Subject:
|
Re: LEGO robotics dis'd in CACM Forum.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Wed, 6 Oct 1999 18:11:41 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
The WordMeister <dwilcox@wordsmithdigital&spamless&.com>
|
Viewed:
|
744 times
|
| |
|
|
BAH! (to the writer of the nasty letter in the ACM communications)
If one but peruses the Robot Store catalog (www.robotstore.com)--which I
actually use as a source of inspiration for Lego 'bot building, one will see
that Lego is by far the least expensive choice for robot construction.
Lego has added to an already well-equipped and developed arsenal of Technics
(I remember when they were "Expert Builder") pieces a remarkably versatile
and easy-to-use control and sensor input module--the RCX.
Maybe Lego isn't ideal as a sole choice for a university-level robotics
course, but I doubt there's anything even close to Lego's level of "ease of
tinkering" and flexibility.
This guy must have been playing with the Droid Developer's Kit. :)
--Doug Wilcox
-----Original Message-----
From: John Cromer <cro@astro.caltech.edu>
To: lego-robotics@crynwr.com <lego-robotics@crynwr.com>
Date: Wednesday, October 06, 1999 1:53 PM
Subject: LEGO robotics dis'd in CACM Forum.
> Howdy,
>
> Has anyone seen the October issue of Communications of the ACM?
> On page 13 is a letter critical of the recent article, "Using
> Autonomous Robotics to Teach Science and Engineering," that appeared
> in the June '99, page 85. The article is all about using LEGO robotics
> in an engineering course at Case Western Reserve.
>
> I won't reproduce the letter completely, just a summary and few choice
> (read prejudiced) quotes.
>
> The letter begins with a complaint about not covering "dynamics,
> kinematics, and control theory," and goes on to say:
>
> "Also, while LEGOs (sic) are a wonderful tool for encouraging creative
> play in children, they fall flat as a university educational or
> research tool. LEGOs (sic) have so many structural limitations, and
> LEGO geartrains have such poor frictional and backlash characteristics,
> that the techniques required to build a functioning LEGO robot are
> completely different from those needed to design a real-world machine.
> ... The same criticism also applies, in lesser degree, to sensors and
> actuators, which have poor noise and accuracy characteristics, making
> it difficult to ascertain the performance of any higher-level
> algorithms implemented on them."
>
> The letter goes on to wonder why other robotic kits are not used
> instead of LEGO kits since "most are just as flexible, reusable, and
> cost-effective as LEGOs, and have much better mechanical properties."
>
> Anyhoo, it's an interesting point. I'm not aware of other kits that
> are mechanically superior *and* as flexible as LEGO. I always assumed
> that the flexiblility and reusibility were the keys, as well as
> teaching general problem-solving.
>
> Just thought I'd throw this out.
>
> as evah,
>
> John C.
>
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
