Robotics : 1982


Robotics / 1982

RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Jakob Nebeker

Here are some things I would like to see changed for RCX 2. (if there is even one) 1. More connections. At least 4 outputs and 4 inputs. The way it is right now, a robot that drives around can't really do much else, given that there is only one (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Laurentino Martins

(...) I don't think they are willing to change the main processor (and all the software involved) just to accomplish this... unless there are another versions of the H8 that have more inputs/outputs (?) (...) RCX is HUGE? You should see a (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Jakob Nebeker

(...) unless there are another versions of the H8 that have more inputs/outputs (?) I didn't know it was processor limited. Maybe they can do some sort of multiplexing. (At least for inputs) That way they could get 2 or more in the space of one. But (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Joerg Volz

Laurentino Martins schrieb in Nachricht <4.1.19981231143643....90.220>... ..... cut something out, sorry Laurentino <g> (...) times per rotation using only two wires ??? (have I seen this wrong?) You have seen wrong, I disassembled my Unit because (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)

RE: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Tilman Sporkert

(...) I believe another message already clarified that there are more than two wires involved. However, it is technically possible to do this with two wires. If current stops flowing through a coil (like in a motor, when it rotates around), you get (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —John Donaldson

The Version @.0 should have a way to allow multiply RCX's to used. That way one RCX could be used for just the motor routines, one to handle sensors, one to do number chrunching, and etc. John A. Donaldson (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —John Bauman

John Donaldson wrote in message <368B5883.B8F8D4B2@ghg.net>... (...) Yeah, maybe they could have one or two special "rcx in/outputs", used to connect rcxs more perminantley than the IR (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Brett Carver

(...) At the risk of being argumentative, I'd submit that no matter how many inputs/outputs they provide people will always want more. The trick is to "expand" what's available to do what you want to do. There are already various ideas and designs (...) (26 years ago, 1-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —John Donaldson

I found a way to expand the inputs to a max of 64. This involves using a Analog MUX. Ports A & B are setup to sense the digital input line to the MUX. Each port is setup to look at four inputs for a total of eight inputs. The output of the MUX is (...) (26 years ago, 1-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Ian Sinclair

(...) Brett, I have been working on a couple different transmission designs with multiple gear ratios. I am most interested in knowing how you used a RCX motor to shift the motors into the two different drive trains. Does it require any sensors? Any (...) (26 years ago, 14-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Brett Carver

(...) I replied to these questions from an e-mail Ian sent, but since it's here as a post also, I'll (partially) reply here too. I don't have any pictures, but I am working on a web site that will document all my custom input and output devices. I (...) (26 years ago, 15-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Gregor Benedikt Rochow

(...) Another way to do it might be ( - I have not built this, but been thinking about it for a while, as I want to use it with a (manual, and possibly later also motor-driven) car transmission of the common sliding-axle type - ) to use rubber (...) (26 years ago, 15-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Ian Sinclair

(...) The use of a spring loaded system using rubber bands or such would be a good idea for two position systems. But I can't think how to do it for transmissions like my current two that four positions. I think I'm going to try a motor with a worm (...) (26 years ago, 17-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Mike Moran

(...) Hmm, just been thinking about this. You could have a shaft that was free to move back and forth along it axis. On the end of this you would have a series of N spokes. Each spoke ends with a free to move wheel (the axis of the wheel is arranged (...) (26 years ago, 16-Feb-99, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Maurice Hilarius

With regards to your message at 01:30 AM 01-01-99 GMT, Brett Carver. Where you stated: (...) It boils down to this: If you want to build a _very_ simple 'bot, then this set and the RCX are fine. If you want it to be complex enough to accomplish much (...) (26 years ago, 1-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Brett Carver

(...) I agree with most of what was said (especially the idea of a library of ideas which has been started on a couple different web sites). But... (...) I don't agree that the effort is a "waste". Personally, I've had a LOT of fun working on the (...) (26 years ago, 1-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —John Donaldson

The work being done with the RCX, reminds me of the old days when we had Apple II, PET's, C64, and the Tandy COCO1/2/3. We were always figuring out how to get more out of those computers and software tricks. I remember at one Tandy COCO trade show, (...) (26 years ago, 1-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Maurice Hilarius

With regards to your message at 07:06 AM 01-01-99 GMT, Brett Carver. Where you stated: (...) Sorry, I wasn't meaning to be critical! I was remembering back to very earley computer days. Back then I remember the great excirement about coming up with (...) (26 years ago, 1-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Laurentino Martins

(...) You forget that there are many of us (if not the majority) that neither have the means to build hardware, nor have the knowledge or know-how to build it. I personally know how good I am at destroying hardware. Is not uncommon to try to fix (...) (26 years ago, 1-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Peter Hesketh

In article <4.1.19990101123359....lepac.pt>, Laurentino Martins <lau@mail.telepac.pt> writes (...) Would it be worth my while to make some 4-into-one adaptor bricks and offer them for sale? It would consist of an 8 x 2 peg brick (for 4 bump sensors) (...) (26 years ago, 1-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Lee Lloyd

(...) As someone who is already limited on hobby time, I say name your price and I'll order a couple! Great, idea. -- ___...___ L. M. Lloyd lee@advfilms.com SGI Animator ADV Films USA ___...___ -- Did you check the web site first?: (URL) (26 years ago, 1-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Jakob Nebeker

(...) Yeah. I'm intersted. I'd b willing to pay $15-20 for it. Question: how would one program for the new inputs? PV (26 years ago, 1-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Brett Carver

