| |
> In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
> <snipage>
> > The course was made of random household items, like couch cushions, bean
> > bag
> > chairs, boxes & tables...
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=223980
> >
> > Here's a few pictures...
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=223978
>
> To me it seems interesting that Steve's house has more boxes of NXTs than
> boxes
> of diapers...
The diaper boxes are around 4 years old, and no longer contain diapers.
Most of the NXT boxes are also empty.
Will you be joining us at Brickworld in June?
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
> We had a small gathering to test out stuff for our upcoming remote control Rock
> Crawling event at Brickworld.
I am bummed that I couldn't make it down to Lafayette yesterday...looks like it
was fun...
Were you and John the only ones with trucks?
Mine is getting close...thought I had it done a little while ago and discovered
I had mounted some stuff half a liftarm off, so everything was torqued
funny...oh well...rebuild time...
I will post pictures when I get it working right...I will play around with bean
bags here and see how it does...
B
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
> The diaper boxes are around 4 years old, and no longer contain diapers.
> Most of the NXT boxes are also empty.
>
>
> Will you be joining us at Brickworld in June?
>
> Steve
"It's on my calendar", which is akin to "the check is in the mail."
I am planning to attend; six months from now, who knows what will happen.
My NXT is fucntioning, so that is good. I guess I need to work on bulding a
four-wheeler!
Oh, by the way, a question on bluetooth: can I just buy one of those "bluetooth
adapters", plug it in to the USB port on my laptop, and then dispense with
having to plug and unplug the usb cable from the NXT?
And, if I built the world's greatest NXT four-wheeler, how can I do remote
control in the most cost effective fashion, seeing as the only bluetooth stuff I
currently own is an old Halloween mask...
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Rafe Donahue wrote:
> My NXT is fucntioning, so that is good. I guess I need to work on bulding a
> four-wheeler!
There is no requirement to construct using your NXT...any LEGO will work.
>
> Oh, by the way, a question on bluetooth: can I just buy one of those "bluetooth
> adapters", plug it in to the USB port on my laptop, and then dispense with
> having to plug and unplug the usb cable from the NXT?
Yes - but make sure you use a compatible BT adapter...there is a list
somewhere...I think it is on NXTasy or TheNextStep...
>
> And, if I built the world's greatest NXT four-wheeler, how can I do remote
> control in the most cost effective fashion, seeing as the only bluetooth stuff I
> currently own is an old Halloween mask...
Steve and Brian Davis both have remote control units made from another NXT.
These remotes are available for use at Brickworld....I think they wanted to make
the most expensive remote control vehicles possible :)
B
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Bryan Bonahoom wrote:
> In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Rafe Donahue wrote:
> > My NXT is fucntioning, so that is good. I guess I need to work on bulding a
> > four-wheeler!
>
> There is no requirement to construct using your NXT...any LEGO will work.
> >
> > Oh, by the way, a question on bluetooth: can I just buy one of those "bluetooth
> > adapters", plug it in to the USB port on my laptop, and then dispense with
> > having to plug and unplug the usb cable from the NXT?
>
> Yes - but make sure you use a compatible BT adapter...there is a list
> somewhere...I think it is on NXTasy or TheNextStep...
The list is maintained here:
http://www.vialist.com/users/jgarbers/NXTBluetoothCompatibilityList
LUGNET discussion here:
http://news.lugnet.com/robotics/?n=26174
LEGO's newest catalog (January 2007) and the website now have the "official" BT
adapter, 9847:
http://shop.lego.com/ByTheme/Product.aspx?p=9847&cn=17&d=70
It's a bit expensive, though; the one I bought at Staples cost me $30.
|
|
| |
> > Will you be joining us at Brickworld in June?
> >
> > Steve
>
> "It's on my calendar", which is akin to "the check is in the mail."
>
> I am planning to attend; six months from now, who knows what will happen.
Yes, but it's good to have a plan.
> My NXT is fucntioning, so that is good. I guess I need to work on bulding
> a
> four-wheeler!
>
> Oh, by the way, a question on bluetooth: can I just buy one of those
> "bluetooth
> adapters", plug it in to the USB port on my laptop, and then dispense with
> having to plug and unplug the usb cable from the NXT?
That's what I've done.
However, they seem to work best if you use the Windows drivers, and not the
drivers that come with the dongle.
> And, if I built the world's greatest NXT four-wheeler, how can I do remote
> control in the most cost effective fashion, seeing as the only bluetooth
> stuff I
> currently own is an old Halloween mask...
This is the cool thing. There are a bunch of ways to control it. Of
course, the easiest is to just go out and buy another NXT, and build a
remote control. http://www.mindstorms.com
Or, you could write a program for your laptop, and that new dongle.
Actually, there are programs for either on my web page:
http://www.teamhassenplug.org/NXT/
With the bluetooth (http://mindstorms.lego.com/overview/Bluetooth.aspx)
there are plenty of options. You could download LEGO's mobile app for a
bluetooth phone...
http://mindstorms.lego.com/overview/Mobile%20Application.aspx
I wrote an app for my PDA, but I don't have it posted anywhere. That's
another option.
Or, if you don't want to use bluetooth, here's a pretty cool option from
Mindsensors, that allows you to use a PSP remote...
http://www.mindsensors.com/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=61
You need more options?
