Subject:
|
RE: RCX & Cybermaster (VLL comms and MicroScout)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 26 Mar 2001 12:08:21 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Marco Correia <marco@&SayNoToSpam&soporcel.pt>
|
Reply-To:
|
<marco@soporcel.AVOIDSPAMpt>
|
Viewed:
|
761 times
|
| |
|
|
I think that a pBrick like RCX or CM isn't fast enough to detect PWM
cycles.
Don't know the speed of a legOS program.
On top of that, I think that the sensors detect resistance, not voltage.
You can do this test yourself, using two RCX's or one RCX connected to
itself.
(That was what I did when I only had a CyberMaster. I did the tests
connecting it to itself, eheh)
Anyway, I'm doing the SlowVLL library in NQC because I want the CM to both
*send* AND *receive* data from RCX. Some applications, send-only will do,
but there's some projects that I need the CM to receive feedback data from
the RCX.
This is why I never tried this PWM "reading" technique, myself.
Nevertheless, thanks for the idea :)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Hatch [mailto:vbq@myrealbox.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 1:57 AM
> To: Michel Gallant; Marco C
> Subject: Re: RCX & Cybermaster (VLL comms and MicroScout)
>
>
> I just had a little bell go off in my head. How fast do the
> PWM cycles go
> for output level 5 (for example)?
>
> If the primary use is CM->RCX, why don't we use a direct
> connection at a
> low-power level or a medium-power level or something. The
> sensor read cycle
> is somewhat long, isn't it? Also, this would remove the
> large program from
> the CM, placing it on the receiver to decipher.
>
> Will this work (strictly theory for me)?
>
> Tim
>
> P.S. I live in the U.S. where the CM does not fit any of the
> FCC rules and
> as such I don't have one. Grumble.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michel Gallant <mgallant@grassroots.ns.ca>
> To: <lego-robotics@crynwr.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 10:42 PM
> Subject: RE: RCX & Cybermaster (VLL comms and MicroScout)
>
>
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Marco Correia wrote:
> >
> > Actually, if I recall correctly, the sensor inputs are • quite happy to
> > accept voltage inputs up to 9V, in RAW mode anyway. It • might not be good
> > if they
> > were in an "active" mode, though (rotation sensor, light • sensor). I don't
> > know what would happen in that case. Maybe the brick can • take it and
> > maybe it can't. Anyone know more than me and care to comment?
> >
> > MG
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message----- • [snip]
> > > > In lugnet.technic, Marco Correia writes:
> > > > > Hi Chris,
> > > > >
> > > > > Do a search for "CM-RCX Comm" thread, in lugnet.robotics :) • [snip]
> > > > Thx, Marco. I'm investigating! btw, Do you mean that • they communicate
> > > > through a standard lead attached to sensor inputs, say, • or some other
> > > > electrical connection?
> > >
> > > Yep, besides using the "normal" Light->LightSensor type
> of comms, the
> direct
> > > electric connection is possible too, by using NQC's Off() • and Float()
> > > commands, you simulate the ON/OFF state of a TouchSensor. • This way, it's
> > > possible to use a connection through a standard lead • attached between a
> > > (motor) OUT-port and a (sensor) IN-port
> > >
> > > Be careful not to use any OnFrw() or OnRev() type of
> commands, because
> that
> > > would send a 9Volt signal through the IN-port, and that's • not good.
> > > (well... by accident, I did that once, and thankfully
> nothing happened
> to
> > > the in-port of my CyberMaster. Nevertheless, it's not a
> wise thing to do
> ;)
> >
> >
> > --
> > Did you check the web site first?: • http://www.crynwr.com/lego-robotics
>
>
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
