ONE THOUSAND TIMES more flash memory than the NXT is claimed
to have.
Dunno about you - but if I'm going to be paying over $250 for a
robotics system, I'd pay the extra $8 to get a thousand times
more memory.
I'm so horrified about this that I'm half convinced that this must
be a mis-print and that the NXT *surely* has 128Mb and not 128Kb.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, steve <sjbaker1@airmail.net> wrote:
> The point is that having such an incredibly small amount of memory
> (by modern standards) forces you into ugly compromise solutions from
> your shiney new system from day #1.
I'm curious - I'm a physicist, not by any means a hardware type. What *is* a
standard amount of on-board FLASH for a embedded system? The NXT uses some sort
of ARM processor (what the heck does that stand for anyway?) - how FLASH-rish do
these come? And how hard is it to mate such a CPU chip with another chip or two
of FLASH?
> If this system is going to be around for the same amount of time as
> the RCX (what? nearly 10 years now?) - it ought not to look antiquated
> from the very beginning.
Well, to be fair, the same could safely be said of the RCX. It had less RAM
ten years ago than my Apple ][ did more than 20 years ago!
> You can buy Flash memory USB 'thumb drives' for $8.50 in quantity
> with anywhere from 128Mbytes upwards.
How hard is it to interface a thumb drive with a device like the ARM? From
other discussion here the difference between slave and master USB devices seems
to be important. How much extra hardware or software do you need to make
something like the NXT a USB master device, so it could handle things like a
thumb drive?
> I'm so horrified about this that I'm half convinced that this must
> be a mis-print and that the NXT *surely* has 128Mb and not 128Kb.
With Bluetooth at least we'll have access to potentially a whole computer's
worth of memory (at a slower rate? I really need to learn about Bluetooth).
--
Brian Davis
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, Brian Davis wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, steve <sjbaker1@airmail.net> wrote:
>
> > The point is that having such an incredibly small amount of memory
> > (by modern standards) forces you into ugly compromise solutions from
> > your shiney new system from day #1.
>
> I'm curious - I'm a physicist, not by any means a hardware type. What *is* a
> standard amount of on-board FLASH for a embedded system?
Since I'm an engineer, I will give you the standard engineering answer:
Depends on the requirements! :-)
> The NXT uses some sort
> of ARM processor (what the heck does that stand for anyway?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture
http://www.arm.com
The ARM architecture has been around for years and has been a very effective
RISC based embeddded CPU core. That Wiki article does a good job explaining the
history and the various implementations of the ARM core (ARM7 is the NXT but I
have no idea which version of ARM7 it is, I can guess from the specs but it
would be nice to know the EXACT chip).
I haven't compiled anything for ARM in quite sometime (as many of stated, you
can probably develop a cross environment to natively build ARM7 code).
> - how FLASH-rish do
> these come? And how hard is it to mate such a CPU chip with another chip or two
> of FLASH?
Straightforward usually.
> How hard is it to interface a thumb drive with a device like the ARM? From
> other discussion here the difference between slave and master USB devices seems
> to be important. How much extra hardware or software do you need to make
> something like the NXT a USB master device, so it could handle things like a
> thumb drive?
Impossible I believe or at least the part of making it a host device (master).
> With Bluetooth at least we'll have access to potentially a whole computer's
> worth of memory (at a slower rate? I really need to learn about Bluetooth).
Yeah, this seems like the best route! (same here when it comes to Bluetooth)
-aps
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
pisymbol wrote:
> The ARM architecture has been around for years and has been a very effective
> RISC based embeddded CPU core. That Wiki article does a good job explaining the
> history and the various implementations of the ARM core (ARM7 is the NXT but I
> have no idea which version of ARM7 it is, I can guess from the specs but it
> would be nice to know the EXACT chip).
I would be inclined to guess that the ARM is just the CPU core
implemented in the same chip as all the other stuff the NXT uses.
One of the huge reasons for picking the ARM is that it's very well
suited to being integrated into the same chip as a bunch of other
stuff.
> I haven't compiled anything for ARM in quite sometime (as many of stated, you
> can probably develop a cross environment to natively build ARM7 code).
That much is very easy. The GNU C and C++ compilers have back-ends for
the ARM and there are LOTS of people doing all sorts of things on ARM
devices so there is plenty of expertise out there.
For example, there are people porting Linux onto the GameBoy Advance
and the Nintendo DS...so you just KNOW there is a ton of freebie stuff
out there for this CPU.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, steve <sjbaker1@airmail.net> wrote:
> pisymbol wrote:
>
> > The ARM architecture has been around for years and has been a very effective
> > RISC based embeddded CPU core. That Wiki article does a good job explaining the
> > history and the various implementations of the ARM core (ARM7 is the NXT but I
> > have no idea which version of ARM7 it is, I can guess from the specs but it
> > would be nice to know the EXACT chip).
>
> I would be inclined to guess that the ARM is just the CPU core
> implemented in the same chip as all the other stuff the NXT uses.
Right but that's not what I'm really asking! :-)! I'm sure its a variation of an ARM7 chip which will implement the standard ARM ISA. However, with any ARM7 implementation it can be catered to a specific applications. From the ARM website:
"The ARMv7 architecture defines three distinct processor profiles: the A profile
for sophisticated, virtual memory-based OS and user applications; the R profile
for real-time systems; and the M profile optimized for microcontroller and
low-cost applications.
All ARMv7 architecture profiles implement ® technology which is built on the
foundation of the ARM industry-leading Thumb code compression technology, while
retaining complete code compatibility with existing ARM solutions. The ARMv7
architecture also includes the ™ technology extensions to increase DSP and media
processing throughput by up to 400 percent, and offers improved floating point
support to address the needs of next generation 3D graphics and games physics,
as well as traditional embedded control applications."
Source: http://www.arm.com/products/CPUs/architecture.html
So for example, is the NXT chip capable of SIMD? I suspect it is since the NXT FAQ talks about playing music. What about Jazelle? I know someone asked about using Java with the NXT (a nice idea from the programmers standpoint). I know the J2ME KVM can be as small as 128K.
> One of the huge reasons for picking the ARM is that it's very well
> suited to being integrated into the same chip as a bunch of other
> stuff.
>
> > I haven't compiled anything for ARM in quite sometime (as many of stated, you
> > can probably develop a cross environment to natively build ARM7 code).
>
> That much is very easy. The GNU C and C++ compilers have back-ends for
> the ARM and there are LOTS of people doing all sorts of things on ARM
> devices so there is plenty of expertise out there.
>
> For example, there are people porting Linux onto the GameBoy Advance
> and the Nintendo DS...so you just KNOW there is a ton of freebie stuff
> out there for this CPU.
Oh no doubt Steve. In fact, someone stated that historically ARM was "hard" to
program for and I have to disagree. One of the advantages of ARM is its
simplistic ISA. Since its RISC (in the classical sense), its ISA is already
straightforward to use, i.e. there aren't half a dozen instructions that can
yield the same result like x86 and each instruction has the same basic format.
Moreover, since these are embedded chips, their execution units are very simple.
I think the ARM7 has a simple classic 3-stage pipeline (Fetch, Decode, Execute).
This makes it easier on the compiler guys to generate streamlined assembly
unlike Intel which at this point has made assembly look like Java byte code!
The first order of business for the NXT is to have some kind of sane cross or
toolchain environment that people could download and use.
-aps
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
pisymbol wrote:
> So for example, is the NXT chip capable of SIMD? I suspect it is since the
> NXT FAQ talks about playing music.
You can play music quite easily without SIMD.
> What about Jazelle? I know someone asked about using Java with the
> NXT (a nice idea from the programmers standpoint). I know the J2ME KVM
> can be as small as 128K.
Well, you can run Java on an RCX...
http://lejos.sourceforge.net/
...so you certainly have the capacity to do so on the NXT.
> In fact, someone stated that historically ARM was "hard" to
> program for and I have to disagree.
I said that RISC machines (in general) are harder to program in
machine code. The ARM is as easy as any other processor to program
in high level languages.
> The first order of business for the NXT is to have some kind of sane cross or
> toolchain environment that people could download and use.
That's gonna happen VERY quickly if Lego let us get into the machine
at the machine code level as they did with the RCX. There is already
a complete OpenSourced tool chain for the ARM in the form of the GNU
gcc/g++ compilers and libraries.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, steve sjbaker1@airmail.net wrote:
| |
pisymbol wrote:
| |
So for example, is the NXT chip capable of SIMD? I suspect it is since the
NXT FAQ talks about playing music.
|
You can play music quite easily without SIMD.
| |
What about Jazelle? I know someone asked about using Java with the
NXT (a nice idea from the programmers standpoint). I know the J2ME KVM
can be as small as 128K.
|
Well, you can run Java on an RCX...
http://lejos.sourceforge.net/
...so you certainly have the capacity to do so on the NXT.
| |
In fact, someone stated that historically ARM was “hard” to
program for and I have to disagree.
|
I said that RISC machines (in general) are harder to program in
machine code. The ARM is as easy as any other processor to program
in high level languages.
|
Do you mean machine code (binary) or assembly language? I first learned assembly
language programming on a MIPS chip (RISC). I’ve also done it on a Motorola
68HC11 (a microcontroller), and I’ve written both pure machine code and assembly
language for the Intel 8086. I much prefer the MIPS processor, followed by the
68HC11, and dead last is any Intel x86 chip. Bleah.
For machine code, pretty much any chip is “hard” to program.
| |
| |
The first order of business for the NXT is to have some kind of sane cross or
toolchain environment that people could download and use.
|
That’s gonna happen VERY quickly if Lego let us get into the machine
at the machine code level as they did with the RCX. There is already
a complete OpenSourced tool chain for the ARM in the form of the GNU
gcc/g++ compilers and libraries.
|
I fully expect they will, since they released the LASM documentation (RCX
firmware bytecodes) with the Mindstorms SDK.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Jordan Bradford wrote:
| |
| |
I said that RISC machines (in general) are harder to program in
machine code. The ARM is as easy as any other processor to program
in high level languages.
|
Do you mean machine code (binary) or assembly language?
|
There the same.
| |
I first learned
assembly language programming on a MIPS chip (RISC). I’ve also done it on a
Motorola 68HC11 (a microcontroller), and I’ve written both pure machine code
and assembly language for the Intel 8086. I much prefer the MIPS processor,
followed by the 68HC11, and dead last is any Intel x86 chip. Bleah.