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
> > > Will you be joining us at Brickworld in June?
> > >
> > > Steve
> >
> > "It's on my calendar", which is akin to "the check is in the mail."
> >
> > I am planning to attend; six months from now, who knows what will happen.
>
> Yes, but it's good to have a plan.
Oh, it's a plan. But I can't commit just yet; wait'll next year. :-)
> > My NXT is fucntioning, so that is good. I guess I need to work on bulding
> > a
> > four-wheeler!
> >
> > Oh, by the way, a question on bluetooth: can I just buy one of those
> > "bluetooth
> > adapters", plug it in to the USB port on my laptop, and then dispense with
> > having to plug and unplug the usb cable from the NXT?
>
> That's what I've done.
> However, they seem to work best if you use the Windows drivers, and not the
> drivers that come with the dongle.
It looks like I need to get one of these dongle thingies. If I get my act
together before midnight, I found a dlink dbt-120 for about $18 online, plus a
$10 rebate. Of course, it expires at the end of 2006...
> > And, if I built the world's greatest NXT four-wheeler, how can I do remote
> > control in the most cost effective fashion, seeing as the only bluetooth
> > stuff I
> > currently own is an old Halloween mask...
>
> This is the cool thing. There are a bunch of ways to control it. Of
> course, the easiest is to just go out and buy another NXT, and build a
> remote control. http://www.mindstorms.com
Fine, solve a problem by just throwing money at it...
> Or, you could write a program for your laptop, and that new dongle.
> Actually, there are programs for either on my web page:
> http://www.teamhassenplug.org/NXT/
I checked that out; thank you. But here is more of my ignorance: what exactly
is NXT-G? Differing things I've seen on line seem to make me believe that it is
text-programmable or an extension of the NXT software that came with the set or
extra blocks to add to the NXT software. I'm really confused here.
And can one zoom in or out of the programing field in the NXT software? It
seems too easy to run off the edge of the page and then I can't see the whole
thing. I was able to wrap that sequence beam but it doesn't like to go
right-to-left so I had to make it an really wide Z shape to fit things on the
screen.
> With the bluetooth (http://mindstorms.lego.com/overview/Bluetooth.aspx)
> there are plenty of options. You could download LEGO's mobile app for a
> bluetooth phone...
> http://mindstorms.lego.com/overview/Mobile%20Application.aspx
>
> I wrote an app for my PDA, but I don't have it posted anywhere. That's
> another option.
>
> Or, if you don't want to use bluetooth, here's a pretty cool option from
> Mindsensors, that allows you to use a PSP remote...
> http://www.mindsensors.com/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=61
>
> You need more options?
Well, my phone doesn't BT, my PDA is circa 1999, video-game systems (playbox,
gamecube, Xstation, STP, whatever) aren't part of our entertainment options, so
I'm looking for something that will telekinetic...
I think I'll be investigating your PC NXT-remote-controller program; you didn't
stash any viruses in there, did you?
Rafe
|
|
| |
> > > > Will you be joining us at Brickworld in June?
>
> Oh, it's a plan. But I can't commit just yet; wait'll next year. :-)
Ok, now can you commit? :)
> > Or, you could write a program for your laptop, and that new dongle.
> > Actually, there are programs for either on my web page:
> > http://www.teamhassenplug.org/NXT/
>
> I checked that out; thank you. But here is more of my ignorance: what
> exactly
> is NXT-G? Differing things I've seen on line seem to make me believe that
> it is
> text-programmable or an extension of the NXT software that came with the
> set or
> extra blocks to add to the NXT software.
Sorry if I didn't explain that.
NXT-G is the software that came with the NXT.
You can get an update to the software from NI, which allows you to add
blocks that are not included with the standard software. That's the Dynamic
Block Update.
> And can one zoom in or out of the programing field in the NXT software?
No. But, there is a magnifying glass in the lower right, that allows you to
see the whole program in one window.
> Well, my phone doesn't BT,
Maybe you'll upgrade it in the next six months. :)
> my PDA is circa 1999,
Maybe you'll upgrade it in the next six months. :)
> video-game systems (playbox,
> gamecube, Xstation, STP, whatever) aren't part of our entertainment
> options
Same here. But once you have that device from Mindsensors, you can get a
wireless controller for like $25.
> I think I'll be investigating your PC NXT-remote-controller program; you
> didn't
> stash any viruses in there, did you?
Not that I know of...
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Bryan Bonahoom wrote:
>
> Were you and John the only ones with trucks?
We were the only ones there-- unless you count Matt and Kurt, whose spybot
vehicles did almost as well going through the course as my truck did ;)
> Mine is getting close...thought I had it done a little while ago and discovered
> I had mounted some stuff half a liftarm off, so everything was torqued
> funny...oh well...rebuild time...
I've noticed it is a little harder to keep track of this kind of stuff when
building studless. One building tip I quickly discovered is that having a
suspension really didn't seem to be all that useful. Just a little flex in the
chassis seemed sufficient. Of course this may change if we make the course more
difficult, but I doubt it.
> I will post pictures when I get it working right...I will play around with bean
> bags here and see how it does...
>
> B
The white 1/2 filled bean bag was one of the toughest points in the course for
me. The loose bag material just made going across it tough. Climbing up and
through it was even more difficult. The bag just wanted to wrap around
everything.