(...) I think a lot of people would be interested in such an option. Those like myself (who can probably build it given some time) would be willing to pay less than those who don't have access to any tools. I'd figure such a "brick" would be worth (...) (26 years ago, 2-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Simon Brooke

(...) Presumably with a resistor array so as to give different analog values depending on which sensors had been hit? (...) *If* they discriminated between the different sensors, one or two, up to about UKPounds 35/US $50 each (though I would prefer (...) (26 years ago, 15-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Jasper Janssen

(...) The big cost in these things, wqould be that you need 5 of the 2*2*2/3 plates at the end of Technic leads, unless you homebrew those too. AFAIK, you can only get leads, at least as far as Service packs are concerned, for about $5-$6 (with 2 (...) (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Brett Carver

(...) I'll agree that many people don't have ready access to a soldering iron, but the concepts are pretty simple and the plans for such "extensions" to the RCX are available on the web. I'm a software-type. Odds are 50/50 that I'll burn myself with (...) (26 years ago, 2-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Rob Visscher

(...) Multiple ports are possible if you buy or build a Handyboard. Check out this URL. (URL) regards Rob Visscher (26 years ago, 2-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

The Handyboard (was Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas.) —Mark Tarrabain

(...) more than a little impressed by it. Why didn't LEGO base their RCX unit on it? Or why not the MIT Programmable Brick? (It at least had more I/O ports than the RCX does) The 6811 microcontroller is, from what I remember from electronics class, (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: The Handyboard (was Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas.) —Nick Taylor

There are two very easy methods of making LEGO compatible 9V connectors. 1. Use Dacta #779897 9V Connecting Leads (3 pieces) @ $12.25. Cut the leads to the appropriate length for your use. Break a male 0.100" strip header (DigiKey #929834-01-36-ND) (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: The Handyboard (was Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas.) —Mark Tarrabain

(...) Encasing it in a LEGO brick would make it far more resilient and reduce the chances of dust, etc, contaminating the circuit board. Further, if it were pluggable into regular LEGO bricks, the model would not *demand* construction oriented (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: The Handyboard (was Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas.) —Nick Taylor

I apologize for offending you with my response. My intention was to help you solve what appeared to be a problem. - - - Nick - - - (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: The Handyboard (was Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas.) —Mark Tarrabain

(...) No offense was taken. I did not intend to imply that any had been. I was merely attempting to refocus on the original issue... modularity. Your advice and instructions are quite valuable to those who would be interested in going that route. It (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: The Handyboard (was Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas.) —Jasper Janssen

(...) How about using a few large plates (of the type found as baseplates in small to medium sets), and a few basic bricks, possibly with the addition of glue to keep it all together? Jasper (26 years ago, 23-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: The Handyboard (was Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas.) —Mark Tarrabain

(...) But that would do nothing towards making it truly LEGO electric compatible; coming up with a suitable compartment for the motherboard that leaves room for the expansion board, even if it's not actually connected yet; leaving the display and (...) (26 years ago, 23-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: The Handyboard (was Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas.) —Nick Taylor

Jasper - - You are correct. The HandyBoard is 14X10 studs and is very easy to incorporate into LEGO robots. I move mine between a tracked sensor test-bed and a wheeled cat terrorizer. The wheeled robot will also accept my RCX (and makes louder (...) (26 years ago, 24-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

(canceled) —Nick Taylor

Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Alex Wetmore

(...) agreed. right now you can work around it with two RCXs which talk to each other, or you can do it mechanically using a ratchets which make each direction from a motor drive two different outputs (of course this limits each output to one (...) (26 years ago, 3-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Mark Tarrabain

Hmmm... as long as we're playing "let's wish for.." I'd like to see at least twice as many as sensor inputs, half a dozen analog motor outputs, a couple of servo motor outputs, 8 or more digital outputs, a serial port interface, and a much more (...) (26 years ago, 3-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —John Bauman

The only problem with this list is that LEGO never seems to *listen* to this group-therefor, to ideas won't get in an RCX 2.0 Jakob Nebeker wrote in message <368B8717.B8FB3CBC@w...me.com>... (...) (26 years ago, 3-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —John Bauman

Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Pete Hardie

(...) More inputs, certainly. Lots more. Outputs could do with fewer additional, since there is less 'critical' need for more motions. (...) I like someone's idea of a separate battery box, so you can split the load. (26 years ago, 4-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Mike Caprio

(...) I want solar panels. K'NEX can drive a huge ferris wheel on their solar panels... why couldn't I run a Robioptic off solars, too? Mike -- Did you check the web site first?: (URL) (26 years ago, 4-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: Solar RCX and max current draw —Jim Moran

Hey, sounds like an oportunity for someone. A huge solar panel (well, huge compared to the RCX itself) with a cord that connects to the AC/DC power input on the RCX. Probably only need to generate 9 Volts at an amp or so to run. Has anybody measured (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Jim Moran

While talking about separating the battery pack from the RCX it occurred to me that having the thing forget all the firmware whenever you change the batteries is a *pain*. Making the RCX retain this in a semi-permanent or permanent fashion would be (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —John Cooper

(...) I have been able to change batteries without losing firmware or programs. Just line the new batteries up in the correct orientation, flip all the old ones out (it helps to have the +ve end such that your thumb goes to the larger gap there) and (...) (26 years ago, 5-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)

Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Jasper Janssen

(...) Whereas I have lost it several times form turning the RCX off.. a real pain. Jasper (26 years ago, 18-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)