For machine code, pretty much any chip is “hard” to program.
|
I guess my last post didn’t make it.
Fundamentally, Steve is correct that RISC is typically more complex to program
since it uses less general purpose registers and more complex instructions (it
tries to do more per clock tic than CISC).
However, these days, the lines between CISC and RISC are pretty much gone
(Intel’s execution unit is RISC based converting the assembly you write into
micro-ops). Moreover, both ARM and MIPS are extrememly well documented and
understood so as many have stated, programming even at the assembly level is not
hard. The real issue with assembly is typically the hand building of the final
binary (with custom linker layout files which can get real complicated depending
on the architecture and complexity of the program).
-aps
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Alexander Sack wrote:
| |
In lugnet.robotics, Jordan Bradford wrote:
| |
| |
I said that RISC machines (in general) are harder to program in
machine code. The ARM is as easy as any other processor to program
in high level languages.
|
Do you mean machine code (binary) or assembly language?
|
There the same.
|
Obviously you’ve not coded in machine language, or you’d know they are not.
| |
| |
I first learned
assembly language programming on a MIPS chip (RISC). I’ve also done it on a
Motorola 68HC11 (a microcontroller), and I’ve written both pure machine code
and assembly language for the Intel 8086. I much prefer the MIPS
processor, followed by the 68HC11, and dead last is any Intel x86 chip.
Bleah.
For machine code, pretty much any chip is “hard” to program.
|
I guess my last post didn’t make it.
Fundamentally, Steve is correct that RISC is typically more complex to
program since it uses less general purpose registers and more complex
instructions (it tries to do more per clock tic than CISC).
|
You misunderstand RISC and CISC. CISC instructions often combine data memory
references with arithmetic, logical, or brach capabilities. RISC machines do
not. RISC instructions try to do *less* per clock tick, thus the instructions
take less logic, and can run *faster*.
Typically RISC instructions are simpler than CISC instructions. Often RISC
architectures separate memory related instructions from arithemtic, logical,
branch or other miscelaneous instructions. RISC machines typically have many
more registers than a CISC machine. The SPARC machines that Sun makes (RISC)
gives you 31 general purpose registers which can be used for address or data.
Compare this with the 68000 CISC where you get 8 address and 8 data.
The reason that folks think RISC is more complex to program is that it typically
takes a few RISC instructios to emulate a CISC instruction. I don’t find it
more or less difficult, just different. I’ve done assembly on 8080, 8085, 8086,
80286, IMB 360, IBM370, IBM 390, 6502, 6800, 6811, 68000(all CISC), as well as
SPARC, and soon to be ARM7 (RISC). I find the orthoginality of RISC instruction
sets much nicer than the redundancy of CISC machines. Having worked on
simulation of future CISC and RISC products from the gates up, I find RISC a
much better machine design.
I’ve programmed a bit of machine code on IBM 370. What a pain.
| |
However, these days, the lines between CISC and RISC are pretty much gone
(Intel’s execution unit is RISC based converting the assembly you write into
micro-ops). Moreover, both ARM and MIPS are extrememly well documented and
understood so as many have stated, programming even at the assembly level is
not hard. The real issue with assembly is typically the hand building of the
final binary (with custom linker layout files which can get real complicated
depending on the architecture and complexity of the program).
|
In most cases the toolsets are easy to come by these days thanks in large part
to GNU.
Kev
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
| |
In lugnet.robotics, Alexander Sack wrote:
| |
In lugnet.robotics, Jordan Bradford wrote:
| |
| |
I said that RISC machines (in general) are harder to program in
machine code. The ARM is as easy as any other processor to program
in high level languages.
|
Do you mean machine code (binary) or assembly language?
|
There the same.
|
Obviously you’ve not coded in machine language, or you’d know they are not.
|
If you are talking about the actual 1’s and 0’s that represent machine code then
you are correct and I misinterpreted your last post, i.e. the binary. When
people speak of binaries they are usually referring to something like an
executable binary such as ELF or COFF. I saw “high-level language” and short
circuited.
Yes, I have never coded at the machine code level and pray I never have too.
| |
| |
| |
I first learned
assembly language programming on a MIPS chip (RISC). I’ve also done it on a
Motorola 68HC11 (a microcontroller), and I’ve written both pure machine
code and assembly language for the Intel 8086. I much prefer the MIPS
processor, followed by the 68HC11, and dead last is any Intel x86 chip.
Bleah.
For machine code, pretty much any chip is “hard” to program.
|
I guess my last post didn’t make it.
Fundamentally, Steve is correct that RISC is typically more complex to
program since it uses less general purpose registers and more complex
instructions (it tries to do more per clock tic than CISC).
|
You misunderstand RISC and CISC. CISC instructions often combine data memory
references with arithmetic, logical, or brach capabilities. RISC machines do
not. RISC instructions try to do *less* per clock tick, thus the
instructions take less logic, and can run *faster*.
Typically RISC instructions are simpler than CISC instructions. Often RISC
architectures separate memory related instructions from arithemtic, logical,
branch or other miscelaneous instructions. RISC machines typically have many
more registers than a CISC machine. The SPARC machines that Sun makes (RISC)
gives you 31 general purpose registers which can be used for address or data.
Compare this with the 68000 CISC where you get 8 address and 8 data.
|
Yup I switched them. My bad, that’s correct. RISC needs to have more general
purpose registers to make up for the lack of complex instruction types on CISC.
Thanks for the review.
| |
The reason that folks think RISC is more complex to program is that it
typically takes a few RISC instructios to emulate a CISC instruction. I
don’t find it more or less difficult, just different. I’ve done assembly on
8080, 8085, 8086, 80286, IMB 360, IBM370, IBM 390, 6502, 6800, 6811,
68000(all CISC), as well as SPARC, and soon to be ARM7 (RISC). I find the
orthoginality of RISC instruction sets much nicer than the redundancy of CISC
machines. Having worked on simulation of future CISC and RISC products from
the gates up, I find RISC a much better machine design.
|
I think its all personal preference at this point. Like I said, the lines
between RISC and CISC are much less than they use to be.
-aps
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Alexander Sack wrote:
| |
In lugnet.robotics, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
| |
In lugnet.robotics, Alexander Sack wrote:
| |
In lugnet.robotics, Jordan Bradford wrote:
| |
| |
I said that RISC machines (in general) are harder to program in
machine code. The ARM is as easy as any other processor to program
in high level languages.
|
Do you mean machine code (binary) or assembly language?
|
There the same.
|
Obviously you’ve not coded in machine language, or you’d know they are not.
|
If you are talking about the actual 1’s and 0’s that represent machine code
then you are correct and I misinterpreted your last post, i.e. the binary.
When people speak of binaries they are usually referring to something like an
executable binary such as ELF or COFF. I saw “high-level language” and short
circuited.
Yes, I have never coded at the machine code level and pray I never have too.
|
Now you’re talkin! I’ve never really done more than a half dozen instructions,
unless it was a homework problem waaaaaaaay (and I really mean waaaaaaaay ;^)
back in college.
| |
| |
| |
| |
I first learned
assembly language programming on a MIPS chip (RISC). I’ve also done it on
a Motorola 68HC11 (a microcontroller), and I’ve written both pure machine
code and assembly language for the Intel 8086. I much prefer the MIPS
processor, followed by the 68HC11, and dead last is any Intel x86 chip.
Bleah.
For machine code, pretty much any chip is “hard” to program.
|
I guess my last post didn’t make it.
Fundamentally, Steve is correct that RISC is typically more complex to
program since it uses less general purpose registers and more complex
instructions (it tries to do more per clock tic than CISC).
|
You misunderstand RISC and CISC. CISC instructions often combine data
memory references with arithmetic, logical, or brach capabilities. RISC
machines do not. RISC instructions try to do *less* per clock tick, thus
the instructions take less logic, and can run *faster*.
Typically RISC instructions are simpler than CISC instructions. Often RISC
architectures separate memory related instructions from arithemtic, logical,
branch or other miscelaneous instructions. RISC machines typically have
many more registers than a CISC machine. The SPARC machines that Sun makes
(RISC) gives you 31 general purpose registers which can be used for address
or data. Compare this with the 68000 CISC where you get 8 address and 8
data.
|
Yup I switched them. My bad, that’s correct. RISC needs to have more
general purpose registers to make up for the lack of complex instruction
types on CISC. Thanks for the review.
|
I guess this is what CISC proponents say. I don’t know that I agree. I think
that no matter the architecture type *more* is better! Register access is
orders of magnitudes faster than memory access, so less memory access are
better.
Register access time halves every two years, yet DRAM access times halve every
six years. Memory is painfully slow these days.... but now I’m *really* off
topic!
| |
| |
The reason that folks think RISC is more complex to program is that it
typically takes a few RISC instructios to emulate a CISC instruction. I
don’t find it more or less difficult, just different. I’ve done assembly on
8080, 8085, 8086, 80286, IMB 360, IBM370, IBM 390, 6502, 6800, 6811,
68000(all CISC), as well as SPARC, and soon to be ARM7 (RISC). I find the
orthoginality of RISC instruction sets much nicer than the redundancy of
CISC machines. Having worked on simulation of future CISC and RISC products
from the gates up, I find RISC a much better machine design.
|
I think its all personal preference at this point. Like I said, the lines
between RISC and CISC are much less than they use to be.
|
I think that the fact that X86 has effectively gone RISC indicates that RISC is
winning the conceptual battle. You trade a little bit of programming effort
spread across a lot of programmers, for the ability to toss out a lot of
hardware complexity and the engineering cost that it takes to make sure the
complexity is really working.
Sun’s most recent hardware announcement was for a four stage instruction
pipeline that chip vs chip dramatically outperforms anything Intel (3X) has
(with their 20+ stage pipeline). Now that we’re this far off topic, maybe we
need to move this thread ;^)
It is fun to discuss, but doesn’t really have much to do with NXT so I’ll sit
down and be quiet.
Kev
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
| |
I think that the fact that X86 has effectively gone RISC indicates that RISC
is winning the conceptual battle. You trade a little bit of programming
effort spread across a lot of programmers, for the ability to toss out a lot
of hardware complexity and the engineering cost that it takes to make sure
the complexity is really working.
|
I totally agree! I stated this in another thread (or maybe this one) that
assembly code on Intel is like Java Byte Code (but worse). I mean its not like
you *really* know as a “high-level assembly programmer” exactly the order in
which micro-ops were executed.
