Subject:
|
Re: Future Mindstorm Releases?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Wed, 1 Sep 2004 06:56:09 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Mr S <{szinn_the1@yahoo}NoMoreSpam{.com}>
|
Viewed:
|
3246 times
|
| |
|
|
Sorry, this is a long post and I don't mean to pick on
the MarkIII, its a good platform, just happens to be
my example in this post of a fixed format platform. My
apologies to the makers of the MarkIII.
--- gypsy_fly <e_pilobello@yahoo.com> wrote:
< SNIP >
> robots. I've also had lots of kids from the
> nuts&bolts robotics classes come
> and take up Lego Mindstorms to experience fast
> prototyping and programming.
>
> I propose that kids who follow a process of
> diacovery... those who find out on
> their own what works and what doesn't in rapid
> succession, will be better
> prepared for the "measure twice before you cut"
> regimen. It will also, in my
> opinion, end up to be less costly.
I agree. I wish brickshelf would authorize my photos.
My robot is currently 10in wide, 18in high, and 28
inches long. Not a stick of it was built by anyone but
me with LEGO pieces. I've built and rebuilt it dozens
of times to structure it more soundly, to handle
stresses and design changes. The only time that I used
any tools was when I put PFE tubing in the tires to
keep them from squishing like a flat tire on a bus.
Its large and sturdy enough to carry 52 AA batteries
around. This is something a MarkIII will never do.
Additionally, differential steering is important to
know about for robotics, but Ackerman steering, and
other types are also important, and LEGO can do them
all. My bot is all wheel drive, uses 6 motors to power
the wheels, through drive chain systems incorporating
gears, chains, and three differential gear systems.
Surely these are important parts of system engineering
that are important to know about. I have a gearing
system that has a 242:1 ratio, built by hand, and that
is something that the MarkIII won't teach.
Its not just quick prototyping, but the fact that you
can prototype without the need for bandsaws,
sheetmetal breaks, or handtools that makes LEGO very
impressive.
I currently have a three axis of movement arm with
gripper made of nothing but LEGO. There are few
comparable commercial arms, and none as cheap as this
was made... at least regarding hardware.
Sure there are other ways to learn about robotics and
engineering, but I've not seen any that were as
extensible and so well within the grasp of younger
people. They can put pieces together without a
screwdriver or even knowing the importance of thread
sizes. That lets them get on with the larger lessons
to be learned when learning about system engineering,
and THAT is impressive.
I do not believe that there is another building set
capable of building autonomous robots that is as
extensible or useful per dollar per pound anywhere.
I know the price is steep, but then again what
engineering degree worth anything was inexpensive?
When I learned electronics ( the first class ) the
'building set' was a superheterodyne AM reciever built
with discrete components on a rack system as big as my
entertainment system is now. You couldn't make much of
it besides the reciever. It is the possibilities that
LEGO presents that makes it _THE_ learning tool.
I have tried to push my skills with LEGO to a point
where I can demonstrate that it is something that
schools should get sponsorship for, that it is a
building set that teaches and is extensible beyond
simple MarkIII like robots. I'm going to cheat, using
some mini-servos, but when done it should be capable
of picking up a MarkIII robot. Yes, I said that right,
and made from LEGO pieces. The servos and servo to RCX
interface from mindsensors.com are the only non-lego
pieces in that statement.
Way back, I had thought it a bit silly to be playing
with toys, but it is a huge robot compared to many
hobby robots, and I have done many things that would
be out of my grasp currently if it were not for the
ease of building with LEGO. Back then I would never
have thought that I would support a toy so fervrently,
but I cannot think of anything else that would have
come so far for me in this amount of time. I see
people that want to build an arm, or buy one, or are
trying to design a gripper... in a couple of weeks of
spare time, I've done it, own it, and have it on the
robot. Sure, it took some serious re-engineering at
several stages, but I have it now, and it was not a
case of me engineering two disparate systems to work
together as best as possible... I redesigned the whole
thing to handle the system engineering issues. When
you buy someone else's robot base, you are stuck with
that... THAT is a limitation to extensibility.
