| |
I searched news, and didn’t see any mention of this ...
PicoCricket
From the website:
“The PicoCricket Kit is similar to the LEGO® MINDSTORMS™ robotics kits.
MINDSTORMS is designed especially for making robots, while the PicoCricket Kit
is designed for making artistic creations with lights, sound, music, and
motion.”
-and-
“The PicoCricket captures the LEGO spirit: it sparks the imagination, stimulates
creative thinking, and engages children in playful learning.”
–Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen, Owner and Vice Chairman of The LEGO Company
The kit includes a motor, sound box, colored lights, display, and
resistance/sound/light/touch sensors.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.robotics, Robert Fries wrote:
| |
I searched news, and didn’t see any mention of this ...
PicoCricket
|
Huh. That’s kind of neat. It seems to run at least two tasks, and I like a
lot of the output options (having the motor driver seperate from the brain is a
good idea). It even has a text-based language option, and runs on both major
platforms. I may have to look into these a bit deeper for really small robotics
projects. Has anybody seen one of these things in person?
--
Brian Davis
|
|
| |
In lugnet.robotics, Robert Fries wrote:
| |
I searched news, and didn’t see any mention of this ...
PicoCricket
From the website:
“The PicoCricket Kit is similar to the LEGO® MINDSTORMS™ robotics kits.
MINDSTORMS is designed especially for making robots, while the PicoCricket
Kit is designed for making artistic creations with lights, sound, music, and
motion.”
-and-
“The PicoCricket captures the LEGO spirit: it sparks the imagination,
stimulates creative thinking, and engages children in playful learning.”
–Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen, Owner and Vice Chairman of The LEGO Company
The kit includes a motor, sound box, colored lights, display, and
resistance/sound/light/touch sensors.
|
See their own news page at:
http://www.picocricket.com/press.html
Or a number of entries from Google:
http://www.google.com/search?q=pico-cricket
It’s $250. I’d buy a Nxt and spend ten or twenty bucks at the craft store
instead.
|
|
| |
Dennis Williamson said: "It's $250. I'd buy a Nxt and spend ten or
twenty bucks at the craft store instead."
Yes. But you're an adult and not the target market.
The NXT and PICO cricket are two different products with different
target market segments. Here's some brief comments; I hope to write a
blog entry soon with more details.
My four year granddaughter's attention span for the NXT is about 5
minutes. However, she happily spent all afternoon last Sunday with her
22-year old Aunt building a "playground" with the kit. They had as much
fun playing with the pipe cleaners, cotton balls, etc in building a tree
and slide as they did with the motorized merry-go-round based on Lego
parts.
It has a graphical programming language that is more basic but far
easier to learn for a young child to use than NXT-G.
It also has some features you can't find on the NXT. It has a really
neat user controlled light output; it looks like a tri-color LED with
variable intensity for each color. It has better sound playback -- you
can select from 20 or so different voices (piano, trumpet, bells, horse
(!!), etc).
|
|
| |
On 30/08/06, Robert Fries <robert@servername.net> wrote:
> I searched news, and didn't see any mention of this ...
>
> <http://www.picocricket.com/index.html PicoCricket>
>
> From the website:
>
> "The PicoCricket Kit is similar to the LEGO(r) MINDSTORMS™ robotics kits.
> MINDSTORMS is designed especially for making robots, while the PicoCricket Kit
> is designed for making artistic creations with lights, sound, music, and
> motion."
<snip>
I like the idea of this, the modules are neat. I have blogged it on
OrionRobots http://orionrobots.co.uk/blogs/dannystaple.
Question - does anyone know how many output or input modules could be
attached, and if there are any plans for seperate motor control
boards? I strongly agree with Brian that having the motor controller
seperate from the mainboard could be quite handy.
Danny
--
Danny Staple MBCS
OrionRobots
http://orionrobots.co.uk/blogs/dannystaple
(Full contact details available through website)
|
|
| |
On 31/08/06, danny staple <danny@orionrobots.co.uk> wrote:
> On 30/08/06, Robert Fries <robert@servername.net> wrote:
> > I searched news, and didn't see any mention of this ...
> >
> > <http://www.picocricket.com/index.html PicoCricket>
> >
> > From the website:
> >
> > "The PicoCricket Kit is similar to the LEGO(r) MINDSTORMS™ robotics kits.
> > MINDSTORMS is designed especially for making robots, while the PicoCricket
> > Kit
> > is designed for making artistic creations with lights, sound, music, and
> > motion."