If your a compiler guy (I know two guys who were at one point heavily involved
with gcc), developing for Intel is a nightmare (how do you know the following
set of instructions doesn’t cause an unneccessary stall 20 stages in the pipe,
etc.).
| |
Sun’s most recent hardware announcement was for a four stage instruction
pipeline that chip vs chip dramatically outperforms anything Intel (3X) has
(with their 20+ stage pipeline). Now that we’re this far off topic, maybe we
need to move this thread ;^)
It is fun to discuss, but doesn’t really have much to do with NXT so I’ll sit
down and be quiet.
|
Sure thing but Kevin this has been a fun discussion to say the least! (and a
good review for me)
-aps
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Brian Davis wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, steve <sjbaker1@airmail.net> wrote:
> > The point is that having such an incredibly small amount of memory
> > (by modern standards) forces you into ugly compromise solutions from
> > your shiney new system from day #1.
>
>
> I'm curious - I'm a physicist, not by any means a hardware type. What *is* a
> standard amount of on-board FLASH for a embedded system?
It depends on the application obviously...but thinking of consumer
devices that cost around the same ballpark as the NXT and which are
likely to be sold in similar quantities, we have PDA's, handheld games,
MP3 players and digital cameras.
* PDA's generally have somewhere in the tens to hundreds of Megabytes
of flash and maybe a few megs of RAM.
* The Nintendo DS hand-held game system has 4Mbytes RAM and it's
teeny-tiny game cartridges have hundreds of Megabytes of ROM memory.
* A typical digital camera has a few megabytes of RAM and hundreds of
megabytes of flash.
* A solid-state MP3 player would be likely to have hundreds of Megabytes
of flash and very little RAM.
> The NXT uses some sort
> of ARM processor (what the heck does that stand for anyway?)
ARM == Acorn RISC Machine
RISC == Reduced Instruction Set Computer
Acorn == A British company that designed and manufactured the ARM until
one of the big companies took them over.
RISC computers are generally quite hard to program at the machine code
level, but easier and more efficient for automated program compilers.
The ARM has been around in different incarnations for maybe 15 to 20
years. The ARM7 used in the NXT is a couple of generations behind the
cutting edge (eg the Nintendo DS uses an ARM9 as it's main CPU). The
big thing that makes the ARM popular for embedded systems like this one
is that the ARM circuitry is fairly compact (because it's a RISC
machine and therefore runs very SIMPLE instructions very fast). This
allows system developers such as LEGO to put lots of other circuitry
onto the same chip and thereby save a ton of money. Given the small
amount of RAM, it's likely that the RAM is on the same chip as the
ARM. It's even possible that the 8 bit microprocessor is also on
that same chip.
> - how FLASH-rish do
> these come? And how hard is it to mate such a CPU chip with another chip or two
> of FLASH?
Expanding the amount of memory (presuming you were prepared to do some
surgery to the circuit board) might be very easy - or it might be
impossible. It depends greatly on whether the main CPU chip has enough
address pins to access more memory.
> > If this system is going to be around for the same amount of time as
> > the RCX (what? nearly 10 years now?) - it ought not to look antiquated
> > from the very beginning.
>
> Well, to be fair, the same could safely be said of the RCX. It had less RAM
> ten years ago than my Apple ][ did more than 20 years ago!
Yes - but that would be to compare a desktop system with an embedded
computer.
Memory capacities double about every one to two years - so you'd
expect maybe between 5 and 10 doublings in capacity between the RCX and
the NXT if they were following industry trends.
So 32Kb for the RCX would become between 1 Mbyte and 32 Mbytes for the
NXT.
If you think that's agressive, look at the Nintendo Advance (64Kb,
released in early 2001) which has grown to the Nintendo DS (4Mb, late
2005) which is six doublings in four years!
> > You can buy Flash memory USB 'thumb drives' for $8.50 in quantity
> > with anywhere from 128Mbytes upwards.
>
> How hard is it to interface a thumb drive with a device like the ARM?
It would be pretty tough.
> From other discussion here the difference between slave and master USB devices seems
> to be important.
Yes. It's crucial.
In effect, the USB port on the NXT is only useful for talking to a PC
(or perhaps a PDA if it had a USB host port).
> How much extra hardware or software do you need to make
> something like the NXT a USB master device, so it could handle things like a
> thumb drive?
It's more major surgery - but it's hard to say how hard it would be at
this early stage. It's certainly going to be a lot more than cutting a
couple of tracks and soldering in a couple more wires.
From a software perspective, there are plenty of OpenSourced drivers
for USB flash devices that could probably be adapted to make this work,
I doubt that would be a problem.
> > I'm so horrified about this that I'm half convinced that this must
> > be a mis-print and that the NXT *surely* has 128Mb and not 128Kb.
>
> With Bluetooth at least we'll have access to potentially a whole computer's
> worth of memory (at a slower rate? I really need to learn about Bluetooth).
Yes - that's an interesting direction.
I'm also pretty un-knowledgeable about Bluetooth. I don't think there
are Bluetooth flash memory drives or anything though. A quick search of
Bluetooth devices suggests that just about the only things people are
using this interface for is cellphone hands-free operation and wireless
audio headsets.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, steve <sjbaker1@airmail.net> wrote:
>
> The ARM has been around in different incarnations for maybe 15 to 20
> years. The ARM7 used in the NXT is a couple of generations behind the
> cutting edge (eg the Nintendo DS uses an ARM9 as it's main CPU). The
> big thing that makes the ARM popular for embedded systems like this one
> is that the ARM circuitry is fairly compact (because it's a RISC
> machine and therefore runs very SIMPLE instructions very fast). This
> allows system developers such as LEGO to put lots of other circuitry
> onto the same chip and thereby save a ton of money. Given the small
> amount of RAM, it's likely that the RAM is on the same chip as the
> ARM. It's even possible that the 8 bit microprocessor is also on
> that same chip.
It's also possible (likely?) that LEGO are using an already available ARM7 chip,
such as http://mcu.st.com/mcu/inchtml.php?fdir=pages&fnam=str710 or
http://www.atmel.com/dyn/products/product_card.asp?part_id=3524
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, Ross Crawford wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, steve <sjbaker1@airmail.net> wrote:
> >
> > The ARM has been around in different incarnations for maybe 15 to 20
> > years. The ARM7 used in the NXT is a couple of generations behind the
> > cutting edge (eg the Nintendo DS uses an ARM9 as it's main CPU). The
> > big thing that makes the ARM popular for embedded systems like this one
> > is that the ARM circuitry is fairly compact (because it's a RISC
> > machine and therefore runs very SIMPLE instructions very fast). This
> > allows system developers such as LEGO to put lots of other circuitry
> > onto the same chip and thereby save a ton of money. Given the small
> > amount of RAM, it's likely that the RAM is on the same chip as the
> > ARM. It's even possible that the 8 bit microprocessor is also on
> > that same chip.
>
> It's also possible (likely?) that LEGO are using an already available ARM7 chip,
> such as http://mcu.st.com/mcu/inchtml.php?fdir=pages&fnam=str710 or
> http://www.atmel.com/dyn/products/product_card.asp?part_id=3524
It is most often cheapest to buy rather than make, so using a proven solution
off the shelf makes a lot of sense.
Think of the development costs of using ARM IP on a custom chip. Suddenly LEGO
would become a hardware development group, and the costs would be really high.
Even if they used PLAs, they would still have a large development cost in design
and verification. This is just for the hardware.....
They still have the development and testing costs of the software. One has to
wonder if National Instruments is doing all the software design and testing, or
whether like the RCX, LEGO does firmware and NI does the programming
environment?
We know we have ARM7, 256KB flash, 64KB RAM, Analog to Digital, PWM, Bluetooth,
and LCD. Do either of these chips fit well with these capabilities.
Anyone out there knowledgable about graphic LDC displays? Do they have a
standard interface, or are they all proprietary?
I would assume that LEGO will go with off the shelf parts that provide the best
capabilities for the lowest cost.
Kev
>
> ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
--- steve <sjbaker1@airmail.net> wrote:
> ARM == Acorn RISC Machine
> RISC == Reduced Instruction Set Computer
> Acorn == A British company that designed and manufactured the ARM until
> one of the big companies took them over.
>
> RISC computers are generally quite hard to program at the machine code
> level, but easier and more efficient for automated program compilers.
Just FYI, I programmed an ARM chip over 10 years ago (so it must have been a
less powerful one than this). The assembly code was surprisingly clean,
simple, and powerful. ARM is a great architecture. Something like BrickOS
with a GNU C compiler will make this a very powerful platform, especially in
relation to what other robotics hobby products are out there (stamp, pic,
atmel, etc)
I'm all for more powerful platforms, but at $250 there was no way they could
have gone to megabytes.
One thing I think TLG should consider, given that (acc. to some article that
was linked here) 50% or so of their market for RIS was adult hobbyists --
they should come out with a high-end product at a considerably higher price.
A $400 set with say NTX with 2 megs of ram, more pieces, maybe different
motors, would sell pretty well I think.
If they don't, then hopefully aftermarket companies can pick up the slack.
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
dan miller wrote:
>
> I'm all for more powerful platforms, but at $250 there was no way they could
> have gone to megabytes.
>
> One thing I think TLG should consider, given that (acc. to some article that
> was linked here) 50% or so of their market for RIS was adult hobbyists --
> they should come out with a high-end product at a considerably higher price.
> A $400 set with say NTX with 2 megs of ram, more pieces, maybe different
> motors, would sell pretty well I think.
>
> If they don't, then hopefully aftermarket companies can pick up the slack.
I agree. When the RCX was found to have limitations in the enthusiast
community I can't say I blamed LEGO that much. With the RCX they didn't
know they were going to have a market with hobbyists anywhere near that
size.
Now we have the NXT. And we don't know for sure what expansion or
hacking possibilities or limitations it truly has. I think though that
given the RCX's past it should have been clear to LEGO that there would
be interest in a more expandable and even higher priced model in the
hobbyist market. It wouldn't have to be an upgraded unit even, just a
socket for a memory expansion card would be cool.