I do understand that there are arguments either way,
but I wholeheartedly support the use of LEGO RIS for
learning about system engineering and robotics
principles. When you find out that the gripper or
sensor that you want to put on your robot base just
won't work, you're stuck ... with LEGO, just redesign
the base :) THAT is the beauty of LEGO and similar
systems. I have not looked extensively, but LEGO
pieces are easy to get hold of, more so than any other
kit that I've seen. There are plenty (well, enough)
aftermarket parts makers for LEGO robotics as well.
The same LEGO pieces that make a MarkIII like robot
can be utilized to make a pneumatic wall climber
(glass door as the wall) or to build a toy that mimics
facial expressions when you talk. The only realistic
limitation to learning with LEGO is your imagination.
There is one guy that built a LEGO robot that plays
Four Score. He built two and they play each other...
Do that with a commercial robot base?
With LEGO, your robot can be made to look like a fire
engine, or crane, or whatever... I think (and don't
want to sound critical here) that those who think LEGO
has a niche area in robotics have simply narrowed
their focus to limited functions or targets. Sure, it
might be that one classroom doesn't want to focus on
building skills, so a kit is better... well, all I
have to say is that a box of RIS parts and a
demonstration with instructions will be the end of
that argument. I bet that nearly all students will not
only catch on, but have the kit built in the first 2
hours, and then be on with the programming if the
instructions are complete. Better than that, many of
them will have ideas of redesigns for making the kit
better with fewer pieces or stronger etc. That little
detail is incredibly important to understanding
engineering of any kind... what pieces are available
for me to use? When you limit the construction pieces,
you limit the solutions.
I know that lesson curiculum may limit how much can be
taught or done, but LEGO offers you the ability to
make that curiculum whatever you want it to be. LEGO
also allows hobbyists to make their robots whatever
they want them to be. When you limit a child's
learning, you limit the child... whether that child is
12 or 42!
If you just want to concentrate on programming.. buy
RIS and copy the many physical robot examples
available. If you don't want to use tools, buy RIS and
get going. If you don't know what you want your robot
to look like, buy LEGO and get going. If you want to
start small and expand later on, buy RIS and get
going. There are aftermarket companies that will allow
you to add IR and sonar sensors, and at reasonable
prices. There is HUGE amounts of information available
on the Internet about how the RIS/RCX works, and its
FREE!! If a teacher needed anything to support their
curiculum, I would think that would be a huge
advantage. All hobbyists know that FREE is good.
I can't think of any downside to using LEGO, at least
no down side that matters until you are trying to
build neural networks into a 4ft high robot. If that
is your goal, you will have lots of learning to do
before you get there, and LEGO RIS is a great way to
do that learning.
Okay, no, I don't work for LEGO... I just like the
product. I like it way more than I ever thought I
would. LEGO time is both informative and theraputic.
Some days I spend all day debugging C code at work,
and when I get home, a couple of hours working with
LEGO and I'm all relaxed again, but have to be careful
that I don't spend all my hours with it... its easy to
look up and see that its 1 in the morning, and wonder
where the evening went.
I personally never understood Ackerman steering
principles until I got involved with LEGO, nor did I
understand the engineering built into differential
gearing systems. I have learned alot from a toy. Many
more people (young and old) can too. I have learned
much more than I would have if I had bought a MarkIII
robot.
If there are any educators reading that want an
extensible system, but need help with a simple robot
platform built from RIS product for their classroom
curiculum, I am willing to help. Contact me off-list
please.
When you are starting off in robotics, the initial
price point for LEGO RIS might seem steep, but the
extensibility of it, the ease of use, and the ease of
expansion make it the best buy in my opinion. I have
never had to shelve what I previously bought so that I
can upgrade... I just bought more LEGO Technic pieces.
How can you beat that?
<stepping off the soapbox>
Cheers
Scott
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Future Mindstorm Releases?
|
| (...) Quite understandable (and understood). (...) I wish they would, too -- I'd love to see it! (...) Agreed. For structural work -- especially, the sort of tinkery rapid-prototyping structural work we all love -- LEGO can't be beaten. However... (...) (20 years ago, 1-Sep-04, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Future Mindstorm Releases?
|
| (...) I just looked up PICAXE, if you're interested, here is an associated site. (URL) If the argument for the PICAXE (or the MARK III) is the price, then how about adaptability, multi-use, ease of programming, curriculum support, etc. I've had a (...) (20 years ago, 1-Sep-04, to lugnet.robotics)
|
35 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
