 | | | | | |
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@&AvoidSpam&3dnature.com>
|
Viewed:
|
7030 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.COMstopspam.AU>
|
Viewed:
|
7098 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.comSPAMCAKE.au>
|
Viewed:
|
7067 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@gmailSAYNOTOSPAM.com>
|
Viewed:
|
7231 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@stopspammersGMAIL.COM>
|
Viewed:
|
7206 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:
|
6907 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:
|
7143 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:
|
7179 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@YAHOOstopspam.COM>
|
Viewed:
|
7265 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@ANTISPAMyahoo.com>
|
Viewed:
|
7301 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@yahoo/NoMoreSpam/.com>
|
Viewed:
|
7263 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
| | | | | | |
