Subject:
|
Re: New TLC Mindstorms survey
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 Jun 2004 20:13:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3561 times
|
| |
|
|
John Barnes wrote:
> I must say, having built numerous active sensors for RCX, I don't think I'd
> class the interface as hard to live with. Its cheap - a handful of diodes and a
> capacitor is all you need to isolate signal from power, and easy to use. I find
> it hard to imagine how a self-powered blue tooth equipped light sensor could be
> sold for $15. Although I love the idea of autonomous nets of intelligent
> sensors, I think that is a project that DARPA is still pumping millions of
> dollars into. And I think trying to keep fresh batteries in a few dozen small
> sensors (read - expensive coin cell type batteries) would be a chore. Although
> I'd bear that expense too if someone could make it work. (It costs megabucks to
> join the bluetooth club and receive a manufacturer id number.)
>
>
>
> Forget Bluetooth. Remote sensors are too expensive, and I already have
> a pile of RCX sensors. The interface is dirt cheap to implement.
Umm - I think you guys got the wrong end of the stick there. I didnt
mean bluetooth for sensor connectivity(cables do just fine), I only
meant it to replace the existing IR interface for downloading programs.
Although intelligent sensor nets are cool - currently this is for the
rich uni's to experiment with...
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: New TLC Mindstorms survey
|
| (...) Well, I had to respond to the survey - how could I not!!! More ports and more sensor choices was my main message. I must say, having built numerous active sensors for RCX, I don't think I'd class the interface as hard to live with. Its cheap - (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
15 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
