 | | Re: challenge: LEGO copier —T. Alexander Popiel
|
| | | (...) OK, just to clarify: assume an X-Y-Z space with studs sticking up in the Z direction. You mean a model that's only one stud thick in X, arbitrarily wide in Y, and arbitrarily high in Z? Yes, that would be a much simpler problem than what I was (...) (20 years ago, 4-Aug-04, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: challenge: LEGO copier —Joe Strout
|
| | | | (...) Yes, but not arbitrarily -- there would be some limit in width (Y) and height (Z), in order for the model to fit into the machine. (...) Yes, that's a much harder problem, which is why I was thinking to limit it to a thickness of one in X. (...) (20 years ago, 5-Aug-04, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: challenge: LEGO copier —T. Alexander Popiel
|
| | | | (...) Ah, hmm, I was expecting it to be a continuous fabric, not a holey one. That would make it harder, and in fact makes it even more important to not confuse neighboring pieces of the same color (otherwise you could lose structural integrity by (...) (20 years ago, 5-Aug-04, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: challenge: LEGO copier —Joe Strout
|
| | | | (...) Except that this is a problem pretty easily solved in code -- it's not necessary that the robot choose the same solution the original builder did; it's only necessary that it choose a solution that works. A robot that copies only continuous (...) (20 years ago, 5-Aug-04, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: challenge: LEGO copier —Steve Hassenplug
|
| | | | (...) I'm sorry, but I find this VERY funny. :) But you've already said how little you really know about building, so I guess it's OK. A robot that could copy a continuous model is something that would be very do-able. On the other hand, if you (...) (20 years ago, 5-Aug-04, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: challenge: LEGO copier —Joe Strout
|
| | | | (...) Why would that be impossible? You'd start by building up the sides; when you've done row B, then you can attach the block in row C, followed by the one in row D. So yes, this means the robot has to be able to move back and forth; it can't just (...) (20 years ago, 5-Aug-04, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: challenge: LEGO copier —Steve Hassenplug
|
| | | | | (...) Almost impossible. Personally, I'd have a hard time building this with my hands, much less building a robot to do it. It could easily require three grippers just to put the pieces together. Definitely beyond anything I'd be interesting in (...) (20 years ago, 5-Aug-04, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: challenge: LEGO copier —Steve Baker
|
| | | | (...) No - you'd just use a touch sensor that you could lower down onto the model you are 'scanning' - it would be easy enough to measure whether there was a hole or a brick. (...) The Lego camera isn't really much use because it can't talk to the (...) (20 years ago, 5-Aug-04, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: challenge: LEGO copier —Joe Strout
|
| | | | (...) One could cheat (if you consider it that) on this pretty easily, though. Instead of hoppers containing a jumble of bricks, each feedstock source could be a neat queue of bricks in a constant orientation. Grabbing the next brick from such a (...) (20 years ago, 6-Aug-04, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: challenge: LEGO copier —Mark Tarrabain
|
| | | | (...) Actually, I think it would be a good idea to use pneumatics to push the bricks together. Any resistance met by pneumatics simply increases the air pressure required to keep pushing, rather than actually damaging any pieces. (...) Why do you (...) (20 years ago, 6-Aug-04, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