John
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Rafe Donahue wrote:
> Well, my phone doesn't BT, my PDA is circa 1999, video-game systems (playbox,
> gamecube, Xstation, STP, whatever) aren't part of our entertainment options, so
> Rafe
I understand the unwillingness to buy a controller for a video-game system that
you don't own (I struggled with that a bit too), but using the playstation
remote and mindsensors sensor is pretty practical compared to other methods of
remote control, and now that there is a custom block for NXT-G, it is pretty
easy to use too.
John
|
|
| |
Steve,
I just had a thought on scoring. You mentioned that you wanted to make the
course tough enough so a perfect score (no penalties) would be nearly
impossible. How about giving a penalty every time someone backed up? I can't
remember a single run where we didn't have to back up at least once.
John
|
|
| |
At 09:09 AM 1/2/07, John Brost wrote:
> I just had a thought on scoring. You mentioned that you wanted to make the
> course tough enough so a perfect score (no penalties) would be nearly
> impossible. How about giving a penalty every time someone backed up? I can't
> remember a single run where we didn't have to back up at least once.
That's how they do it in "real" rock crawling. It will be a little
different for us, because you don't actually have to "put it into
reverse". I think having a penalty for backing up may be good.
In the "real" event, there is also a penalty for using rear-steer,
but I think we should encourage "complexity in the robot/truck".
Maybe we could also offer some points for the actual design of the
robot. Like you get ?? points (to improve your score) if the truck
has rear-steer, 4 wheel drive, a working suspension...
Steve
|
|
| |
So . . . I've been lurking in your club's newsgroup lately and am wondering if
this rock crawling challenge will be at BrickWorld for sure. Are there other
robotics events planned?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Jordan Bradford wrote:
> wondering if this rock crawling challenge will be
> at BrickWorld for sure. Are there other robotics
> events planned?
We're not sure, yet, if Rock Crawling will be on the menu for Brickworld. There
will certainly be some robotics events, but we've not finalized a list as yet.
Does Rock Crawling sound interesting?
--
Brian Davis
(an actual BrickWorld coordinator... for robotics, even)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Jordan Bradford wrote:
> So . . . I've been lurking in your club's newsgroup lately and am wondering if
> this rock crawling challenge will be at BrickWorld for sure. Are there other
> robotics events planned?
Brian Davis is the competition coordinator for Brickworld's Mindstorms events,
so he is the right guy to work with if you have suggestions, desires, ideas,
etc.
Glad to hear someone is lurking about :)
B
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Brian Davis wrote:
> We're not sure, yet, if Rock Crawling will be on the menu for Brickworld. There
> will certainly be some robotics events, but we've not finalized a list as yet.
> Does Rock Crawling sound interesting?
That's because you haven't built a rock crawler and experienced how much fun it
is ;) I definitly think this should be an event. The biggest problem I see is
finding/bringing things to make a course.
John
|
|
| |
At 12:36 AM 1/10/07, Jordan Bradford wrote:
> So . . . I've been lurking in your club's newsgroup lately and am wondering if
> this rock crawling challenge will be at BrickWorld for sure. Are there other
> robotics events planned?
We've been talking about this. Rock Crawling offers a couple
interesting challenges. The first is to build a Rock Crawling truck,
and the second is drive it.
The problem is that most of us will be doing a great deal of
playing/testing before we go to Brickworld. So it may not be "fair"
to have a competition, because we'll have trucks that have been
tested "on-course" and by then we'll all be expert drivers. Or,
maybe not. We don't know.
However, in any case, I'm pretty sure we will have a course, and
trucks. I want to make it possible for people to come up and try
their hand at driving. If someone brings their own truck, that's great also.
If you have any suggestions about how to do this, you're more than
welcome to speak up.
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, John Brost wrote:
> > Does Rock Crawling sound interesting?
>
> That's because you haven't built a rock crawler
> and experienced how much fun it is ;)
Oh, I know it's fun - I was asking the community out there in general, not
echoing my internal thoughts :-).
> The biggest problem I see is finding/bringing
> things to make a course.
No problem - the "course" is to drive over Steve. We should be able to get all
of rtlToronto to come down for this one ;-).
--
Brian Davis
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Brian Davis wrote:
<snip>
> No problem - the "course" is to drive over Steve. We should be able to get all
> of rtlToronto to come down for this one ;-).
Nyyahhhh.. we build robots, not glorified RC cars...
;)
Actually, after seeing pics and videos from you guys, I'm so totally floored by
Rock Crawling!
I'd make the trip if I had an NXT :)
Dave K
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, David Koudys wrote:
> I'd make the trip if I had an NXT :)
Who needs an NXT??? I am using an RC buggy remote.
Question: If you guys in RTL Toronto build robots as you said, then why on earth don't you have an NXT already? (Check with Calum...I hear he has an NXT that he isn't using) :)
B
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Bryan Bonahoom wrote:
> In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, David Koudys wrote:
> > I'd make the trip if I had an NXT :)
>
> Who needs an NXT??? I am using an RC buggy remote.
>
> Question: If you guys in RTL Toronto build robots as you said, then why on earth don't you have an NXT already? (Check with Calum...I hear he has an NXT that he isn't using) :)
>
> B
'cause I like building robots with brick-plate-plate-brick studded construction.
