Robotics : 18513


Robotics / 18513

Spybotics vs Cricket —Suzanne D. Rich

Forgive me if this has already been discussed.. I haven't followed all messages here. I was at TLC's presentation of Spybotics at BF. There, it was described as, "the next generation of RCX." Knowing it has 2 sensor inputs and 2 motor outs, I wonder (...) (22 years ago, 26-Jul-02, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: Spybotics vs Cricket —John Hansen

(...) The Spybot brick has 3 motor outputs. A & B are the two built-in motors. Output C is the VLL light (pretty much exactly like the Scout brick wrt the third output). You can also control the LEDs on an individual basis (3 red, 3 green, and 1 (...) (22 years ago, 2-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)

RE: Spybotics vs Cricket —Ralph Hempel

(...) John, I think you may be confused about the IR detectors. There are only two and they are facing forwards. The 2 white parts facing forward and the white part facing backwards are low power IR emitters.... Cheers, Ralph (22 years ago, 2-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics.spybotics, lugnet.robotics)

Re: Spybotics vs Cricket —John Hansen

(...) I may definitely be confused. I was looking at the Spybot.h header recently and saw this: const iDirection = 4 //world & target (R/O) const cLeft = 0 //world[nBot,iDirection] & target[iDirection] values const cLeftOfCentre = 1 //here zone only (...) (22 years ago, 2-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics.spybotics)

Re: Spybotics vs Cricket —Philippe Hurbain

(...) I totally agree... The three IR emitters seems to be IR leds with a very wide viewing angle (this kind of package with a flat top can emit on 120°) so a Spybot can be IR-seen all around Philo (22 years ago, 2-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics.spybotics, lugnet.robotics)

Re: Spybotics vs Cricket —Russell Nelson

> The Handy Cricket board costs $60. No motors, sensors, or other > robot/vehicle building supplies. The Spybot set costs $60. You get 2 > motors, 2 sensors, IR transmit/receive, LEDs, and around 200 parts for > building robots. Plus you get a very (...) (22 years ago, 7-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: Spybotics vs Cricket —Paul Andrews

In lugnet.robotics, Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com> writes: *Mad* props to anybody who (...) Err. What's a Clarkson Loop? (22 years ago, 8-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: Spybotics vs Cricket —Russell Nelson

Paul Andrews writes: > In lugnet.robotics, Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com> writes: > *Mad* props to anybody who > >makes a loop network (ala the Clarkson Loop from my Master's thesis) > >out of three or more spybots. > > Err. What's a Clarkson (...) (22 years ago, 11-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: Spybotics vs Cricket —Ken Koleda

Does this mean RCX 2.0 will go away? (...) (22 years ago, 7-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: Spybotics vs Cricket —John Barnes

If Spybotics is evidence of the juniorization disease infecting Mindstorms in much the way it has infected other Lego themes, then I suppose the RCX could be one the way out. That reduces Lego's robotic's offering to a single entity which works (...) (22 years ago, 7-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: Spybotics vs Cricket —Colin White

I am somewhat puzzled by the attitude of many people to the Spybots. I think we must accept that Lego is losing money and that its main audience is children. It must therefore devote its efforts to its main customer base, i.e., children. Also, (...) (22 years ago, 8-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: Spybotics vs Cricket —Steve Baker

(...) I think most people understand *why* Lego are heading this way. That doesn't mean we have to like it though. (...) If development costs are the issue then they'd be well advised to come up with ONE truly modular computing solution and use it (...) (22 years ago, 8-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: Spybotics vs Cricket —Colin White

Steve, If I look at from your angle I think you are quite right. Your comment really applies to the whole Lego line of products. The original concept of lego was to have a set of bricks and use your imagination to construct something from them. (...) (22 years ago, 8-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: Spybotics vs Cricket —Rob Limbaugh

I can understand wanting to better target the original intended audience, but consider this: Which versions of Trivial Pursuit came out first? The one for adults or the one for children/teens? Mindstorms missed their original intended target, yet (...) (22 years ago, 8-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: Spybotics vs Cricket —Colin White

(...) Do we actually know if Mindstorms has made a Lego a large profit? Some reports I have read suggested that Lego's move into computer related products like Mindstorms has contributed towards its losses. Certainly the lack of development of the (...) (22 years ago, 8-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: Spybotics vs Cricket —Wap

Greetings!! This is my very first contribution to this group so I just wanted to introduce me in a few words. I'm 27, living in Paris (France). I just bought the RIS 2.0 after reading a paper on a French and European Robotics Cup and feel pretty (...) (22 years ago, 8-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)

Mindstorms Profitability, Demise of Technic, Bleak Future —The Gaff

(...) When Mindstorms came out, I bought it immediately. Then I bought another. I sorted out my childhood LEGO collection and found it wanting. The search for additional parts began. The [expansion for making bugs, whatever it was called] was lousy (...) (22 years ago, 8-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: Mindstorms Bleak Future - Bah! Purism Shmurism! —Bruce Boyes

(...) (Shields up) Purism shmurism -- if you're a pragmatist, who cares whether Lego makes a new part, or HiTechnicStuff, Jennifer Clark, Systronix, or some other company, as long as it serves a need and works well? Why is everything Lego makes (...) (22 years ago, 8-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: LEGO Purism —The Gaff

(...) Because my chosen hobby is *LEGO* robotics, a distinct subset of robotics as a whole. I am fully aware of the advantages of "opening my mind" to using non-LEGO elements; I just don't want to. I understand that you feel differently, but that (...) (22 years ago, 8-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: LEGO Purism —Rob Hendrix