I know they have limits for the cost and the price for the kids/consumer
market. But they know now that the majority of the RCX's were bought by
adults with significantly more cash on hand than the average child. I'd
be very surprised if they didn't think of some way to capitalize on this.
I forget how many RCX's were sold so far, one figure was 40,000 but that
may have been per year. I remember this surprised LEGO. So even if
20,000 went to children, that means that 20,000 went to adults. Many of
whom bought more than one, and who also spent money on other LEGO sets,
sensors and other accessories. If there was a $400-$500 RCX available at
the time, I a large portion of those 20,000 adult sales would have been
the higher end model. Or if there was a $200 expansion pack for more I/O
and memory I bet a majority of the 20,000 would have gotten expanded.
Of course bakc then they had no idea the market even existed. Seems like
a shame to let an easy way to take advantage of a market slip away a
second time.
-Kyle
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Kyle McDonald wrote:
If there was a $400-$500 RCX available at
> the time, I a large portion of those 20,000 adult sales would have been
> the higher end model. Or if there was a $200 expansion pack for more I/O
> and memory I bet a majority of the 20,000 would have gotten expanded.
Just to play devils advocate for a minute, but you don't know how many adults
need the upgraded version. Some of the truly hardcore users hang out here but
they are only a relatively small amount of people.
A normal rcx is good enough for me (now that we have Swan, giving us more
variables, etc).
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, dan miller danbmil99@yahoo.com wrote:
| |
One thing I think TLG should consider, given that (acc. to some article that
was linked here) 50% or so of their market for RIS was adult hobbyists --
they should come out with a high-end product at a considerably higher price.
A $400 set with say NTX with 2 megs of ram, more pieces, maybe different
motors, would sell pretty well I think.
If they don’t, then hopefully aftermarket companies can pick up the slack.
|
You forget LEGO already did that with the Scout in the Robotics Discovery Set.
But perhaps it was too limited for people to want to buy it.
If the NXT has a memory expansion slot inside it that would satisfy quite a few
people I think.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, steve <sjbaker1@airmail.net> wrote:
> consumer devices that cost around the same ballpark as the NXT...
Well, there's a significant cost above and beyond the electronics here. The
NXT *might* be comparable to a PDA, but tossing in 500+ precision-molded little
plastic parts probably drives the cost up considerably (heck, just from buying
sets I *know* it does, where as the plastic case of a PDA or Nintendo is really
cheap).
> and which are likely to be sold in similar quantities,
I really doubt the number of Mindstorms sets sold compares well with the
number of PDAs, Nintendos, Playstations, etc. I think I read somewhere that
annual sales are around 40,000 for the RIS, while given the number of folks in
my town and the prevelance of something like a GameBoy, my town alone must move
something like 10,000+ GameBoys annually (& Elkhart, IN, isn't that big!). I'm
really unclear on how economies of scale come in, but something like a GameBoy
is probably 10x to 100x times more unit sales. As to the other things you
mention, they all require significant amounts of memory to function, while
embedded systems don't usually. I can see why a digital camera or MP3 player
must have a lot of memory, but it's far less clear to me that this is the
important thing for something like the NXT (truth be told, I'm not sure *what*
the priority woukld be for something like the NXT - anyone?).
> ARM == Acorn RISC Machine
> RISC == Reduced Instruction Set Computer
> Acorn == A British company that designed and manufactured the ARM until
> one of the big companies took them over.
Thank you! I sometimes feel lost in the world of acronyms.
> The big thing that makes the ARM popular for embedded systems like
> this one is that the ARM circuitry is fairly compact (because it's
> a RISC machine and therefore runs very SIMPLE instructions very fast).
> This allows system developers such as LEGO to put lots of other circuitry
> onto the same chip and thereby save a ton of money.
OK, that makes sense. So LEGO designed their own chip for this? They didn't
do that for the RCX (I'm not sure why). I guess I hadn't thought of customizing
the chip - I assumed that was wicked expensive, so they were using off-the-shelf
components (like another replier to this thread found) and just customizing at
the circuit board level.
> Expanding the amount of memory (presuming you were prepared to do some
> surgery to the circuit board) might be very easy - or it might be
> impossible. It depends greatly on whether the main CPU chip has enough
> address pins to access more memory.
Drat. It really looks like the first use of our toys is going to be to break
them open to count pins again and read off chip specs. I wish LEGO would release
this stuff to us at some point.
> If you think that's agressive, look at the Nintendo Advance (64Kb,
> released in early 2001) which has grown to the Nintendo DS (4Mb, late
> 2005) which is six doublings in four years!
OK. But I suspect the drive for higher memory there was much more important
than it would be fomr something like the RCX/NXT, wouldn't it?
> I don't think there are Bluetooth flash memory drives or anything
> though.
I've not looked. I do know there are Bluetooth mice and keyboards, and
printers. At least for the printers you have to transmit a reasaonble amount of
information in a semi-timely way, so the data transfer speeds can't be *that*
bad. And I *love* the idea of perhaps building a robot that a bystander could
interat with via their cell phones :-). The question there, as somebody else
mentioned, is if LEGO will allow (or we can add) true Bluetooth capacity or at
least some flexibility, and not just "you get to send this single 8-bit digit".
--
Brian Davis
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On 1/9/06, Brian Davis wrote:
> bad. And I *love* the idea of perhaps building a robot that a bystander could
> interat with via their cell phones :-). The question there, as somebody else
I keep hearing this (and reading in the official press releases) but
having recently shopped for a cell phone, I can tell you that everyone
available here (Ontario) that I can find has the bluetooth crippled to
it will ONLY talk to bluetooth headsets. Can't even use them for
address book sync with a PC.
This tells me that the likelihood of a NXT bot controlled by a
cellphone is NILL.
(guess we'll just have to wait for the bluetooth remote control that
will come later in an expansion set like the original RCX IR remote
did)
-Rob A>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 14:31:47 GMT
Rob Antonishen <rob.antonishen@gmail.com> wrote:
> I keep hearing this (and reading in the official press releases) but
> having recently shopped for a cell phone, I can tell you that everyone
> available here (Ontario) that I can find has the bluetooth crippled to
> it will ONLY talk to bluetooth headsets. Can't even use them for
> address book sync with a PC.
Ouch, that's bad. Here in Sweden I can confirm that bluetooth phones
with other features are around - for instance, my own phone can sync,
and others can be used to remote control toys. Apart from the Ericsson
car, I found TV output and several GPS receivers. The latter seem to be
aimed at PDAs.
http://www.sonyericsson.com/spg.jsp?cc=global&lc=en&ver=4001&template=ps1&zone=ps&lm=ps1&pid=10109
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Rob Antonishen wrote:
> On 1/9/06, Brian Davis wrote:
>
>
> > bad. And I *love* the idea of perhaps building a robot that a bystander could
> > interat with via their cell phones :-). The question there, as somebody else
>
>
> I keep hearing this (and reading in the official press releases) but
> having recently shopped for a cell phone, I can tell you that everyone
> available here (Ontario) that I can find has the bluetooth crippled to
> it will ONLY talk to bluetooth headsets. Can't even use them for
> address book sync with a PC.
>
> This tells me that the likelihood of a NXT bot controlled by a
> cellphone is NILL.
>
> (guess we'll just have to wait for the bluetooth remote control that
> will come later in an expansion set like the original RCX IR remote
> did)
One (Verizon) of the 2 top carrier's in the US tried to cripple the
bluetooth in at least one model, and it created a large PR storm. I"m
not sure whether they changed their position on that model or on future
models but I havne't heard as much complaining recently.
Cingular, the other carrier, has never crippled it's phones that I know
of. I recently upgraded from a Sony Ericsson (SE) T637 to a SE Z520,
and both are fully bluetooth enbled. They can transfer files, audio,
etc. The Z520a can even act as a mouse for my bluetooth laptop - push
the joystick on the phone the pointer moves on the screen. Pretty cool.
There are other control profiles to for things like a slide show in
Powerpoint.
I imagine it's something like this that LEGO forsees being used to
control a robot. Hopefully this won't be the only thing it can do.
-Kyle
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Rob Antonishen wrote:
> On 1/9/06, Brian Davis wrote:
>
>
> > bad. And I *love* the idea of perhaps building a robot that a bystander could
> > interat with via their cell phones :-). The question there, as somebody else
>
>
> I keep hearing this (and reading in the official press releases) but
> having recently shopped for a cell phone, I can tell you that everyone
> available here (Ontario) that I can find has the bluetooth crippled to
> it will ONLY talk to bluetooth headsets. Can't even use them for
> address book sync with a PC.
That's because you can actually catch a phone virus via bluetooth
(it's not very secure).
My wife's phone caught one - and it was a pain to get rid of.
> This tells me that the likelihood of a NXT bot controlled by a
> cellphone is NILL.
Well, not NIL - but less likely than perhaps you might like.
However, it's gonna be useful for having robots talk back to
a PC or to each other. That's good enough for me.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Mon, January 9, 2006 9:31 am, Rob Antonishen wrote:
> This tells me that the likelihood of a NXT bot controlled by a
> cellphone is NILL.
every place that talks about the NXT also talks about "Bluetooth technology that
allows your robot to communicate with external devices such as mobile phones".
<http://www.firstlegoleague.org/default.aspx?pid=21400>
Personally, I REALLY think controlling a NXT bot with a cellphone will be possible.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
> On Mon, January 9, 2006 9:31 am, Rob Antonishen wrote:
> > This tells me that the likelihood of a NXT bot controlled by a
> > cellphone is NILL.
>
> every place that talks about the NXT also talks about "Bluetooth technology that
> allows your robot to communicate with external devices such as mobile phones".
>
> <http://www.firstlegoleague.org/default.aspx?pid=21400>
>
> Personally, I REALLY think controlling a NXT bot with a cellphone will be possible.
>
> Steve
Or with a GameBoy Advance with the wireless link peripheral (uses Bluetooth).
It's not a common piece of hardware, but some of the newer Pokemon games come
with it. I think about 15 games support it currently.
Anyway, my GBA is one thing I'll be trying to connect to my NXT. I might even be
able to bootload the GBA from the NXT, which means I (and other people with
their GBAs) won't need to have a program on a blank GBA-compatible flash-RAM
cartridge.