And I like the ability to have 10 motors in 1 bot using 1 RCX. When John
develops a multiplexor to sell for the NXT so I can have more than 1 motor
connected to one output, maybe I'll look into buying one. As it stands (and as
I can afford), I'll stay with the RCX's (for now) :)
Dave K
-checking prices on NXT's all the time...
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, David Koudys wrote:
> And I like the ability to have 10 motors in 1 bot using 1 RCX. When John
> develops a multiplexor to sell for the NXT so I can have more than 1 motor
> connected to one output, maybe I'll look into buying one. As it stands (and as
> I can afford), I'll stay with the RCX's (for now) :)
So, I'm wondering about the NXT's ability to command the RCX. How possible is
the following: I know that I can hook up motors to my RCX sensor ports and vice
versa. They might not work doing anything really practical but they can be
hooked up. If I hook up an rcx motor to a sensor port on the rcx, and tell the
sensor port that it is really some kind of sensor, and then spin the motor, I
think I remember the rcx being about to tell that there is something at the end
of the line generating some current. Yeah, my details are fuzzy but I'm sure
someone has done this too.
So, why not tell the nxt to use an 'old rcx motor' block (or whatever it is
called) and use that to send information down one of the nxt wires, into a
conversion wire, into a port on the rcx. Then the nxt could tell the rcx what
to do.
Yeah, I haven't tried it, but I'm sure there is some combination of output from
the nxt that could be interpretted by an rcx.
Now, I have no idea why anyone would want to do that, but that's not my job
here.
In keeping with what is becoming common practice,
Rafe "All you have to do swim inside, jam a pebble in the fan, and swim out.
Once you do that, this tank is going to get filthier and filthier, and the
dentist will have no choice but to clean the tank himself. He'll put us in
individual baggies, then we roll out the window, down to the ground, across the
street, and into the ocean. It's foolproof!" Donahue
|
|
| |
At 12:22 PM 1/12/07, Rafe Donahue wrote:
Nemo,
> So, why not tell the nxt to use an 'old rcx motor' block (or whatever it is
> called) and use that to send information down one of the nxt wires, into a
> conversion wire, into a port on the rcx. Then the nxt could tell the rcx what
> to do.
I think this is possible, and would work, at least as well as it did
on the RCX.
A simple conversion cable could be connected to both. I believe the
wires that would be connected would act just like connecting two RCXs
together.
So, of the six wires in the NXT cable, two are (more or less) exactly
the same as in the RCX,. Those are the two that are connected in the
conversion cable.
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Brian Davis wrote:
> ...the "course" is to drive over Steve...
The more I thought about this, the more I liked this idea: I wanted to make a
really high-mobility vehicle, but the problem with wheels is they are really
stopped by steps greater than their own radius (well, partially, ignoring
pushing from behind). Not to mention that the Really Cool wheels (Power Puller)
are a tad hard to find, so... I thought of PackBot, and with the higher torque
NXT motors, thought I might make a stab at it. The result works pretty well:
handling piles of laundry, crawling over LEGO, climbing 30° wood slopes,
uprighting itself after flipping, smashing minifigs, etc. The only problem is it
needs just a *little* more length to reliably crawl over my leg, and of course
treads are not the highest friction in the LEGO universe (and, I'm out of
treads).
The first problem was transmitting the drive motion through the "shoulder" joint
of the flipper arms. Then the second, bigger problem was reinforcing the heck
out of the structure to keep it from tearing itself apart: the first version
could easily torque the whole front off, while this one doesn't even flex. And,
it's all studless*
Brickshelf folder of static images:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=229082
And a few videos. I like the one where it crawls over the old Technic Space
Shuttle...
LNE vs the Empire: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNXHKtnFBcc
Studless meets studded: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ik640MLj6k
On point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwBYvs7vq_0
*OK, there are six studs: I needed someplace to put the crazy minifig driver.
More curiously, I found myself having the same odd issue that I think John Brost
mentioned earlier: it's gotten so natural to build studless for me now, that it
was hard to try to make it a "hybrid". I think I can do a little better,
actually for a hybrid version.
--
Brian Davis
|
|
| |
"Brian Davis" <brdavis@iusb.edu> wrote in message
news:JCAvs8.H94@lugnet.com...
> The more I thought about this, the more I liked this idea: I wanted to
> make a
> really high-mobility vehicle, but the problem with wheels is they are
> really
> stopped by steps greater than their own radius (well, partially, ignoring
> pushing from behind). Not to mention that the Really Cool wheels (Power
> Puller)
> are a tad hard to find, so... I thought of PackBot, and with the higher
> torque
> NXT motors, thought I might make a stab at it. The result works pretty
> well:
> handling piles of laundry, crawling over LEGO, climbing 30° wood slopes,
> uprighting itself after flipping, smashing minifigs, etc. The only problem
> is it
> needs just a *little* more length to reliably crawl over my leg, and of
> course
> treads are not the highest friction in the LEGO universe (and, I'm out of
> treads).
Have you considered using the new 5-wide treads found in the new Technic
Snowmobile? They seem a lot more suited to driving over most surfaces with
their added width, and they're relatively new, so perhaps we can find out if
they're really as good as they look.
