Subject:
|
Re: First Lego League Software (fwd)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 24 Dec 1999 01:04:41 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Jim Choate <{ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.}avoidspam{com}>
|
Viewed:
|
515 times
|
| |
|
|
----- Forwarded message from Barbara Nostrand -----
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 16:16:49 -0600
From: Barbara Nostrand <nostrand@bradley.edu>
Subject: Re: First Lego League Software (fwd)
1) As I wrote, the LEGO system provideds a big advantage in having all
of the parts set up so that they can be plugged together relatively
painlessly. (This means no hacking the servos and no hacking IR
sensors both of which are required operations in assembling at least
one of the rug warrior kits.)
[ A V is a V, whether it comes from RIS or another box is beyond the keen
of the sensor to determine. This is a moot point. ]
2) A lot of the other robotic kits have the decided disadvantage of
lack of flexibility in their design. Many of the rug rat robots
and their kin basically do not do anything more than one of the
early building projects in Mindstorms. Walker kits can walk, but
do not do anything else. Some of the robotic arm kits are not even
particularly good arms. (And some of the dedicated kits are a bit
fragile as well.)
[ Using a PCMCIA computer doesn't prevent one from using LEGO parts, I've
been doing it for 15 years[1]. The PCMCIA devices are actualy SMALLER than
that fr***ing RIS which has several problems with it's size, weight,
and those g*d d*am*ed bevelled edges. There are other advantages to
using 3rd party CPU's on robots, even using the standard no-hack LEGO
parts, such as better displays, more outputs and inputs, much easier
design environments than the LEGO supplied one. As I said, the LEGO
parts have one major drawback, they don't take physical use well. They
come apart at the seams. The primary way to make them more robust is to
remove the RIS and its concommitent weight and inertia problems. If one
is forced to remove it for more robust operation there is no reason to
keep the silly thing when there are faster, more powerful, and cheaper
alternatives.
As to building arms and things like that, a good softwood kit along with
some bushings and tubes from your local hobby shop produce a more
robust and effective mechanism than anything LEGO can do without glue of
some sort and for about half the price. In addition it looks and works
like industrial arms are constructed - something LEGO isn't able to do
today.
How you've managed to interpret my comments about the RIS as a general
condemnation of LEGO is beyond me. I'm simply pointing out the
shortcomings of the LEGO system, especialy as they apply to teaching more
advanced robotic concepts. ]
3) As for my students, they are Senior C/S majors. Consequently, they
have had a couple of years of programming training at this point.
They are also supposed to know elementary digital circuits.
[ They are still CS students and expecting them to construct and debug a
computer kit is pushing the envelope and distracting them from what they
need to be doing. Designing a circuit is in no way the same as debugging
the begger. And when one is building circuits you're doing analog, it's
only when you get to using them that you can pay any attention to the
digital aspect of their operation. CS students don't as a matter of
course know the first thing about cold solder joints or impedance
mismatching. They've got no business building anything past the
plug-n-play stage for this sort of stuff. ]
4) I am not silly enough to expect all of their projects to succeed.
I have seen projects fail in industry.
[ I've got 7+ years of teaching and I'd say if you give a student a kit and
they fail to complete it then it isn't the students fault but rather the
instructors because the kit or process was flawed. Comparing the
completion rate of students in a class and seasoned engineers in industry
is a disservice to both (and I speak as a practicing senior engineer for
IBM). Projects in industry usualy (90+%) fail because of managmenet issues
not technical ones. ]
5) One of my objectives is to get them away from "a very high level
environment". One problem that a lot of CS students have is an
inability to wean themselves off of doing everything in Boreland C++
[ Building robots in assembly is a fools errand for anything other than the
most simplistic projects. Which realy is my point, the Mindstorm kit is
fine for kids but if you're serious about robots then you need to augment
it considerably. ]
As for success of LEGO robots in Robotic competitions. LEGO
robots have successfully competed at the Trinity College Firefighting
Robot Competition where about 1/2 of the robots (regardless of
construction) fail to complete the course.
[ Jeesus H. Christ, finding a candle on a nice smooth floor is hardly
comparable to making it around the block out in the street. And very
few of them fail to complete because they leave parts strewn across the
floor like a HMMV in off-road mode. ]
----- End of forwarded message from Barbara Nostrand -----
Merry Christmas!
____________________________________________________________________
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full
of passionate intensity.
W.B. Yeats
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] The LEGO part, the PCMCIA machines have only been around a couple of
years.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: First Lego League Software (fwd)
|
| (...) See below the next items for my comment - Dave (...) The LEGO system encourages experimentation as a practical method of reaching an objective. This is something that rapidly uses up available budget or schedule on real-world projects, or even (...) (25 years ago, 24-Dec-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
