 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