> The first problem was transmitting the drive motion through the "shoulder"
> joint
> of the flipper arms. Then the second, bigger problem was reinforcing the
> heck
> out of the structure to keep it from tearing itself apart: the first
> version
> could easily torque the whole front off, while this one doesn't even flex.
> And,
> it's all studless*
If you are going to get more photographs, I could use ideas on how to use
the studless elements in constructions. I'm at a relative shortage of
studless model instruction books to take techniques out of so I'd appreciate
a rundown any studless techniques you can explain in failry simple terms.
> Brickshelf folder of static images:
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=229082
>
> And a few videos. I like the one where it crawls over the old Technic
> Space
> Shuttle...
> LNE vs the Empire: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNXHKtnFBcc
> Studless meets studded: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ik640MLj6k
> On point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwBYvs7vq_0
Okay, the first was pretty good, the second it seemed to have a few problems
getting over the Space Shuttle itself, and eventually looked like it was
staggering around drunkenly after finally having succeeded, and the final
video was not too bad but a little short, I'd have appreciated a bit of
camera zoom/pan or the model running around showing how well it can turn.
> *OK, there are six studs: I needed someplace to put the crazy minifig
> driver.
> More curiously, I found myself having the same odd issue that I think John
> Brost
> mentioned earlier: it's gotten so natural to build studless for me now,
> that it
> was hard to try to make it a "hybrid". I think I can do a little better,
> actually for a hybrid version.
I wish I could get building studless "natural" myself. I'm intrigued by the
ways you can put it together, and it's a lot more complex than the simple
system implies. Especially when you actually have to think, now, how am I
going to take the power off the NXT and drive it down the side of my model
to somewhere I can use it.
As I said earlier, I'd appreciate any ideas on studless building you can
explain in fairly simple terms.
In fact, I'm hoping someone out there has or is working on a compilation of
studless building techniques.
A comment on your model's driving rpinciples, have you thought about trying
to get the treads themselves to slide as well as turn, so that you can not
only flip them but turn them over to the other side so as to take more
advantage of the fact that one side is slightly raised near one end? It
might make the model a bit bigger, but maybe you can make a mechanism that
accomplishes it with a gear rack that runs off an idler sprocket from the
main drive.
Also, for a wheeled version, have you tried building a ganged pair of front
wheels in a triangular formation? There was a movie that featured a very
large custom-built vehicle where the wheels simply rotated backwards,
flipping slowly backwards around the collective axis if they hit something
they couldn't easily drive over, until they drove over it.
I'd imagine it would be pretty complex to build in LEGO nowadys, but doable.
:)
Cheers ...
Geoffrey Hyde
|
|
| |
"Geoffrey Hyde" <g.hyde@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:JCAxx2.8KF@lugnet.com...
> Have you considered using the new 5-wide treads found in the new Technic
> Snowmobile? They seem a lot more suited to driving over most surfaces
> with their added width, and they're relatively new, so perhaps we can find
> out if they're really as good as they look.
http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemInv.asp?S=8272-1
I forgot to include the URL of the set I was talking about. Here is is
above.
Cheers ...
Geoffrey Hyde
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Geoffrey Hyde wrote:
> Have you considered using the new 5-wide treads found
> in the new Technic Snowmobile?
Yes, and no. The problem is they are hard plastic with ridges, so if a tread
ridge catches on a rough portion of the surface, they push fine... but if the
surface is smooth, they'll just slide (very low coefficient of friction). The
width is nice, but even better is the fact that the new Technic treads can be
made in various lengths by adding/removing tread links, and since they are wider
than the driving sprockets the support and driving mechanisms can be completely
hidden within the tread footprint, much more like PackBot. Those treads would
also allow me to make drive sprockets the same radius as the turntable
"shoulder", again much more in line with how PackBot does it (there's a number
of modifications, such as the shape of the flipper treads and their offset, to
get around this little problem).
The other problem is simply expense. I've got a bunch of those treads, because I
wanted to experiment with them, but I stil don't have the six linear feet of
tread that this *small* PackBot analog would require.
> if they're really as good as they look.
For some things, yes; the pin holes on them are really well done. They're not
quite as adjustable as the "old" chain and tread links, but that's just a size
issue (and at that small size, firm connections were... a lot more difficult).
> I could use ideas on how to use the studless elements
> in constructions.
Yes, I need to add some more detailed "exploded views".
> it seemed to have a few problems getting over the
> Space Shuttle itself...
It did, and I thought about re-shooting it... but hey, that's reality. Given
enough takes, I could always make it perfect :-). As to the "druken stagger"
after it makes it over, that's partially on purpose (to show the flexibility of
the platform) and partially because it's hard to control (remembering which way
I want to turn the flipper arms is tough when it's upside down, etc.)
> I'd have appreciated a bit of
> camera zoom/pan or the model
> running around showing how well
> it can turn.
I'll work on that: driving the model takes two hands, which doesn't leave a lot
free for running the camera :-).
> In fact, I'm hoping someone out there has or
> is working on a compilation of studless building
> techniques.
I've been asked that a couple of times, and I guess I should make up some
examples and mechanisms... but it's always surprising to me, because I feel like
I am a rank amateur at studless construction (at least every time I look at
LEGO's official models). But yeah, consider me bugged.
> have you thought about trying to get the treads themselves
> to slide as well as turn [etc.]