>
> <snip>
>
> I like the idea of this, the modules are neat. I have blogged it on
> OrionRobots http://orionrobots.co.uk/blogs/dannystaple.
>
> Question - does anyone know how many output or input modules could be
> attached, and if there are any plans for seperate motor control
> boards? I strongly agree with Brian that having the motor controller
> seperate from the mainboard could be quite handy.
Hmm - sorry I was not clear there, I meant are there any plans to
*sell* the boards seperate from the kit.
Doh..
Danny
--
Danny Staple MBCS
OrionRobots
http://orionrobots.co.uk/blogs/dannystaple
(Full contact details available through website)
|
|
| |
On Thursday, August 31, 2006 7:03 AM danny staple wrote:
"Question - does anyone know how many output or input modules could be
attached, and if there are any plans for seperate motor control
boards? I strongly agree with Brian that having the motor controller
separate from the mainboard could be quite handy."
The PICO cricket had four ports. The ports are interchangeable -- you
can connect either inputs or outputs to the port. And any device can be
plugged into any port and the PICO cricket will find the device!
Each peripheral device is intelligent and equipped with its own small
microprocessor. There's a standard bus between the PICO cricket and the
devices. This common bus is used for both sensors and motors. There's a
good description of the Cricket bus somewhere on the MIT web site and
presumably this is what PICO has used.
From memory, I recall the bus as proving power, ground and a half-duplex
serial link. The packet protocol on the bus included an address field,
so it should be possible to daisy chain multiple items on the bus
although the PICO cricket does not have the mechanical capabilities to
do this. The bus was fast -- 100s of Kbits per second. THE MIT paper on
the protocol was particularly "proud" of the design innovation allowing
a bit-banged implementation on small micros that did not have hardware
UART -- I recall they stretched the 'start' bit.
The motors/sensors have self-identification capabilities. For example,
if you program a motor, it works whenever the motor is plugged into any
of the four ports. The self-identification is the "type of device" and
not an address.
For example, the base kit comes with two light outputs. If you do
nothing when you send a light control command then it is sent out over
all four ports. The default action is that a command applies to all
ports. There is a feature that allows you to specify that an
input/output command should use the single port specified.
The ports use a funny little connector. It looks like the same physical
shape as the tiny USB connector used on my digital camera. Logically and
electrically it is not US.
PICO cricket devices have features you can't find on the NXT. It has a
really neat user controlled light output; it looks like a tri-color LED
with variable intensity for each color. It has better sound playback --
you can select from 24 different instruments: piano, trumpet, bells,
vibe, rooster, horse , etc). Rooster/horse? -- remember this is a kid's
toy! You can also control the tempo (playback speed. 100 steps) and
volume (100 steps). You can also define your own tune/melody for
playback.
Two PICO crickets can message to each other by "beaming" infrared
packets between them. This is not the 'crippled' low speed IR found in
the RCX. I think it is much higher bandwidth.
Yes. I too think it would be neat if the PICO cricket devices could be
connected to the NXT. There seems to be two approaches:
1. Develop a new NXT "sensor" to beam IR packets to a PICO cricket.
2. Develop a new NXT "sensor" that contains one (or more) of the PICO
cricket connectors. There's probably a powering issue -- especially
with motors.
All power to ports is supplied from the main PICO cricket. It takes
three batteries (AA I think, but maybe AAA -- I can't remember). So I
think the motors are maybe a little underpowered for use in a Robot. It
only supports legacy LEGO motors.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.robotics, Dick Swan wrote:
[a whole lot of useful stuff]
Thank you! Clearly you'e played with these at some time in the past then. So
another qustion... can the picocricket be reprogrammed with custom FW, or made
to work with NQC (John?)... could RobotC be stretched this far? I suspect the
answer is no, but I'm liking the addition of still more custom hardware.
> All power to ports is supplied from the main PICO cricket.
> It takes three batteries (AA I think, but maybe AAA -- I
> can't remember).
So powering motors is going to be tough, but for lighting effects, and simple
light responses to sensors, this might be interesting. My Moonbase module was
internally lit this time, but with this... hmm...
--
Brian Davis
|
|
| |
On 31/08/06, Dick Swan <dickswan@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 31, 2006 7:03 AM danny staple wrote:
> "Question - does anyone know how many output or input modules could be
> attached, and if there are any plans for seperate motor control
> boards? I strongly agree with Brian that having the motor controller
> separate from the mainboard could be quite handy."
