|
|
| |
In lugnet.robotics.edu, Merredith Portsmore wrote:
<snip>
>
> http://www.lego.com/eng/create/technicdesignschool/default.asp
>
> Course: Beams & Connectors
> How LEGO TECHNIC elements work together.
> Lesson 1: TECHNIC 101
> Lesson 2: Stability with LEGO TECHNIC
>
> Course: Gears
> TECHNIC on the Move!
> Lesson 1: Gearing 101
>
>
> Merredith Portsmore
> Tufts Center for Engineering Educational Outreach
> Legoengineering.com
Meredith,
Thanks for posting this. It is wonderful first shot at some of these building
topics.
I am concerned, however, about the Pythagorean triangles on the Stability link.
The figures show two Pythagorean triangles, namely the 3-4-5 and 6-8-10
triangles. The figures, unfortunately and arguably incorrectly, show the
lengths as 4m, 5m, and 6m and 7m, 9m, and 11m. The first course on beams
defines one 'm' to be the distance between the centers of adjacent holes. As
such, the figure labels of 4m, 5m, and 6m (and the 7-9-11) are misleading.
Agreed, there is discussion in the text of there being six holes but the
distnace is really 5m, but this has all the ingredients to send your typical
12-year-old packing. They can learn to count starting at zero or compute the
distance by subtracting one from the number of holes; we should work hard to
make sure that the explanations aren't internally inconsistent. The 3-4-5 works
with the Pythagorean theorem; 4-5-6 does not. Telling them that the distances
are 4-5-6 in the figure and then doing Pythagoras with 3-4-5 creates, methinks,
more problems than it solves.
(It might be helpful to show that 5-12-13 and 7-24-25 are Pythagorean triangles,
too!)
There are actually two further issues; although more minor, they nonetheless
should be addressed. First, the 'm' used in the figures is a lower-case 'm',
while in the text it is upper-case 'M'. Some standardization should be used.
Secondly, if one chooses to use lower-case 'm', one might want to address issues
in conflict with the SI base unit m, which is meters.
Since we are working with Lego, I might suggest using 'stud' as a unit,
eventhough it is not part of the SI lexicon, as far as I know! My understanding
of 'stud' as a unit of measure in the Lego context is that it is equivalent to
the 'module' defined on your pages.
Again, thank you for your postings on technic building techniques. I am sure
that they are of value to many of us who are trying to build better technic
structures. I just want to make sure that the newbies that read this kind of
thing are getting a straight scoop. We need to make sure we get the details
right.
Thanks,
Rafe
|
|
| |
In lugnet.technic, Mark Haye wrote:
> I am working with a couple FLL teams, building with the NXT.
> I am having a little trouble coaching them on studless building
> techniques, as it is still a bit of a new concept to me as well.
> I'm sure I've seen presentations or how-to's on the subject
> posted to LUGNET somewhere, perhaps as part of BrickFest
> or somesuch, but I have so far failed to locate any.
> If you know of some resources in this area, please post a link.
> Thanks.
>
> Mark Haye
> Professional programmer. Closed source. Do not attempt.
There are some good basics at the LEGO Technic Design School. They've been
slowly adding more
http://www.lego.com/eng/create/technicdesignschool/default.asp
Course: Beams & Connectors
How LEGO TECHNIC elements work together.
Lesson 1: TECHNIC 101
Lesson 2: Stability with LEGO TECHNIC
Course: Gears
TECHNIC on the Move!
Lesson 1: Gearing 101
Merredith Portsmore
Tufts Center for Engineering Educational Outreach
Legoengineering.com
|
|
| |
I am working with a couple FLL teams, building with the NXT.
I am having a little trouble coaching them on studless building
techniques, as it is still a bit of a new concept to me as well.
I'm sure I've seen presentations or how-to's on the subject
posted to LUGNET somewhere, perhaps as part of BrickFest
or somesuch, but I have so far failed to locate any.
If you know of some resources in this area, please post a link.
Thanks.
Mark Haye
Professional programmer. Closed source. Do not attempt.
|
|
| |
Hi, I am a newbie and would appreciate some help. My 11 year old has just
joined his school robotics club. He will be using set 9794 (Mindstorms for
School with ROBOLAB 2.5.4) and has to prepare a robot for a Tug-of-War
competition (based on FLL rules) in just 2 weeks time. This is really short
notice! I have
downloaded various pdf files from the net (artoflego, FLL guides etc.) as
well as buying a digital copy of the Ferraris' book. I am at a loss as to
how to help him beyond attempting to digest all this downloaded material as
fast as I can. Any suggestions?
Thanks in advance,
Raj.
|
|
| |
Greetings All,
Here is a video of a FLL team that I coached:
http://homepage.mac.com/aklego/iMovieTheater29.html
The team was quite good and made it to the the World Festival in Atlanta last
month. In the five months leading up to the festivle, they were able to improve
their robot to the point where they could often get a perfect score.
Unfortunatly, the robot was camra shy and I was never able to capture a perfect
run. Anyway, hope you enjoy it.
Tom
|
|
| |
I try to keep to around not more than 5 children per mindstorms kit
(or per RCX if using Dacta), and not more than 8-10 per instructor.