I'm not sure I understand what you mean: can you exaplin it better, or build a
simple model to show what you mean?
> have you tried building a ganged pair of front
> wheels in a triangular formation?
That configuration is called a "tri-star wheel", and appeared in the movie
"Damnation Alley". And yes, it's been done in LEGO, and done well. Search LUGNET
for "tri-star wheel", or just go here:
http://www.visi.com/~dc/
--
Brian Davis
|
|
| |
"Brian Davis" <brdavis@iusb.edu> wrote in message
news:JCBttB.GEJ@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Geoffrey Hyde wrote:
>
> > Have you considered using the new 5-wide treads found
> > in the new Technic Snowmobile?
>
> Yes, and no. The problem is they are hard plastic with ridges, so if a
> tread
> ridge catches on a rough portion of the surface, they push fine... but if
> the
> surface is smooth, they'll just slide (very low coefficient of friction).
> The
> width is nice, but even better is the fact that the new Technic treads can
> be
> made in various lengths by adding/removing tread links, and since they are
> wider
> than the driving sprockets the support and driving mechanisms can be
> completely
> hidden within the tread footprint, much more like PackBot. Those treads
> would
> also allow me to make drive sprockets the same radius as the turntable
> "shoulder", again much more in line with how PackBot does it (there's a
> number
> of modifications, such as the shape of the flipper treads and their
> offset, to
> get around this little problem).
I see. I wonder if we'll ever see some kind of rubber plug-in outer surface
for these treads? Since they already have mounting holes, it only remains
to figure out what would best suit a tread so as to improve it's grip.
Ideally it would be like a car tire's tread pattern whereby the tread
presses harder given more weight.
> The other problem is simply expense. I've got a bunch of those treads,
> because I
> wanted to experiment with them, but I stil don't have the six linear feet
> of
> tread that this *small* PackBot analog would require.
:-) I can completely understand the expense angle. I'm hoping that since
there are even more of these treads in the bulldozer which is also due out
this year, that the expense angle can become somewhat cheaper. And I think
that the bulldozer will also have a lot of extra useful parts. ;-)
> > if they're really as good as they look.
>
> For some things, yes; the pin holes on them are really well done. They're
> not
> quite as adjustable as the "old" chain and tread links, but that's just a
> size
> issue (and at that small size, firm connections were... a lot more
> difficult).
I think there was some saying about size to usability ratio increases as you
get bigger - not sure what it was actually worded like, though.
> > I could use ideas on how to use the studless elements
> > in constructions.
>
> Yes, I need to add some more detailed "exploded views".
True, or if you have the parts in an LDRAW program derivative, you could
probably explode-assembly them there. I have to investigate a program I
have downloaded here called MLCAD, anyway. If you wanted to, you could
provide a suitable file format for downloading, or have it written out as a
text LDRAW file, that would be okay I think. But I also need to try and
update the LDRAW parts library.
> > it seemed to have a few problems getting over the
> > Space Shuttle itself...
>
> It did, and I thought about re-shooting it... but hey, that's reality.
> Given
> enough takes, I could always make it perfect :-). As to the "druken
> stagger"
> after it makes it over, that's partially on purpose (to show the
> flexibility of
> the platform) and partially because it's hard to control (remembering
> which way
> I want to turn the flipper arms is tough when it's upside down, etc.)
:-) Maybe the front arms could be made somewhat longer in length?
> > I'd have appreciated a bit of
> > camera zoom/pan or the model
> > running around showing how well
> > it can turn.
>
> I'll work on that: driving the model takes two hands, which doesn't leave
> a lot
> free for running the camera :-).
:-) All I could suggest is perhaps rework the control unit you're using,
btw, can you include some shots and explanations of that? Or are you using
a bluetooth communication to your PC/mobile to drive it?
> > In fact, I'm hoping someone out there has or
> > is working on a compilation of studless building
> > techniques.
>
> I've been asked that a couple of times, and I guess I should make up some
> examples and mechanisms... but it's always surprising to me, because I
> feel like
> I am a rank amateur at studless construction (at least every time I look
> at
> LEGO's official models). But yeah, consider me bugged.
I know, but every time I look at instructions for studless I start to wonder
which way I should orient everything. I've been experimenting with the
pieces themselves, but getting the hang of studless sometimes is difficult
if what you've built is mostly the standard out-of-the-box models. It is
certainly paying off though, I'm expanding my learning of studless the more
I work at it the more I know what I can and can't do.
Also, changing from one orientation to another to send the drive shaft where
you want it can be tricky at times, and leave you wondering which direction
you originally wanted to go in anyway. :-)
> > have you thought about trying to get the treads themselves
> > to slide as well as turn [etc.]
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean: can you exaplin it better, or
> build a
> simple model to show what you mean?
Well, I'm not actually sure it's possible to do, given how complex it
already is, but basically give them the ability to slide forwards and
backwards (extend and retract) along their own length. It may require more
parts, gearing, and motors than is practical, anyway. But imagine a sliding
door moving back and forth.
> > have you tried building a ganged pair of front
> > wheels in a triangular formation?
