 | | Re: New Lego controller
|
|
I've heard rumors Lego may be planning a new Mindstorms product. IMNSHO something like this would be perfect. Smaller units, more modularity, easy connectivity between brains. It fits perfectly into the Lego paradigm, and the technology is finally (...) (19 years ago, 31-May-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: New Lego controller
|
|
(...) Hi Dan, I seem to remember discussing this before. I agree this would be perfect. In terms of software, the system could start out as a simple one module system, and use an interface like robolab or RCX code to start newbies off. When a new (...) (19 years ago, 31-May-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: New Lego controller
|
|
(...) Hi All, yes the rumors are strong... Last AFOL Mindstorms Competition (in Billund, LEGO home :) ), the Director of the MS division came and spoke to all the competitors (MS gurus) and asked them: "What do you think is important in a new RCX ?" (...) (19 years ago, 31-May-05, to lugnet.robotics, FTX)
|
| |
| | Lego controller
|
|
Martijn, Most of these are pretty clear. Of course, this discussion comes up every few months. But I have a couple questions... On Tue, May 31, 2005 5:44 am, Martijn Boogaarts said: (...) Do many people use the IR as a way to communicate between a (...) (19 years ago, 31-May-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego controller
|
|
(...) The IR wireless connection served in many of our advanced projects. This just gives you great possibilities with mobile robots. (...) Bluetooth is a very versatile RF-communication that could allow real flexible networking for multi-agent (...) (19 years ago, 31-May-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego controller
|
|
Steve (and others) Read in-between the lines for comments (...) Imagine you have multiple RCX units build in a large model then it is convenient to not have to leave a place open for the connector to program it. During a class session I found that (...) (19 years ago, 31-May-05, to lugnet.robotics, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego controller
|
|
On Tue, May 31, 2005 11:17 am, Martijn Boogaarts said: (...) Ok, I'm not sure what you're in favor of, here. :) First, with the current setup, don't you have to leave the front of the RCX clear, so the IR can flow in? And, if the RCX used a wire, (...) (19 years ago, 31-May-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego controller
|
|
(...) Reading all of this, I would imagine having a few more wired IO ports, as well as an I2C bus would go a great deal. For those who really want to go bluetooth (including myself) are there not I2C/bluetooth devices on the market? One problem I (...) (19 years ago, 31-May-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego controller
|
|
(...) Yeah - and my opinion can still best be described as "Make It Modular". Most of the other things people want would fall naturally out from that one design decision. (...) I doubt it - but MANY people use IR between robots (and the IR remote is (...) (19 years ago, 1-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego controller
|
|
(...) Bluetooth has a maximum range of 30 feet. That's in optimum conditions. You might get down as low as 15 feet in real world applications. At 2GHz or so, it doesn't go through walls very well either. Bluetooth is DESIGNED to have short range - (...) (19 years ago, 1-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: BlueTooth bad, Zigbee good
|
|
(...) Anytime you have something listening for signals to wake up on, it will consume power. Even at 5 or 10 mA, you'll run through a standard AA battery pretty quickly - never mind coin cells. (...) When it came out, it was pretty cutting edge - in (...) (19 years ago, 1-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | BlueTooth bad, Zigbee good
|
|
(...) Bluetooth is actually very poor for embedded or robotic applications. It's a power hog, development tools are expensive (try $5000 minimum), true peer to peer modules are almost impossible to get unless you are a Fortune 500 company, and the (...) (19 years ago, 1-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: BlueTooth bad, Zigbee good
|
|
On Wed, June 1, 2005 12:29 pm, Bruce Boyes said: (...) You mean compaired to other comm devices, or compaired to a couple motors? I'd think if you have a moble robot, the motors are going to use much more power than anything else, right? (...) From (...) (19 years ago, 1-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: BlueTooth bad, Zigbee good
|
|
I'm biased, so here's my rebuttal: 1. The JB-22 is a great, affordable Bluetooth development kit under $200 USD. (URL) Class 1 Bluetooth devices have a range of +300ft. Anycom makes one that is rated at 330ft, but tests have shown that it can (...) (19 years ago, 1-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | more on Zigbee
|
|
(...) Good question. I was comparting BT to other RF systems. But you won't typically run your motors at 100% load all the time, either. So typically on a Lego bot, motors will be the main power users. Add BT to a Lego Bot and the battery life will (...) (19 years ago, 1-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: wireless sensors, and battery life: time synch
|
|
(...) Yes -- and this is exactly Zigbee's target. BT was originally aimed at PC, PDA, peripheral communication, and it could have done well at that. Now I think it is eclipsed by the low cost and 10-100X better speed of 801.11b/g. Zigbee has from (...) (19 years ago, 2-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: for robots and industry: BlueTooth bad, Zigbee good - thanks for response
|
|
(...) I should have made it more clear that all my BT remarks were in the context of use in the industrial or embedded spaces such as robotics where we get access to the hardware. Sure, millions of BT cell phones are shipping, but that's no help to (...) (19 years ago, 2-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: for robots and industry: BlueTooth bad, Zigbee good - thanks for response
|
|
I have watched this thread for a while, but not "joined in" as I am not personally familiar with implementing Bluetooth. However, I have a question about the assertion that Bluetooth necessarily requires high power consumption; How well do coin cell (...) (19 years ago, 3-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | BT headsets and...