Usually - once you get above about 8, it is good to have a couple of
other adults around to keep peace, so the main instructor can actually
teach and do group demonstrations. This also means the other adults
can help stuck children a bit.
Danny
On 7/3/05, Elizabeth Mabrey <emabrey@storming-robots.com> wrote:
> Hi Robo Educators,
>
> I would like to gather some opinions from the educators out there who teach
> their middle school classes using the LEGO MINDSTORMS + Robolab:
> 1) What is a reasonable class size in 2 to 3 hours session?
> 2) How about summer camp configuration? Since the summer classes runs 5
> hours a day, it involves additional science projects for an hour.
> Therefore, they really spend approx. 4 hours on robotics activities. I
> currently plan to have 12 middle school kids in the class with one adult
> instructor. Will this sound reasonable?
>
> Please advise!
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
> Best Regards,
> Elizabeth Mabrey
>
>
> --
> MIME ATTACHMENTS DISCARDED:
>
> 1. Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Content-Length: 2246
--
http://orionrobots.co.uk - Build Robots
Online Castle Building RPG -
http://www.darkthrone.com/recruit.dt?uid=V30311I30328J30379X30379E30260X30277
|
|
| |
Hi Robo Educators,
I would like to gather some opinions from the educators out there who teach
their middle school classes using the LEGO MINDSTORMS + Robolab:
1) What is a reasonable class size in 2 to 3 hours session?
2) How about summer camp configuration? Since the summer classes runs 5
hours a day, it involves additional science projects for an hour.
Therefore, they really spend approx. 4 hours on robotics activities. I
currently plan to have 12 middle school kids in the class with one adult
instructor. Will this sound reasonable?
Please advise!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Best Regards,
Elizabeth Mabrey
--
MIME ATTACHMENTS DISCARDED:
1. Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Length: 2246
|
|
| |
In lugnet.robotics.rcx, Michael Obenland wrote:
| |
| |
The starter kit is $300, which is a 50% pricier...
|
Sure, but it seems of not much value regarding programming. The
informations on the vex site are sparse and not easy to decipher, but I
think you will have to:
- pay aditional $99 for somethink called easyC, that is more or less nqc
- or pay some bucks for a genuine c compiler from microchip.com.
|
I think you’re paying not for the compiler, but for the “programmer” (a sort of
serial adapter with an integrated PIC that massages the data somehow). But
either way, yes, it’s an extra $100 to program the thing. And without the
ability to program it, it *is* pretty useless, so this thing is basically twice
the cost of Mindstorms.
But, it’s a lot more than twice the functionality. And of course, it’s only
twice the cost if you get only one -- if you get more than one, you still need
only one programmer, which brings the cost back down a bit.
I hear rumors of a new RCX coming... hopefully it will be closer to Vex in
functionality.
Best,
– Joe
|
|
| |
Hi Joe,
Their website seemingly offers a lot of other gadgets. However, I have
serious doubt about the programming platform though. Or, perhaps I have
not found much about the programming language which can interface with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Elizabeth Mabrey
> -----Original Message-----
> From: news-gateway@lugnet.com
> [mailto:news-gateway@lugnet.com] On Behalf Of Joe Strout
> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 5:19 PM
> To: lugnet.robotics.rcx@lugnet.com; lugnet.robotics.edu@lugnet.com
> Subject: Re: vex robotics kit
>
> In lugnet.robotics.rcx, Elizabeth Mabrey wrote:
>
> > I wonder if anyone has had a chance to use the new VEX • robotic kit by radio
> > shack. I am trying to collect the info to evaluate this • product vs LEGO
> > RIS + robolab in terms of educational values.
>
> I haven't used it, but I thank you for pointing it out. (For
> others, the link is <http://www.vexrobotics.com/>.)
>
> I hate to say it, but this looks like it rather blows the
> socks off of standard LEGO robotics. The starter kit is
> $300, which is a 50% pricier, but comes with some really cool
> features out of the box that are very difficult or impossible
> to add to Mindstorms at all. For example, a radio
> transmitter and receiver, that lets you interact with your
> robot by remote control (in addition to its autonomous
> control via the programmable microcontroller).
>
> Additional parts are nicely available and well-priced, too --
> for example, $20 for a servo kit, $50 for a radio crystal set
> that enables four different frequencies, $13 for an extra set
> of gears (duplicating all the gears in the starter kit, plus
> two more), and $50 for a battery charger that can charge
> robot and transmitter batteries at the same time.
>
> The major drawback, of course, is that the dang thing isn't
> based on LEGO, so it's going to be a PITA to build and
> comparatively limited in the physical structures you can
> make. Looks surprisingly fun anyway, though.
>
> I found a review of the VEX system that may be useful:
> <http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ZDM/story?id=817378>
>
> I haven't been able to find much detail about the
> microcontroller, except that it contains "dozens of ports for
> sensor plugs and jumpers." It's not clear exactly what that
> means, though. Nor can I find any information about how it
> is programmed -- apparently it comes with a preset program
> you can tweak in small ways via jumpers, but they also claim
> it's "programmable."
>
> I hope this gives some inspiration to both the engineers and
> the marketing guys at LEGO... I feel like LEGO robotics is
> falling behind, and has some catching up to do.
>
> Best,¬
> - Joe
>
|
|
|