Fun stuff.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, Jordan Bradford wrote:
> Anyway, my GBA is one thing I'll be trying to connect to my NXT. I might even be
> able to bootload the GBA from the NXT, which means I (and other people with
> their GBAs) won't need to have a program on a blank GBA-compatible flash-RAM
> cartridge.
That sounds pretty interesting as a GBA is a decent controller compared to
celphone buttons.
But, is there a programming language that covers enough celphones? This would
make that project more practical for the range of impact. There is already this:
http://alex.seewald.at/BlueCar/
Right now, I am looking for a pda with usb host. That could solve the memory and
video processing issues like the Robo-sapien brain transplant. I presume that
real time data logging should be possible across usb. I wonder:
Can the usb connection start running programs on the fly?
Can several NXTs can be hubbed using USB?
Some other thoughts that I made over at fbtb:
I really hope that we get some backward compatibility. Specifically, an infrared
EYE sensor needs to send/receive signals with the old RCX's. Extra icing would
be the 6m commercial irda range vs the 1m range of pdas. That would be the
easiest and best hurdle. Second, a digital wire to 2x2 convertor could maybe
send power to the old motors and get a signal from old sensors.
I am a bit surprised that the finished models do not show more gears. That seems
to greatly reduce the system flexibility. I really don't mind less wheels. My
LEGO experience has always been oversupplied with wheels.
I am glad that the display is good for something. Having to always analyze the
datalog on a PC is a pain.
Mounting the brick could have some top/bottom/front/rear pin holes but that is
not a big issue. I am really curious about the bottom of the brick. What
features does it have?
I too think the motors and sensors look amazingly large. That's probably to
appeal to the younger tinkerers. Studless pieces are supposed to make it look
more "human" and thus more "friendly". And Studs are not that strong for robots.
So, this should get these sets into junior school and high school is a great
thing.
The motor's 5 point mounting wheel looks like it will be really torque. Maybe
that is why they are larger. The axle hole THROUGH it will be very versatile.
Can anyone tell me what might be in the arm of the motors?
I hope one of the first pieces to come out is a multiplexer. Running more
sensors and motors from one RCX has always been desired.
I am very glad about who the chose for MUP. I think they made a very positive
influence on the product for us.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> Can anyone tell me what might be in the arm of the motors?
Probably a gear reduction, similar to the RC motor:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=116083
Philo
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> I keep hearing this (and reading in the official press releases) but
> having recently shopped for a cell phone, I can tell you that everyone
> available here (Ontario) that I can find has the bluetooth crippled to
> it will ONLY talk to bluetooth headsets. Can't even use them for
> address book sync with a PC.
Blame the phone companies. (Verizon is probobly the worst offender but
others are guilty too)
I know of many hacks where people have re-enabled features (including such
things as bluetooth address book sync and bluetooth file transfer) that the
phone companies have disabled (especially prevalent in areas where you are
forced to buy the phone from the service provider).
My interest is in Motorola phones (being that I own one alblit one without
bluetooth) but such hacks may exist for other phones too.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, steve <sjbaker1@airmail.net> wrote:
> Brian Davis wrote:
> > In lugnet.robotics, steve <sjbaker1@airmail.net> wrote:
>
> > > The point is that having such an incredibly small amount of memory
> > > (by modern standards) forces you into ugly compromise solutions from
> > > your shiney new system from day #1.
> >
> >
> > I'm curious - I'm a physicist, not by any means a hardware type. What *is* a
> > standard amount of on-board FLASH for a embedded system?
>
> It depends on the application obviously...but thinking of consumer
> devices that cost around the same ballpark as the NXT and which are
> likely to be sold in similar quantities, we have PDA's, handheld games,
> MP3 players and digital cameras.
>
> * PDA's generally have somewhere in the tens to hundreds of Megabytes
> of flash and maybe a few megs of RAM.
> * The Nintendo DS hand-held game system has 4Mbytes RAM and it's
> teeny-tiny game cartridges have hundreds of Megabytes of ROM memory.
> * A typical digital camera has a few megabytes of RAM and hundreds of
> megabytes of flash.
> * A solid-state MP3 player would be likely to have hundreds of Megabytes
> of flash and very little RAM.
>
> > The NXT uses some sort
> > of ARM processor (what the heck does that stand for anyway?)
>
> ARM == Acorn RISC Machine
> RISC == Reduced Instruction Set Computer
> Acorn == A British company that designed and manufactured the ARM until
> one of the big companies took them over.
>
> RISC computers are generally quite hard to program at the machine code
> level, but easier and more efficient for automated program compilers.
Well, *any* machine is harder to program at machine code level. If you mean
assembly, I diagree. I spent the first 18 years of my career on IBM mainframes,
and the last 5 on SPARC machines. They each have their advantages and
disadvantage from a programming perspective. CISC machines have less registers
(including Intel X86) and are harder to program because of this.
ARM7 has a nice number of registers that is much larger than those in an Intel
box.
>
> The ARM has been around in different incarnations for maybe 15 to 20
> years. The ARM7 used in the NXT is a couple of generations behind the
> cutting edge (eg the Nintendo DS uses an ARM9 as it's main CPU). The
> big thing that makes the ARM popular for embedded systems like this one
> is that the ARM circuitry is fairly compact (because it's a RISC
> machine and therefore runs very SIMPLE instructions very fast). This
> allows system developers such as LEGO to put lots of other circuitry
> onto the same chip and thereby save a ton of money. Given the small
> amount of RAM, it's likely that the RAM is on the same chip as the
> ARM. It's even possible that the 8 bit microprocessor is also on
> that same chip.
Do you think that flash might also be on-chip? Google shows very few matches if
you look for 64K RAM, 256K flash, 32-bit and ARM.
>
> > - how FLASH-rish do
> > these come? And how hard is it to mate such a CPU chip with another chip or two
> > of FLASH?
>
> Expanding the amount of memory (presuming you were prepared to do some
> surgery to the circuit board) might be very easy - or it might be
> impossible. It depends greatly on whether the main CPU chip has enough
> address pins to access more memory.
>
> > > If this system is going to be around for the same amount of time as
> > > the RCX (what? nearly 10 years now?) - it ought not to look antiquated
> > > from the very beginning.
> >
> > Well, to be fair, the same could safely be said of the RCX. It had less RAM
> > ten years ago than my Apple ][ did more than 20 years ago!
>
> Yes - but that would be to compare a desktop system with an embedded
> computer.
>
> Memory capacities double about every one to two years - so you'd
> expect maybe between 5 and 10 doublings in capacity between the RCX and
> the NXT if they were following industry trends.
>
> So 32Kb for the RCX would become between 1 Mbyte and 32 Mbytes for the
> NXT.
>
> If you think that's agressive, look at the Nintendo Advance (64Kb,
> released in early 2001) which has grown to the Nintendo DS (4Mb, late
> 2005) which is six doublings in four years!
Game consoles always *have* to be very agressive in their technological
progress. They basically give away the hardware, and make money on games.
This business model does not apply here, so LEGO can't afford to keep up with
the most advanced technology and keep their selling cost as low as it is.
>
> > > You can buy Flash memory USB 'thumb drives' for $8.50 in quantity
> > > with anywhere from 128Mbytes upwards.
> >
> > How hard is it to interface a thumb drive with a device like the ARM?
>
> It would be pretty tough.
>
> > From other discussion here the difference between slave and master USB devices seems
> > to be important.
>
> Yes. It's crucial.
>
> In effect, the USB port on the NXT is only useful for talking to a PC
> (or perhaps a PDA if it had a USB host port).
>
> > How much extra hardware or software do you need to make
> > something like the NXT a USB master device, so it could handle things like a
> > thumb drive?
>
> It's more major surgery - but it's hard to say how hard it would be at
> this early stage. It's certainly going to be a lot more than cutting a
> couple of tracks and soldering in a couple more wires.
>
> From a software perspective, there are plenty of OpenSourced drivers
> for USB flash devices that could probably be adapted to make this work,
> I doubt that would be a problem.
>
> > > I'm so horrified about this that I'm half convinced that this must
> > > be a mis-print and that the NXT *surely* has 128Mb and not 128Kb.
> >
> > With Bluetooth at least we'll have access to potentially a whole computer's
> > worth of memory (at a slower rate? I really need to learn about Bluetooth).
>
> Yes - that's an interesting direction.
>
> I'm also pretty un-knowledgeable about Bluetooth. I don't think there
> are Bluetooth flash memory drives or anything though. A quick search of
> Bluetooth devices suggests that just about the only things people are
> using this interface for is cellphone hands-free operation and wireless
> audio headsets.
Kev
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 14:59:51 GMT
"Kevin L. Clague" <kevin_clague@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well, *any* machine is harder to program at machine code level. If
> you mean assembly, I diagree. I spent the first 18 years of my
> career on IBM mainframes, and the last 5 on SPARC machines. They
> each have their advantages and disadvantage from a programming
> perspective. CISC machines have less registers (including Intel X86)
> and are harder to program because of this.
>
> ARM7 has a nice number of registers that is much larger than those in
> an Intel box.
That could have something to do with the fact that the x86 architecture
is extremely low on registers, pretty much all of which have special
functions (CX for counting, BX for addressing, AX:DX for
multiplications, SI+DI for memory copying). Compare this to the 68k
family, a CISC platform which starts out with 8 address and 8 data
registers. I've only seen fewer than the x86 on the 6800, which is
remarkable in that it has about 3 registers. That was tight enough that
GCC *couldn't* generate code for it, instead the gcc 68hc11 target
actually uses the low area of RAM to emulate registers (which isn't
that far off, as the 6800 typically contains that ram on-chip and has a
special addressing mode for them).
The H8 in the RCX is a 16-bit CPU, and couldn't really have worked with
much more memory than the RCX had - the 32KiB included was impressive,
and covers half the addressable space.
It also seems rather clear to me that Lego is operating on a tight
budget currently, so there was no real option to toss in an "expanded"
variant yet. We're half a year from product launch, and already people
worry about the product *line* being limited?
Bluetooth, protocol wise, is a bit of a mix between IrDA and USB. It
was not intended for storage devices, and in fact a device like a usb
flash drive would be complicated for the NXT to access - you'd be
dealing with file systems and block I/O. The same issues would be
associated with all the other memory card types.