|
|
(...) My remarks were made comparing the power use of advertised BT chips vs 900-MHz and 2.4 GHz RF chip sets based on what was available a couple of years ago. To answer your question about headsets, I will speculate since I don't really know. But (...) (19 years ago, 3-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: for robots and industry: BlueTooth bad, Zigbee good - thanks for response
|
|
Bruce, 1. True, Bluetooth is embedded in a lot of cellphones. But cellphones is not the only device that carries Bluetooth, as you already know. However, SonyEricsson has created the ROB1, which is a Linux robot that is controlled by Bluetooth, (...) (19 years ago, 3-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | BT in robotics
|
|
(...) I'd love to have my cell phone give me status and feedback from my robots. BT isn't the only way to do this, of course, and using the cellular data capability of the phone would allow connecting from around the world, not just within 10 (...) (19 years ago, 3-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: BT in robotics
|
|
Bruce, 1. Yeah, SonyEricsson is very serious about their Linux robot 2. How else (other than Bluetooth) could you send data from your cellphone to your robot? IR isn't an ideal solution, since a lot of phones don't support it. 3. I created the (...) (19 years ago, 3-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: BT in robotics
|
|
(...) Use the data capability of the phone to set up their equivalent of an IP connection. On my TMobile phone this is painfully slow, under 100 kbits at best, often less than 50 kbits, even when literally next door to a cell. I did some tests with (...) (19 years ago, 3-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Some BT modules?
|
|
Some more googling reveals some possible BT embedded modules: (URL) From the above page: EmbeddedBlue brings the benefits of Bluetooth technology to all embedded systems from low power 8-bit micros to the latest 32-bit processor powerhouses. With (...) (19 years ago, 3-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: BT in robotics
|
|
Bruce, 1. TMobile does have a flat rate for data at $19 /mo 2. Is there really interest anymore in RS-232 Bluetooth modules? I used to have a conact at BlueUnplugged.com and he was almost willing to give them away, because they weren't selling. 3. (...) (19 years ago, 5-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Some BT modules?
|
|
Bruce, Let's keep the communication up, because collaboration and synergy is always better than working alone. Bruce (...) (19 years ago, 5-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: BT in robotics
|
|
(...) That's happened since we got our office contract. I'll check into it, thanks. If it's $19 for as much as you can stand to use, that's not so bad. We were paying $10-$20 for a couple of megabytes per month. But the phones are so slow I don't (...) (19 years ago, 5-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: more on Zigbee
|
|
Bruce Boyes writes: > What about sensors? Show me a BT environmental sensor.... > Here are Zigbee sensors available today: > (URL) this: (URL) > Zigbee is an IEEE standard - 802.15.4 - so that reflects some > maturity already. Welllll...... Zigbee (...) (19 years ago, 8-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: wireless sensors, and battery life: time synch
|
|
"Bruce Boyes" <lego-robotics@crynwr.com> wrote in message news:6.2.1.2.2.20050...ion.com... (...) maybe it should be done in the same way as rfid id cards let's say when controler wants to wake the sensor up it sends the signal and the sensor (all (...) (19 years ago, 11-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