If you were a Lego purist, you'd be using the programming software which was supplied in the RIS kits. "The Gaff" <lego-robotics@crynwr.com> wrote in message news:OE50nHAaaz7EjQx...ail.com... (...) as (...) constraints (...) find (...) build (...) (...) (22 years ago, 8-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: LEGO Purism —Steve Baker

This purism thing (which I happen to agree with BTW) is a hard thing to pin down. I think of it like this. I like building things with Lego - I *know* that I could do things more easily by machining it from solid metal or casting something or (...) (22 years ago, 9-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)

RE: LEGO Purism —Ralph Hempel

(...) This one is interesting. By using the firmware in the brick in a new and interesting way, are we exploiting the power of LEGO? Or are we filing the studs off a 2x4 to make a tile brick? It all depends on your point of view. I see the RCX as a (...) (22 years ago, 9-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: LEGO Purism —Paul Andrews

(...) I too like working within the existing constraints. It makes you creative. Still. I'd kill for a stall sensor. (22 years ago, 8-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: LEGO Purism —John Barnes

(...) Despite my urge to make new and better(?) sensors, Lego makes a stall sensor! Stick a rotation sensor in the drive train and timeout a change in count value. (Same way as automated braking system do.) JB (22 years ago, 9-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: LEGO Purism —Paul Andrews

(...) Yes. Guess I'm going to have to do it. The more I think about it. The more attractive the programming and mechanical issues become. Like: I have a two-motor setup. How do I monitor both or do I go for a synchro drive instead? Do I want to (...) (22 years ago, 9-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: LEGO Purism —John Gerlach

(...) First of all, to Gaff: I also think it is desirable to work within the LEGO system, and I don't consider my mind 'sick and twisted'. Well, maybe a *little* twisted! <grin> To Paul: Try running a wire from the RCX power output, to your motor, (...) (22 years ago, 9-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: LEGO Purism —John Barnes

(...) Erh, I'm not so sure about that? One side of the sensor input is ground, the other side is the input to the voltage measurement circuitry. The motor output on the other hand has two connection, which are either ground and +8(ish) or +8 and (...) (22 years ago, 9-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: LEGO Purism —Paul Andrews

(...) A little experimentation shows that you are right :-) or should that be :-( (22 years ago, 10-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: measuring motor voltage on sensor input —Bruce Boyes

Quoting Paul Andrews <paul@jools.net>: (...) How about a simple resistive divider across the motor output, say two 1 Kohm resistors, with the motor on the top of the two and the sensor input on the midpoint, so it sees the battery divided by two? (...) (22 years ago, 10-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: LEGO Purism —Steve Hassenplug

(...) One way to do this, without adding any hardware is to check the internal battery voltage. I'm not sure if it's possible with the standard firmware v2.0 (it wasn't possible with 1.0/1.5) but you can do it with replacemet firmware, like BrickOS (...) (22 years ago, 9-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: LEGO Purism —Steve Baker

(...) Neat! I guess the only drawback is that you don't know *which* motor stalled - but most applications can probably live with that. Anyway - you *CAN* do this with the RCX 2.0 firmware. In NQC, you can call x = Batterylevel () ; ...the result is (...) (22 years ago, 9-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: LEGO Purism —Paul Andrews

(...) I don't suppose you have some code for this do you? I tried this some while back with no success :-(. I found that the battery voltage seemed to fluctuate too much for me to be able to detect a stall condition with any degree of certainty. (...) (22 years ago, 10-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: LEGO Purism —Benjamin Medinets

(...) That's nice... what is the underlying issue? Is it not being true to Lego form? I think the overall concept of being Lego Purity is a personal decision. What levels you are willing to go may be different to what the guy down the road, etc. If (...) (22 years ago, 10-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: LEGO Purism —Steve Baker

There are good, rational reasons for most of these decisions: (...) That makes good sense - because once a piece has been modified, you can't use it for it's intended purpose again. (...) That also makes sense - because it's purely decorative - and (...) (22 years ago, 10-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: LEGO Purism —Bruce Boyes

(...) I don't have any quarrel with setting limits for the scope of some hobby. When I was a kid I made a whole raft of 'useful' household articles from nothing but glue, popsicle sticks and dried pasta in various shapes. Most were spray painted (...) (22 years ago, 9-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: LEGO Purism —Mike Payson

(...) I'm fairly new to the subject, and have not yet came to a point where this was an issue. But, if I ever do, I can see nothing wrong with using non-Lego pieces in my creations. The thing is, my interest is in robotics, not Lego robotics. Lego (...) (22 years ago, 9-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)

RE: Mindstorms Bleak Future - Bah! Purism Shmurism! —Marco Correia

(...) I consider myself a LEGO purist in the sense that I try as hard as I can to solve the problems with what LEGO provides. I simply can't take a GOOD LEGO piece and "brake" it of modify it on purpose. I will, on the other hand, try to use a (...) (22 years ago, 9-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: Spybotics vs Cricket —Harri 'Junkarn' Manni

True, Mindstorms was the perfect excuse for me to get into the fantastic world of Lego once again. I belive that many, like me, felt the same way when Lego Mindstorms was introduced, and I belive that many also now has a their own income and can (...) (22 years ago, 8-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)

RE: Spybotics vs Cricket —KrzysFl

Please move me out from the mailing list. -----Original Message----- From: news-gateway@lugnet.com [mailto:news-gateway...net.com]On Behalf Of ken koleda Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 9:56 PM To: lego-robotics@crynwr.com Subject: Re: Spybotics vs (...) (22 years ago, 9-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)