>
> That configuration is called a "tri-star wheel", and appeared in the movie
> "Damnation Alley". And yes, it's been done in LEGO, and done well. Search
> LUGNET
> for "tri-star wheel", or just go here:
A very nice vehicle indeed! I notice nobody has yet tried studless
construction. That would indeed be a true test of model building skill to
accomplish that. :-) If they were available in sufficient quantity, I'd
use the large wheels from the power puller set, as they'd make pretty good
tires for such a model and give it plenty of ground clearance to boot. :-)
Cheers ...
Geoffrey Hyde
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Geoffrey Hyde wrote:
> I wonder if we'll ever see some kind of rubber plug-in outer surface
> for these treads?
I would like to hope so. Those mounting holes would seem perfect to secure
rubber cleats to, especially with the ridges on the hard plastic tread
underneath. That one piece woulkd change them from semi-decorative to fully
robotic functional (not that they aren't functional now).
> Ideally it would be like a car tire's tread pattern
> whereby the tread presses harder given more weight.
Tire treads are there to handle things like wet or dirty roads, not to just
increase friction when pressed down harder (there's some good basic physics
reasons friction doesn't work that way... it turns out those reasons are wriong,
but it seems the concoulsions hold :-).
> If you wanted to, you could provide a suitable (LDRAW or MLCAD)
> file format for downloading... [etc.]
Despite some very very good reasons to kump into LDRAW or similar with both
feet, I've never taken the plunge. First, I've had no luck getting them working
on my Mac (OSX), and second, if I have the time I usually want to play with real
bricks, not the virtual ones. *Someday* I'll be forced to do it.
> Maybe the front arms could be made somewhat longer in length?
Not while I'm limited to the "stock length" rubber treads. I could get them
about 3 units longer by offsetting the "front" of the arm tread from the center
of the shoulder joint, but at a minimum cost of making the whole chassis at
least 4 beams wider, and probably a lot weaker or at least a lot heavier.
> > driving the model takes two hands...
>
> perhaps rework the control unit you're using...
The problem is the robot has three degrees of freedom: left tread, right tread,
and flipper arm position. So I need to work at least three controls on the
remote. I'm planning on partially automating the flipper arms (so they can be
use din "full manual" mode, or handled by single button presses or voice
command). But for full control, you really need full constant control of three
control surfaces, and that's tough to do with just one hand.
> btw, can you include some shots and explanations of that?
The hardware for my BT remote is pretty much laid out in my Brickshelf folder:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=203384
The software, as well as a short "how to" document, Steve Hassenplug was kind
enough to host on his website (down near the bottom, although take a look at the
rest too - Steve has popped some nice content up there):
http://www.teamhassenplug.org/NXT/
> give them the ability to slide forwards and
> backwards (extend and retract) along their
> own length.
Yes, dynamicly changing the tread length would be great, and doable in a couple
of ways. For instance, here's something similar:
http://www.astolfo.com/bots/dynatrax.asp
There's also the "shape shifting tank" design:
http://news.lugnet.com/technic/?n=9672
The problem comes in at the number of motors. With three motors, I can really
only have three full degrees of freedom (OK, yes, I could use splitters if I
wanted, but then it could only move forward or something similar... not really
in the spirit of a high-mobility system) unless I want to go with 3rd party
multiplexers. And honestly, i'll probably try that once HiTechnic comes out with
something. But at least initally, I wanted this acessible to anybody with "just
LEGO", so three motors was the limit.
--
Brian Davis
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Brian Davis wrote:
> In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Brian Davis wrote:
>
> > ...the "course" is to drive over Steve...
>
> The more I thought about this, the more I liked this idea: I wanted to make a
> really high-mobility vehicle, but the problem with wheels is they are really
> stopped by steps greater than their own radius (well, partially, ignoring
> pushing from behind). Not to mention that the Really Cool wheels (Power Puller)
> are a tad hard to find, so... I thought of PackBot, and with the higher torque
> NXT motors, thought I might make a stab at it. The result works pretty well:
> handling piles of laundry, crawling over LEGO, climbing 30° wood slopes,
> uprighting itself after flipping, smashing minifigs, etc. The only problem is it
> needs just a *little* more length to reliably crawl over my leg, and of course
> treads are not the highest friction in the LEGO universe (and, I'm out of
> treads).
>
> The first problem was transmitting the drive motion through the "shoulder" joint
> of the flipper arms. Then the second, bigger problem was reinforcing the heck
> out of the structure to keep it from tearing itself apart: the first version
> could easily torque the whole front off, while this one doesn't even flex. And,
> it's all studless*
>
> Brickshelf folder of static images:
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=229082
>
> And a few videos. I like the one where it crawls over the old Technic Space
> Shuttle...
> LNE vs the Empire: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNXHKtnFBcc
> Studless meets studded: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ik640MLj6k
> On point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwBYvs7vq_0
>
> *OK, there are six studs: I needed someplace to put the crazy minifig driver.
> More curiously, I found myself having the same odd issue that I think John Brost
> mentioned earlier: it's gotten so natural to build studless for me now, that it
> was hard to try to make it a "hybrid". I think I can do a little better,
> actually for a hybrid version.
Awesome! Great videos! BTW if you want to know how to make bigger tires, try
inserting old school 1" Lego tires into the crevices around the large grey "hula
hoops" from the star wars kit. This will make tires at least 8" (20 cm) in
diameter that have deep tread to grip the edge of stairs.
|
|
| |
Brian,
Brian Davis wrote:
> And the video on YouTube, with my son standing in for Steve's legs:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnpMrgDCXlc
Absolutely awesome!