Bluetooth networking is essentially PPP based, and as with the RCX the
protocol would probably be considered overkill. There's no need to run
IP or Ethernet when the lower level protocol already gives us
addressing and discovery.
We can expect the base library to be limited to the minimum necessary,
which would be just serial-style connections. This would straight away
give communication with phones, computers, GPS receivers and other NXTs.
The particular improvements over the IR sported by the RCX are
reliability, speed, and multiple connections. That last bit is the one
we might not see much of in the official software, but there *will* be
others.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Another possibility for the grinder bunch is seeing if the onboard flash chip can be
SMT desoldered and replaced with a larger capacity model with the same pinout.
I'm assuming there will be various third-party OSes to run on NXT pretty quickly, so
even if the onboard NXT OS can't be persuaded to recognize the expanded flash, other OSes
might.
The same goes for modding the USB controller, and possibly the onboard RAM. We'll just
have to wait and see what we're given, and what we can do with it.
--
Chris 'Xenon' Hanson | Xenon @ 3D Nature | http://www.3DNature.com/
"I set the wheels in motion, turn up all the machines, activate the programs,
and run behind the scenes. I set the clouds in motion, turn up light and sound,
activate the window, and watch the world go 'round." -Prime Mover, Rush.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> Game consoles always *have* to be very agressive in their technological
> progress. They basically give away the hardware, and make money on games.
>
> This business model does not apply here, so LEGO can't afford to keep up with
> the most advanced technology and keep their selling cost as low as it is.
Kevin, does that have to be true though? I'm wondering if a better strategy
would have been to sell the NXT Core kit at a slight loss but try to make it up
on expansion sets? (sort of like the game console market)
Give the NXT more capabilities that would expand the audience of the set to not
just kids and hard-core Lego fans, but a whole different kind of fanbase. I'm
not sure what those added/extended features are (I'm not talking about more
memory per say but high-level functionality that may require more resources such
as in-core memory) yet, but it seems to me at first glance that the NXT set is
an improved Mindstorms with the same business mindset (entice kids who played
with Legos as little children to continue using Lego products as they become
pre-teens/teens).
Anyway, it just a thought...
-aps
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Alexander Sack wrote:
> Kevin, does that have to be true though? I'm wondering if a better strategy
> would have been to sell the NXT Core kit at a slight loss but try to make it up
> on expansion sets? (sort of like the game console market)
I doubt it -- for game consoles, the computer is useless without the 'expansion
sets'. For Mindstorms, most consumers will be happy with the basic product;
expansion sets are add-ons, not required purchases. I don't see a way to
transform Mindstorms into a model of "give away the durable item to profit from
sales of multiple consumable products."[1]
--
Steve
1) Game software being consumable in the sense that you'll only want to play the
same game for so long.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Steve Bliss wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, Alexander Sack wrote:
> > Kevin, does that have to be true though? I'm wondering if a better strategy
> > would have been to sell the NXT Core kit at a slight loss but try to make it up
> > on expansion sets? (sort of like the game console market)
>
> I doubt it -- for game consoles, the computer is useless without the 'expansion
> sets'. For Mindstorms, most consumers will be happy with the basic product;
> expansion sets are add-ons, not required purchases. I don't see a way to
> transform Mindstorms into a model of "give away the durable item to profit from
> sales of multiple consumable products."[1]
That's a really good point. I suspect LEGO feels that the basic, core set
should cover all the bases to make access to Mindstorms/NXT easier for kids and
their parents.
Though there still maybe avenues in the future to offer a more advanced core set
that allows for expansions and add-ons.
-aps
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> Bluetooth devices suggests that just about the only things people are
> using this interface for is cellphone hands-free operation and wireless
> audio headsets.
And GPS... *drools*
But the bot must be outdoors :(
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> The point is that having such an incredibly small amount of memory
> (by modern standards) forces you into ugly compromise solutions from
> your shiney new system from day #1.
Yup. For my solution, you need ugly byte operation. Not good for a 10
year old. Still, with these robots you often design the environment to
suit your limitations (eg. smaller room)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, steve <sjbaker1@airmail.net> wrote:
> the NXT *surely* has 128Mb and not 128Kb.
Where did the 128Kb number come from?
First of all, whether it is standard or not, I like to use a capital "B" to
indicate bytes (or spell out byte) and a small 'b' to indicate bits. So, based
on the Lego NXT Faq, the NXT brick has 256KB(ytes) of FLASH plus an additional
64kB(ytes) of RAM. Thats a total of 2.5Mb(its). I'm not sure where the 128kb
that you mention comes from?
At any rate, it seems like having 10 times the memory of the RCX (not counting
the small FLASH and RAM that is used by the 8-bit microcontroller in the NXT) is
quite a good step. It seems like many valuable applications will work within
those bounds. Certainly there are applications that can be conceived in which
this is not enough memory. Then again, there are some that can be conceived in
which even 128Mbytes is not enough.
Mike
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
I am not very familiar with the NXT platform but as it sounds now could you
possibly plug a USB Flash memory stick into the USB port (or connector) on
the NXT and use it for data storage?
- John
> > Some flash is nice but 64K RAM is just too little. We can forget about
> > doing
> > voice processing.
>
> 64K RAM!? That's absolutely ludicrous! The RCX has 32kb entirely of
> programmable memory (if I remember correctly), and that is just alright.
> 64kb is not much space to work in at all in this era!
>
> Anyway, a dot-matrix display is nice, as is Bluetooth (especially as it
> can communicate between robots), and should be significantly more
> reliable than Infrared (albeit probably more power hungry).
>
> William.
>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, John O'Keefe wrote:
> I am not very familiar with the NXT platform but as it sounds now could you
> possibly plug a USB Flash memory stick into the USB port (or connector) on
> the NXT and use it for data storage?
Isn't there an inherent problem with this idea? If the NXT is a slave device, it
is a power consumer, right? That would imply that if you connected a USB storage
device, the device would not get power, since the NXT won't have been designed
to source power, just consume it.
JB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 9 Jan 2006 02:13:28 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
steve <SJBAKER1@AIRMAIL.NETstopspammers>
|
Viewed:
|
8033 times
|
| |
|
John wrote:
> I am not very familiar with the NXT platform but as it sounds now could you
> possibly plug a USB Flash memory stick into the USB port (or connector) on
> the NXT and use it for data storage?
As we currently understand things, the USB port is a 'slave' port - not
a 'master' - so you can plug the NXT into a PC - but you can't plug
things like thumb drives into the NXT because that would be plugging a
'slave' USB device into another 'slave' - and USB doesn't allow that.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, steve <sjbaker1@airmail.net> wrote:
> John wrote:
> > I am not very familiar with the NXT platform but as it sounds now could you
> > possibly plug a USB Flash memory stick into the USB port (or connector) on
> > the NXT and use it for data storage?
>
> As we currently understand things, the USB port is a 'slave' port - not
> a 'master' - so you can plug the NXT into a PC - but you can't plug
> things like thumb drives into the NXT because that would be plugging a
> 'slave' USB device into another 'slave' - and USB doesn't allow that.
Right, see my other post about ARM7 and USB (I wish I knew how to link it but
this web interface is killing me!). The biggest issue is one of the devices
would have to implement a host constoller interface and a USB storage class
driver. Typically slave devices do not have the resource bandwidth for either.
My guess is the USB device is really for flashing the firmware and controlling
the NXT from your desktop (though there maybe other use cases I'm not thinking
about).
Another idea floating around was to use an iPAQ likes substance. That won't
work since typically PDAs (well last I checked) were not capable of being a host
(I had Linux running on my iPAQ for quite sometime and even wrote some doc for
the Debian version).
I believe the most potential for controlling the NXT is bluetooth. It would be
SO COOL to be able to remotely control and collect data in real-time. I am not
as familiar with bluetooth as I am with USB but I do have the specs somwhere
(they maybe open anyway - I know the IEEE1394/Firewire stuff wasn't open and had
to use at one point my student IEEE membership to grab them).
Hope this is helpful!
-aps (Alexander)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I'm somewhat bemused by the comments on limited memory, CPU
capacity, features, etc on the new NXT brick.
At $250 it fits right in the middle range of the other
popular consumer hobbyist robotics kits which range in price
from $100 to $500. These kits include the Parallax Scribbler
($100), the Parallax Boe-Bot ($150), the Radio Shack VEX
($300 kit + $150 for software) and several less popular /
less well-known products.
The VEX and Scribbler have both been on the market for less
than six months so they represent a good data point for
price and feature comparison. The NXT product appears to
blow them both away.
Scribbler is lowest priced at $100. But it is not a kit.
It's a pre-assembled robot. Feature set is awesome - two
motors, line follower detection, sound, infrared distance
sensors - for this price. But there is absolutely no
customization. You can use preloaded programs or write your
own. It's brain is a Parallax Basic Stamp. I think there's
less than 256 bytes of RAM in a Basic Stamp. The version
used in the Scribbler is a masked-ROM Microchip PIC CPU. PC
programming connection is via RS-232 cable. The RCX is a
better / more flexible system than this.
The VEX system is essentially an erector set with
electronics. It comes with two motors, two servos, two bump
sensors and an awesome RF system. It has a host of optional
sensors. But it's really expensive. It uses dual PIC 18F8520
CPUs; this is a 8-bit CPU with less capacity than the H8 in
the RCX. One processor is for system functions and one is
for user programs. There's a total of 32K bytes flash and
1.8K of RAM. PC programming connection is via RS-232 cable;
a USB-to-RS-232 adaptor is included with the VEX kit. It's a
nice system and very robust mechanically but everything
takes ages to assemble using nuts and bolts. It's very hard
to program.
When you compare the announced specs of the NXT, the
difference is dramatic. More RAM, more flash, 32-bit vs
8-bit CPU, great LCD display vs none, high speed USB link vs
serial, integrated Bluetooth wireless, etc.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Dick Swan wrote:
| |
Scribbler is lowest priced at $100. But it is not a kit.
It’s a pre-assembled robot. Feature set is awesome - two
motors, line follower detection, sound, infrared distance
sensors - for this price. But there is absolutely no
customization. You can use preloaded programs or write your
own. It’s brain is a Parallax Basic Stamp. I think there’s
less than 256 bytes of RAM in a Basic Stamp. The version
used in the Scribbler is a masked-ROM Microchip PIC CPU. PC
programming connection is via RS-232 cable. The RCX is a
better / more flexible system than this.
|
I hadn’t looked at the Scribbler prior to this post...
and I am stunned at how much their programming language (Scribbler Program Maker
GUI) resembles the original RIS software:
I’m guessing that they designed theirs on the “success” of the RIS...