>
> The PICO cricket had four ports. The ports are interchangeable -- you
> can connect either inputs or outputs to the port. And any device can be
> plugged into any port and the PICO cricket will find the device!
So bar power requirements, what is the addressing range of that? It
would be cool to be able to daisy chain elements, and jsut add
additional power where needed.
> Each peripheral device is intelligent and equipped with its own small
> microprocessor. There's a standard bus between the PICO cricket and the
> devices. This common bus is used for both sensors and motors. There's a
> good description of the Cricket bus somewhere on the MIT web site and
> presumably this is what PICO has used.
Each device having its own micro explains the expense, I take it that
only the main one can be reprogrammed and the otherones are merely
"slaves" with fixed code.
> From memory, I recall the bus as proving power, ground and a half-duplex
> serial link. The packet protocol on the bus included an address field,
> so it should be possible to daisy chain multiple items on the bus
> although the PICO cricket does not have the mechanical capabilities to
> do this. The bus was fast -- 100s of Kbits per second. THE MIT paper on
> the protocol was particularly "proud" of the design innovation allowing
> a bit-banged implementation on small micros that did not have hardware
> UART -- I recall they stretched the 'start' bit.
Oh - sorry asked that just up. I would still like to know how large
the address space is. Of course that is academic if it couldnt be
programmed. Do you think the default programming system could be
overridden with a fancier system, like NQC or similar. If it is based
on a standard micro, maybe there is a C compiler out there somewhere
for it. There is something about this being as modular as it is that
screams hackability to me.
> The motors/sensors have self-identification capabilities. For example,
> if you program a motor, it works whenever the motor is plugged into any
> of the four ports. The self-identification is the "type of device" and
> not an address.
Nice. But that would mean you may not be able to have two or more
motors connected as they cannot be uniquely identified. Unless this is
cleverer even than that, and each motor has a unique ID which remains
the same when their port is changed. Something not unlike udev and MAC
addresses on NIC's.
> For example, the base kit comes with two light outputs. If you do
> nothing when you send a light control command then it is sent out over
> all four ports. The default action is that a command applies to all
> ports. There is a feature that allows you to specify that an
> input/output command should use the single port specified.
Okay. Again, answering my above question.
> The ports use a funny little connector. It looks like the same physical
> shape as the tiny USB connector used on my digital camera. Logically and
> electrically it is not US.[B]
I would not expect so, but that tiny port may in itself define the
line power abilities, as I cant imagine such small connectors can deal
with much of a current.
> PICO cricket devices have features you can't find on the NXT. It has a
> really neat user controlled light output; it looks like a tri-color LED
> with variable intensity for each color. It has better sound playback --
> you can select from 24 different instruments: piano, trumpet, bells,
> vibe, rooster, horse , etc). Rooster/horse? -- remember this is a kid's
> toy! You can also control the tempo (playback speed. 100 steps) and
> volume (100 steps). You can also define your own tune/melody for
> playback.
I picked that up. I thought the NXT sound playback could be primed
with a sampled sound from a PC? Does it share any file
formats/protocols with the NXT?
> Two PICO crickets can message to each other by "beaming" infrared
> packets between them. This is not the 'crippled' low speed IR found in
> the RCX. I think it is much higher bandwidth.
Which aslo implies that it may not be IR compatible with it, unless
the IR can be clocked down to deal with it. I take it we are talking
about the clock frequency, and not the carrier, or is the carrier
different too?
> Yes. I too think it would be neat if the PICO cricket devices could be
> connected to the NXT. There seems to be two approaches:
>
> 1. Develop a new NXT "sensor" to beam IR packets to a PICO cricket.
>
> 2. Develop a new NXT "sensor" that contains one (or more) of the PICO
> cricket connectors. There's probably a powering issue -- especially
> with motors.
Also, couldn't yet another method be created using one of the NXT
motor ports, since there is already two way communication there due to
the motor feedback. Could motor port lines on the NXT be bit banged,
and maybe a direct interface to the cricket bus be made?
> All power to ports is supplied from the main PICO cricket. It takes
> three batteries (AA I think, but maybe AAA -- I can't remember). So I
> think the motors are maybe a little underpowered for use in a Robot. It
> only supports legacy LEGO motors.
Thats not such a bad thing, I have plenty of those laying around.
Being underpowered could be awkward, and it would be nice if the motor
boards could be given some separate power.
Danny
--
Danny Staple MBCS
OrionRobots
http://orionrobots.co.uk/blogs/dannystaple
(Full contact details available through website)
|
|
|