/Matthias (deeply impressed)
ps Now I'm going to wait day and night for the LDraw file ;-) (give them
an inch and they will take a mile...)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Matthias Paul Scholz wrote:
> Brian,
>
> Brian Davis wrote:
>
> > And the video on YouTube, with my son standing in for Steve's legs:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnpMrgDCXlc
>
>
> Absolutely awesome!
>
> /Matthias (deeply impressed)
>
> ps Now I'm going to wait day and night for the LDraw file ;-) (give them
> an inch and they will take a mile...)
Same comments and feelings here ;o)
Brian, it would help to reproduce your outstanding design (and maybe CAD it!) if
you could provide higher resolutions photographs somewhere...
Philo
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Brian Davis wrote:
> And the video on YouTube, with my son standing in for Steve's legs:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnpMrgDCXlc
I say we just award the prize now. Very wonderfully done, Brian. The kids will
go nuts when they see the video!
|
|
| |
Brian, your rock crawler is quite interesting to me because you've rediscovered
the design of a real-world reconnaissance robot:
http://www.firstresponserobotics.com/
The designer is related to my boss in some manner that I can't recall, but he
was up at our office last summer showing us videos of the robot and having us
help him design some promotional materials.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Philippe Hurbain wrote:
> Brian, it would help to reproduce your outstanding
> design (and maybe CAD it!) if you could provide higher
> resolutions photographs somewhere...
Thank you both Matthias & Philo (and others!). give them an inch indeed...
first, I really feel i need to apologize for *not* CADing this up. I've tried to
CAD stuff, but the combination of my chosen platform (Mac) coupled with where I
like using my free time (building, not CADing) and furthermore the complexity of
the designs I'm actually interested in documenting (like this), have conspired
to make me a lazy slob who's not documented things in the "normal" format.
Somebody, please help me, or brow-beat me some more, and I'll try to rise to
that standard sometime.
As to higher-res photos, agreed: these were actually reduced for BS, and I've
got higher-res ones availible. I probably need to do an even *better* job
documented the construction, not just the parts but the sequence: for studless
constructions like this, I sometimes feel like I'm making one of those "slide
the pieces to assemble the cube" wooden puzzle. For instance, one of those
images I had to use my fingers to point out three red (in that "step") pins that
need to be pulled to remove a long white composite beam that is critical to
holding the two shoulders on... but is actually partially hidden within the
shoulders on the ends.
Where do you guys want more/better photos? What needs improved documentation?
--
Brian Davis
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Jordan Bradford wrote:
> you've rediscovered the design of a real-world
> reconnaissance robot...
well, in all honesty I shamelessly implemented a solution I had already known
about: PackBot by iRobot. I won't remotely claim the idea originated with me, as
it didn't. I was inspired by the "real world" here.
That said, I'd not run across the link you posted - thanks. I wonder if
FirstResponseRobots and iRobot have ever gotten into infringment lawsuites (or,
perhaps, who actually holds the patents on this sort of system; it may be
neither company).
--
Brian Davis
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Rafe Donahue wrote:
> I say we just award the prize now.
Ha! Methinks you underestimate the talents (not to mention obsession) of the
other folks in this event <grin>. Seriously, thanks for the kind words, and I'm
very happy with it, but now the rest of you know yet another way to try to do
it. Go for it: somebody make a robot that will drive over LNE. Incidently, for
RC combat this thing is fun too. Just put a blade or two on the front flippers
and it is even more fun (although I need to shift the CoM... perhaps
dynamicly... dang, this thing really does need more than three motors I fear).
> The kids will go nuts when they see the video!
Thanks. I took it to a public "science night" a couple days ago, but with faster
gearing... it ran basicly continuously for 2.5 hours, driving over kids, feet,
LEGO, and anything else they could manage. And the minifig never fell out :-).
--
Brian Davis
|
|
| |
The second set of arms on Mike's robot gives it better mobility. They make its
overall tread length much longer, so it can treat stairs like a ramp instead of,
well, stairs, and that makes it faster at climbing them. The arms also let it
raise the entire chassis over certain obstacles, and it doesn't have to turn
around to use its arms because it has them on both ends.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
> We had a small gathering to test out stuff for our upcoming remote control Rock
> Crawling event at Brickworld.
>
> This should be fun at Brickworld (http://www.brickworld.us)
>
> Steve
Hi
My son wanted an "real RC car" so I took the RC buggy body and made a few
changes to have a final result. It is a 4x4 truck driven with 2 RC motors, and I
adapted the RC steering mechanism for the front drive.
It's very large, and quite slow (reduced 45-1), but very strong. Unfortunately,
There is no tilt point or suspension, and it has a tendency to spin if one wheel
if lifted in the air.
The good side is its manoeuvrability (right word???) both for steering and the
distance from the comand. (I can be far away and still have a response)
On the first try, I had the differential in last reduction, but the inside gear
broke... so I had to put the diff one step earlier:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=2333020
Anyhow, the whole experience has been a LOT of fun.
There is a few pics on this folder after mod:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=235560
I did 2 more funny constructions, but no pics available yet.
LMKWYT, JM
|
|
|