-Rob A>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Alexander Sack wrote:
> Right, see my other post about ARM7 and USB (I wish I knew how to link it but
> this web interface is killing me!).
It's simple. For a message in plain text (i.e. not FTX) simply paste your link,
the Lugnet web interface automatically inserts hyperlink code.
-Orion
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.announce, Lee Magpili wrote:
> check out www.mindstorms.com/press
>
> lego just put out a press release all about the NeXT version of mindstorms, they
> put a whole spec out on it..
and this;
http://shop.lego.com/product.asp?p=8527&cn=55&d=11&t=5
Surprised me !
JB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
John Barnes wrote:
> In lugnet.announce, Lee Magpili wrote:
>
> > check out www.mindstorms.com/press
> >
> > lego just put out a press release all about the NeXT version of mindstorms, they
> > put a whole spec out on it..
>
>
>
> and this;
>
> http://shop.lego.com/product.asp?p=8527&cn=55&d=11&t=5
>
> Surprised me !
>
> JB
It could be they just felt sorry for you and Steve and all the
flack you would/will be getting.
;)
Too bad Jin Sato could not be got a hold of, He would have been a
valuable asset to the MUP.
Chris
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, John Barnes wrote:
> In lugnet.announce, Lee Magpili wrote:
> > check out www.mindstorms.com/press
> >
> > lego just put out a press release all about the NeXT version of mindstorms, they
> > put a whole spec out on it..
>
>
> and this;
>
> http://shop.lego.com/product.asp?p=8527&cn=55&d=11&t=5
>
> Surprised me !
>
> JB
They also seem to have pulled the 2.0 kits out of the store completely. That's
even more surprising.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.announce, Lee Magpili wrote:
> check out www.mindstorms.com/press
>
> lego just put out a press release all about the NeXT version of mindstorms
I know that I am second guessing people who clearly know more than me, but what
is wrong with the following idea relating to powering it.
Make the RCX in two parts. One is the diplay/CPU (A). The other is the power
sources (B).
B plugs into A, connected by a wire.
The power input for A would also be able to take an AC adapter.
Advantages:
-More flexibility in physically setting up the RCX as part of a contruction if
you choose to use the battery(power could be far away from the RCX itself, or
mobile with respect to RCX)
-If you use AC power, you eliminate the bulk of the battery pack.
The only downside I see is that if you disconnect A from B then volatile memory
would be erased.
Why was the option for an Adaptor not included with the NXT? How much cost could
it have added?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Gyl Midroni wrote:
> Make the RCX in two parts.
Yes, that would make sense to me. The only thing I can think of that
recommends against it is use by kids. With both assemblies in one case, the kid
can't loose the batteries. Consumers are used to their toys (and, for that
matter, their electronics) being as idiot-proof as possible.
> Why was the option for an Adaptor not included with the NXT?
I suspect cost - remember, it was taken out of the RCX after 1.0.
--
Brian Davis
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Brian Davis wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, Gyl Midroni wrote:
>
> > Why was the option for an Adaptor not included with the NXT?
>
>
> I suspect cost - remember, it was taken out of the RCX after 1.0.
We dont know if it was taken out due to cost, OR due to the number of
problems it had caused there customer service dept.
I recall several posts from people claiming to have fried there units
because they had plugged some non-acceptable power source into the rcx.
Chris
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On 08/01/06, Chris Magno <cmagno@rogers.com> wrote:
> Brian Davis wrote:
> We dont know if it was taken out due to cost, OR due to the number of
> problems it had caused there customer service dept.
> I recall several posts from people claiming to have fried there units
> because they had plugged some non-acceptable power source into the rcx.
There is soemthing about that seems very, very likely. What they could
do is a moulded, polarised connector, something that is their own, but
not too hard for a real tinkerer to copy if they wanted to, and make
sure the spec is well known. That way, those who have tinkered and
broken it have gone out on enough of a limb that they are aware of the
possible risk.
I like the idea of the possibility that the NXT could be powered
through the USB port. I dont know that it is, but that really would be
a great feature. A feature which a hacker might also be able to use to
supply power via batteries if need be. I have a USB spec book
somewhere - I will have to check, I know that it has something about
the initial host supplying low current until negotiation has occured,
and then allowing higher current draw.
--
Danny Staple MBCS
OrionRobots
http://orionrobots.co.uk
(Full contact details available through website)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
danny staple wrote:
> On 08/01/06, Chris Magno <cmagno@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > Brian Davis wrote:
> > We dont know if it was taken out due to cost, OR due to the number of
> > problems it had caused there customer service dept.
>
>
> > I recall several posts from people claiming to have fried there units
> > because they had plugged some non-acceptable power source into the rcx.
>
>
> There is soemthing about that seems very, very likely. What they could
> do is a moulded, polarised connector, something that is their own, but
> not too hard for a real tinkerer to copy if they wanted to, and make
> sure the spec is well known. That way, those who have tinkered and
> broken it have gone out on enough of a limb that they are aware of the
> possible risk.
>
> I like the idea of the possibility that the NXT could be powered
> through the USB port. I dont know that it is, but that really would be
> a great feature. A feature which a hacker might also be able to use to
> supply power via batteries if need be. I have a USB spec book
> somewhere - I will have to check, I know that it has something about
> the initial host supplying low current until negotiation has occured,
> and then allowing higher current draw.
> --
> Danny Staple MBCS
> OrionRobots
> http://orionrobots.co.uk
> (Full contact details available through website)
Oddly enough, have you seen this:
http://www.firstlegoleague.org/default.aspx?pid=21400
Half way down it says that the NXT will have a:
Rechargeable battery system
Will the "battery system" be a preshrunk battery pack with some
connector on it to plug into the NXT? Could a hacker then find that
plug and plug a wal wart INTO the nxt?
Chris
YA, and while I'm wishing, maybe I can get the NXT to generate next
weeks lotto numbers.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
danny staple wrote:
> I like the idea of the possibility that the NXT could be powered
> through the USB port.
I consider that unlikely because of the power requirements of the Motors
and the NXT unit. I don't know how much the new motors pull, but the
"old" motors took 250mA @ 9V under load. According to the USB specs, the
port should provide 500mA @ 5V. Most USB port actually fail to provide
this power level, so 300mA @ 5V is a better bet.
So, A USB powered NXT would mean: NO MOTORS - PERIOD ;-)
Hey, and that would be boring, wouldn't it?
Yours, Christian
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Gyl wrote:
> Why was the option for an Adaptor not included with the NXT? How much cost could
> it have added?
OK. Take a NXT brick and turn it over. Have a closer look at its
underside. You'll notice a curious breakout in the casing of the battery
pack. It has the right size for a little coaxial power plug like the one
used for the 9V trains. All it takes would be a replacement lid for the
battery pack, one that includes the socket and the contacts that connect
directly to the right battery contacts in the case.
There are two variations of this scenario possible: Either its a dumb
wall socket power supply, and the electronics included in the battery
lid, or its a more intelligent wall wart, and just socket and contacts
in the lid.
Yours, Christian
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Christian Treczoks wrote:
> OK. Take a NXT brick and turn it over. Have a closer look
> at its underside.
I think several hundred of us would just *love* to do that. One small
problem... how did you get to? Pleeeease...
> You'll notice a curious breakout in the casing of the battery
> pack. It has the right size for a little coaxial power plug
> like the one used for the 9V trains.
Well, that would be very handy. Restoring one of the number one requested
items dropped from the 1.0 brick would be a good move (at least for me).
--
Brian Davis
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Brian Davis wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, Christian Treczoks wrote:
> > OK. Take a NXT brick and turn it over. Have a closer look
> > at its underside.
> I think several hundred of us would just *love* to do that. One small
> problem... how did you get to? Pleeeease...
I always wanted to say that: "I could tell you, but then I would have to
kill you" ;-)
Yours, Christian
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Wed, January 11, 2006 3:29 am, Christian Treczoks wrote:
> Brian Davis wrote:
> > In lugnet.robotics, Christian Treczoks wrote:
> > > OK. Take a NXT brick and turn it over. Have a closer look
> > > at its underside.
> > I think several hundred of us would just *love* to do that. One small
> > problem... how did you get to? Pleeeease...
> I always wanted to say that: "I could tell you, but then I would have to
> kill you" ;-)
Brian,
If it makes you feel any better, the information has been tracked back to it's
source, and it's a long way from where you live.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Question for the in-the-know crowd -- does the NXT have 3 motor ports and 4
sensor ports, or 7 general-purpose ports? IOW, could you connect 4 motors
and only 3 sensors?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Wed, January 11, 2006 10:44 am, dan miller wrote:
> Question for the in-the-know crowd -- does the NXT have 3 motor ports and 4
> sensor ports, or 7 general-purpose ports? IOW, could you connect 4 motors
> and only 3 sensors?
I'm sure I've read there are 3 motor ports, and 4 sensor ports. But, things may not
be that black and white. Remember, each motor has a rotation sensor built in.
However, the pictures do show motors connected to port A, B & C, and sensors
connected to port 1,2,3 & 4. (letters vs numbers)
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
> However, the pictures do show motors connected to port A, B & C, and sensors
> connected to port 1,2,3 & 4. (letters vs numbers)
>
> Steve
Amuzingly, "4" is missing from Lego's model images (which are rendered) but is
there for the live teenager shots. Could it be a "special" plug for the
ultrasonic sensor? I hope not.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Is it my poor memory, OR did the first communication from lego say that
it was 3 in and 3 out, PLUS the Ultrasonic sensor.
In the rendered pics of the NXT, it has output pots 1 -3 labeled, but
the 4th is not.
always questions, and silence from Ralph and Dave. (ya I haven't
forgotten about you too)
dan miller wrote:
> Question for the in-the-know crowd -- does the NXT have 3 motor ports and 4
> sensor ports, or 7 general-purpose ports? IOW, could you connect 4 motors
> and only 3 sensors?
>
>
>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Wed, January 11, 2006 12:21 pm, Chris Magno wrote:
> Is it my poor memory, OR did the first communication from lego say that
> it was 3 in and 3 out, PLUS the Ultrasonic sensor.
