Subject:
|
Re: First Lego League Software (fwd)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 24 Dec 1999 01:36:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
636 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com> writes:
> > ----- 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. ]
See below the next items for my comment - Dave
> > 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. ]
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 on other kit or scratch-built
projects and often doesn't get done for that reason. - Dave
>
> > 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. ]
Real hardware discrepancies are probably not the objective of this particular
course. A good robotics kit is an excellent interest-holding vessel for
teaching some things. - Dave
> > 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. ]
Sometimes things fail because of poor management. More often they fail because
of insufficient testing and because only one approach was funded, usually with
a management goal of "doing it right the first time," an inherently high-risk
approach.
If students fail when alternate approaches are so easily available, as with
LEGO, then they surely ought to have that pointed out to them. In fact, that
might even be one of the basic objectives of the course. - Dave
> > 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. ]
There is considerable complexity available within the Mindstorms kit, more if
NQC is allowed. Once the basic operational objectives are defined, the tools
do not need to be the most powerful. They need to be appropriate to the goal
and the means. Not a bad lesson.... - Dave
>
> > 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. ]
Hate to tell you this, but a robot that can make it around the block will
probably take a group of people with expertise in a variety of topics. You
can't expect a CS student to necessarily do it.
And if you are thinking that well, your LEGO 'bot can do it, I submit it'll
need, at least, larger batteries!
But the point is well made, that LEG devices are not inherently robust. They
can be made so, becoming heavier in the process. It takes mechanical skill,
probably beyond the scope of the course, to achieve that. - Dave
> > ----- End of forwarded message from Barbara Nostrand -----
>
> Merry Christmas!
Amen! - Dave
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
>
> 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 is in Reply To:
 | | Re: First Lego League Software (fwd)
|
| ----- 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
