Subject:
|
RE: LEGO robotics dis'd in CACM Forum.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Wed, 6 Oct 1999 18:00:58 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Henri Smulders <Henri.Smulders@2order.[stopspam]com>
|
Viewed:
|
684 times
|
| |
|
|
"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."
John C.
--
Meccano was really cool when i was a kid (metal plates with holes and
brackets with holes and bolts and nuts...). It definitley has the
characteristics the man describes. It was expensive as hell when I was a kid
though.
Also Lego builds quicker. I'm more interested in the programming anyway.
Something that would be cool would be a Fisher Technic (I have no clue what
it was called in English) set with a pc/104.
For quickly building prototypes there is however NOTHING out there to come
close to the Legos!
Hajo
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