>
> In the rendered pics of the NXT, it has output pots 1 -3 labeled, but
> the 4th is not.
I'm pretty sure you won't find any place that says 3in+3out.
The rendered pictures do show 1 unmarked port.
What about this (actual photo?):
http://cache.lego.com/upload/contentTemplating/LEGOAboutUs-ImageLibrary/images/2057/pic1A6E9A98-5347-4B2B-8D11-C3F317395BE6.jpg
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Chris Magno wrote:
> always questions, and silence from Ralph and Dave. (ya I haven't
> forgotten about you too)
Maybe they're too busy playing with some new robotics system or another? :-)
--
David Schilling
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
David Schilling wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, Chris Magno wrote:
>
> > always questions, and silence from Ralph and Dave. (ya I haven't
> > forgotten about you too)
>
>
> Maybe they're too busy playing with some new robotics system or another? :-)
>
> --
> David Schilling
So, Dave. Glad to hear from you. What have you built?
You too Ralph. I know you read this.
:)
Chris
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, Christian Treczoks wrote:
> Gyl wrote:
> > Why was the option for an Adaptor not included with the NXT? How much cost could
> > it have added?
> OK. Take a NXT brick and turn it over. Have a closer look at its
> underside. You'll notice a curious breakout in the casing of the battery
> pack. It has the right size for a little coaxial power plug like the one
> used for the 9V trains. All it takes would be a replacement lid for the
> battery pack, one that includes the socket and the contacts that connect
> directly to the right battery contacts in the case.
>
> There are two variations of this scenario possible: Either its a dumb
> wall socket power supply, and the electronics included in the battery
> lid, or its a more intelligent wall wart, and just socket and contacts
> in the lid.
>
> Yours, Christian
Very interesting. Perhaps there is some plan to sell the NXT with a power
adapter for the educational sets. Currently the RCXs that are with those Team
Challenge Sets have the power adaptors. (It makes sense in a classroom to be
able to plug these things in and have them working for all your students without
worrying if the batteries need to be replaced)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On 1/10/06, Tim Byrne wrote:
>
> Very interesting. Perhaps there is some plan to sell the NXT with a power
> adapter for the educational sets. Currently the RCXs that are with those Team
> Challenge Sets have the power adaptors. (It makes sense in a classroom to be
> able to plug these things in and have them working for all your students
> without
> worrying if the batteries need to be replaced)
And a large portion of the current RCX in education use is as a data
logger, not a mobile robotics platform. In this configuration, AC is
a definite requisite.
If they intend to offer a functional equivalent in the NXT
(educational) then an AC adapter would be necessary there, too.
-Rob A>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Rob Antonishen <rob.antonishen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/10/06, Tim Byrne wrote:
> >
> > Very interesting. Perhaps there is some plan to sell the NXT with a power
> > adapter for the educational sets. Currently the RCXs that are with those Team
> > Challenge Sets have the power adaptors. (It makes sense in a classroom to be
> > able to plug these things in and have them working for all your students
> > without
> > worrying if the batteries need to be replaced)
>
>
> And a large portion of the current RCX in education use is as a data
> logger, not a mobile robotics platform. In this configuration, AC is
> a definite requisite.
>
> If they intend to offer a functional equivalent in the NXT
> (educational) then an AC adapter would be necessary there, too.
>
> -Rob A>
Hopefully it will not be specifically tied to education, but merely an add-on
option.
Kev
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, Rob Antonishen <rob.antonishen@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 1/10/06, Tim Byrne wrote:
> > >
> > > Very interesting. Perhaps there is some plan to sell the NXT with a power
> > > adapter for the educational sets. Currently the RCXs that are with those Team
> > > Challenge Sets have the power adaptors. (It makes sense in a classroom to be
> > > able to plug these things in and have them working for all your students
> > > without
> > > worrying if the batteries need to be replaced)
> >
> >
> > And a large portion of the current RCX in education use is as a data
> > logger, not a mobile robotics platform. In this configuration, AC is
> > a definite requisite.
> >
> > If they intend to offer a functional equivalent in the NXT
> > (educational) then an AC adapter would be necessary there, too.
> >
> > -Rob A>
>
> Hopefully it will not be specifically tied to education, but merely an add-on
> option.
>
> Kev
The educational press release says that the educational set will have an AC
adapter for its rechargeable battery system:
http://www.lego.com/education/mindstorms/images/eng/downloads/Education_Press.pdf
Mark
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Mark Bellis wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
<snip>
> >
> > Hopefully it will not be specifically tied to education, but merely an add-on
> > option.
> >
> > Kev
>
> The educational press release says that the educational set will have an AC
> adapter for its rechargeable battery system:
> http://www.lego.com/education/mindstorms/images/eng/downloads/Education_Press.pdf
>
> Mark
Then I hope it is also available as a simple add-on.
Kev
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Mark Bellis wrote:
> The educational press release says that the educational set will have an AC
> adapter for its rechargeable battery system:
"Rechargeable battery system" may still require take the battery out. But
hopefully, we can recharge while it is in the unit.
Thanks for the link. It had a "Soccer" robot and hints at redeveloping the
engineering and scientific inquiry programs.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Andy Cross wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, Mark Bellis wrote:
>
> > The educational press release says that the educational set will have an AC
> > adapter for its rechargeable battery system:
>
>
> "Rechargeable battery system" may still require take the battery out. But
> hopefully, we can recharge while it is in the unit.
>
> Thanks for the link. It had a "Soccer" robot and hints at redeveloping the
> engineering and scientific inquiry programs.
Now this is an interesting link. some nice NXT pictures. and good
speculation on powering the NXT
http://news.lugnet.com/trains/?n=26545
Thanks
Chris
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.announce, Lee Magpili wrote:
| |
check out www.mindstorms.com/press
lego just put out a press release all about the NeXT version of mindstorms,
they put a whole spec out on it..
heres a bit from the article explaining the specs
LEGO MINDSTORMS NXT highlights include:
• All-new NXT intelligent brick
• 3 interactive servo motors feature inbuilt rotation sensors to align speed
for precise control
• New ultrasonic sensor makes robots “see” by responding to movement
• New sound sensor enables robots to react to sound commands, including sound
pattern and tone recognition
• Improved light sensor detects different colors and light intensity
• Improved touch sensor reacts to touch or release and allows robots to feel
• 519 hand-selected, stylized elements from the LEGO TECHNIC® building system
ensure robot creations will be sturdy and durable while also looking authentic
• Opportunities for physical programming of robots and interaction with robots
during programming
• 18 building challenges with clear, step-by-step instructions help acclimate
users to the new system to create robots ranging from humanoids and machinery
to animals and vehicles
• Digital wire interface allows for third-party developments
• Information, inspiration, news, community programs and more at
www.mindstorms.com
whaaa!!
LeE
|
I would like to personally thank LEGO for reaching out to the MUP members.
First off, it was a brilliant move from a consumer market research standpoint.
Second, I must applaud them for their choice of whom they invited to
participate. I don’t think they could have picked a better set of four people
to represent the community.
I used to have lots of time to devote to my LEGO passion. However a bunch of
other responsibilities took over much of my free time. I recently started to
reclaim some of that and began devoting more time to LEGO and specifically
Mindstorms. But I started getting depressed though because it increasingly
looked like LEGO was never going to expand upon Mindstorms. This press release
was a ray of sunshine. I must say… I AM SORRY FOR LOOSING FAITH!
I am so excited about this announcement. What I most look forward to is 2 years
from now when the community has had the opportunity to take these to the next
level. I’m convinced there will be alternate programming platforms,
sensor/output extensions, interfaces to legacy RCX2.0, etc.
Thank you LEGO.
Thank you Steve, John, David, and Ralph.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.announce, Lee Magpili wrote:
> check out www.mindstorms.com/press
>
> lego just put out a press release all about the NeXT version of mindstorms, they
> put a whole spec out on it..
Found this too;
http://legoeducation.typepad.com/
Interesting mention of;
"a converter cable so existing LEGO robotics sensors and motors can be used with
the NXT brick".
JB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: mindstorms NXT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Sat, 14 Jan 2006 06:10:54 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
Geoffrey Hyde <gDOThyde@bigpond+spamcake+DOTnetDOTau>
|
Viewed:
|
6899 times
|
| |
|
Even more interesting (and somewhat of concern) is this snippet from their
FAQ page:
Quote: "Exclusive to schools will accessories that allow them to use parts
of their old kits with the new."
WHAT?? Does that mean that the existing Mindstorms users are going to get
left stranded with building their own conversion cables??? I can see quite
a few people willing to try though. :)
Cheers ...
Geoffrey Hyde
"John Barnes" <barnes@sensors.com> wrote in message
news:It2Dqn.HrJ@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.announce, Lee Magpili wrote:
> > check out www.mindstorms.com/press
> >
> > lego just put out a press release all about the NeXT version of
> > mindstorms, they
> > put a whole spec out on it..
>
>
> Found this too;
>
> http://legoeducation.typepad.com/
>
> Interesting mention of;
>
> "a converter cable so existing LEGO robotics sensors and motors can be
> used with
> the NXT brick".
>
> JB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Geoffrey Hyde wrote:
> Even more interesting (and somewhat of concern) is this snippet from their
> FAQ page:
>
> Quote: "Exclusive to schools will accessories that allow them to use parts
> of their old kits with the new."
>
> WHAT?? Does that mean that the existing Mindstorms users are going to get
> left stranded with building their own conversion cables??? I can see quite
> a few people willing to try though. :)
Probably not since most of the LEGO Education product line is available from the
LEGO Education store:
http://www.legoeducation.com/store/Default.aspx
-Orion
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, John Barnes wrote:
> In lugnet.announce, Lee Magpili wrote:
> > check out www.mindstorms.com/press
> >
> > lego just put out a press release all about the NeXT version of mindstorms, they
> > put a whole spec out on it..
>
>
> Found this too;
>
> http://legoeducation.typepad.com/
>
> Interesting mention of;
>
> "a converter cable so existing LEGO robotics sensors and motors can be used with
> the NXT brick".
Wow! This is great news! Thanks for digging that up! Now I wonder if NXT has
the current capabilities to drive those power-hungry RC racer motors.
Kev
>
> JB
| | | | | | |
