Subject:
|
Re: Lego Compatible (was Re: JCX and Legos...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Sep 2004 06:18:19 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Mr S <szinn_the1@yahoo.comSTOPSPAMMERS>
|
Viewed:
|
893 times
|
| |
|
|
While we are on this topic, I have a question for
everyone. I've included the previous post as
background.
My question for everyone is this: How much interest is
there in LEGO compatible aftermarket products that are
not plug-n-play compatible with the RCX?
That is to say, if you build your own controller, how
much interest is there among the LEGO using community
for sensors and motors that will easily attach to LEGO
built robots?
Would you be interested in a LEGO structure designed
to house a basic stamp or PIC module? Would you be
interested in LEGO compatible sensor blocks that could
be plugged into controllers that are not an RCX?
I'm currently involved in building things that are not
LEGO instruments, but are LEGO compatible, and are
able to be controlled by an RCX, either to enhance its
capabilities, or increase them. This is something that
I'm doing for my own robot, but I find it intriguing
that I might be able to continue this hobby in some
respect by selling, at moderate prices, the things
that I develop.
I am currently modifying LEGO bricks for my own
purposes, and working at building plastic modules that
are LEGO compatible, or at least could be easily used
with LEGO pieces. I noticed that the LEGO 'experts'
often do this, using glue etc.
Those current projects are IR, Sonar, and rotation
sensors. I am also investigating a larger gear motor
with built-in h-bridge that accepts control from an
RCX, as well as control of multiple LEGO adapted RC
servos.
I'm always willing to share, but for many, I know the
ease of ordering a part is better, and often the only
method, of adding parts to their robots. My concern is
should I simply share, or make the design such that I
can sell such things.
That sounds a bit odd, I admit, but if there is enough
interest, I will design for manufacture rather than
for a single piece. This might include things like a
base platform for incorporating a Polaroid sonar unit
on your own, just buy my part and add your parts from
a canabalized Polaroid camera.
I'm just curious about how much interest there is in
this sort of product.
cheers
--- "Wayne C. Gramlich" <Wayne@Gramlich.Net> wrote:
> Greetings:
>
> Mr S wrote:
> > Just an opinion:
>
> There is no right or wrong here; just opinions.
>
> > I'm not a LEGO purist, but I do like things to
> > plug-n-play as it were. Electrical and mechanical
> > compatibility of the programmable brick makes • absolute
> > sense for the target after-market group... people • who
> > chose LEGO because of the plug-n-play methodology.
>
> I am not a purist either. I love the no glue
> required
> philosophy of Lego. Nothing that is done can't be
> undone.
>
> When it comes to designing an "add on" "after
> market"
> system for people who are frustrated with the
> limitations
> of the Lego RCX, it is very hard to achieve Lego
> level
> of plug-n-play. This is largely due the cost of
> developing
> molds to stick everything in.
>
> My current thoughts are that a system that expands
> on
> RCX minimally needs to have the same sensors and the
> same ease of use, but not necessarily the identical
> RCX mechanical/electrical connections. Frankly, the
> standard Lego sensors are pretty meager -- a touch
> sensor (overpriced microswitch), a flakey rotation
> sensor, and the light sensor (easily replaced by the
> appropriate Sharp reflective sensor at a 10th the
> price.)
>
> My thought is that a system that easy to
> mechanically
> attach to Legos, but is completely different in its
> processor and sensor suite should be acceptable.
>
> > In my own personal perversion of the RCX, I'd like • to
> > see it as compact, accepting an external battery
> > source so that more electronics could be packed in • the
> > RCX like brick, and longer lasting battery packs • could
> > be used. That leaves room for more connectors, • more
> > h-bridges, more sensors, but that is MY personal
> > opinion. Sort of an RCX version 3.0.
>
> There is general agreement in the community that
> more
> I/O ports are needed. Separating the battery pack
> would
> be useful as well.
>
> > A parent, wishing to take their child's hobby • further
> > needs PnP LEGO compatability. What parent wants to • let
> > their 8 year old loose in a bedroom, unsupervised,
> > with tools and batteries? Some of us hobbyists • don't
> > need the PnP compatability, but the general LEGO
> > community does. One of the _BEST_ things about • LEGO is
> > the absolute lack of need for tools or skills with
> > tools.
>
> I suspect that the Robotics sub-community of Lego is
> on
> the high end of capabilities. I agree about the
> desire
> of no tools.
>
> > Just an opinion....
>
> Likewise, my opinion as well....
>
> Thanks for sharing your opinion,
>
> -Wayne
>
> [snip original thread]
>
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Lego Compatible (was Re: JCX and Legos...)
|
| (...) Much interest from me. Details below... (...) Some, though that's hard to say since I haven't yet built my own controller, and it's not clear to me how hard it would be to interface those sensors and motors. But I'm certainly not opposed to (...) (20 years ago, 14-Sep-04, to lugnet.robotics)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
