Subject:
|
Re: What is with the Technic Stormtrooper?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Sat, 28 Oct 2000 04:51:14 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Steve Baker <sjbaker1@airmail.net#SayNoToSpam#>
|
Reply-To:
|
SJBAKER1@AIRMAILstopspammers.NET
|
Viewed:
|
625 times
|
| |
|
|
> John Barnes wrote:
> > I just hope that
> > the Mindstorms guys are listening too, and pick up on the steady
> > message from just about every RCX user out there;
> >
> > "we need more i/o" and "we need more kinds of sensors"
This is certainly true - but when I think "I need more I/O" - I
also think "I/O should be modular and infinitely expandable".
I don't want *any* practical limit to the number of motors and
sensors. A mere 'Mark II RCX' with (say) 5 inputs and 5 outputs
would be a disappointment to me.
Think of the amazing models people could built with a couple of dozen
motors and sensors.
I would like to see a 'computer' brick with nothing but a single,
small connector to an addressable bus...something like the Philips
I2C bus:
http://perso.club-internet.fr/mbouget/i2c-faq.html
This would allow the hypothetical new controller to have just one
4 pin connector on it - and then to have each motors and sensor have
daisy-chain connectors so that you can connect one to another.
This would allow you to have a practically unlimited number of motors
and sensors hanging off that one connector. You can even get RAM chips
and LCD displays that connect to I2C - so the "computer brick" itself could
even be modular internally. There is a list of about 60 different I2C
chips in the FAQ. This includes things like an choice of several A-to-D
convertors and a "high current driver" that sounds like it would be
perfect for driving Lego motors. There are even things like speech
synthesisers.
I2C is cheap *and* compact - they make entire microprocessors with just
a few pins that connect to I2C. It's not blazingly fast - but for robotics,
I don't think that's an issue. If this were done right, you could even
have multiple computer 'bricks' on the same bus.
I'd like to see the control buttons separated out from the computer brick
and the battery box similarly 'broken out' into a separate box.
This degree of modularity and lack of built-in limits is much more in
the spirit of Lego than the existing monolithic design.
As for "more sensors" - I'd settle for what we have now if only there
were ways to use more of them. Perhaps a better light sensor would be
good. Decouple the light source from the detector - nearly every design
seems to have to block out the red LED - and that's a pain.
It would be nice if there was either a true stepper motor - or a regular
motor with a built-in rotation sensor. Most true robots need a 'kinesthetic'
sense for every motor - and the space and weight consumed by adding a separate
rotation sensor for each motor in current Lego robots is a pain.
--
Steve Baker HomeEmail: <sjbaker1@airmail.net>
WorkEmail: <sjbaker@link.com>
HomePage : http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1
Projects : http://plib.sourceforge.net
http://tuxaqfh.sourceforge.net
http://tuxkart.sourceforge.net
http://prettypoly.sourceforge.net
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
3 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
