|
|
| |
In lugnet.robotics.edu, Rafe Donahue wrote:
> 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.
Font issue, I'm sure. The text seems pretty consistent with its use of "M".
> 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.
I wanted to point out here that this was the official LEGO web site you were
looking at, not private pages.
"M" is actually an internal measurement that TLG has used for a long time. It's
now been discussed externally via those pages, so it's much closer to "official"
than either 'stud' or 'LDU' (TLG officially called them studs in English, but
that binds it to a given language).
> 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.
HTH,
-- joshua
Joshua Delahunty
LUGNET Member #3
|
|
| |
On Sat, 2006-10-07 at 12:26 +0000, Brian Davis wrote:
> I don't have a big problem with using "m" or "modulus" (confusion with meters is
> possible... but, sadly, perhaps only for kids in Europe, where they would also
> realize immediately how silly that was). As to "stud" or "LDU", well... there
> are no studs (even if we adults know they are the same thing, distance-wise),
> and LDU is longer. Personally, I'll still call them studs (or even just a
> unitless number... "hey can you hand me that 12 long axle?").
Hmm I generally use a unitless number when working with Lego here.. But
I do remember having it drilled into me at school how bad that is, we
had a math teacher who used to bounce up and down red in the face when
people failed to mention the units.
I forgot they still use old imperial units over the pond.. Do they
actually still teach using those in schools? Isn't SI on the curriculum
over there?
Danny
|
|
| |
In lugnet.robotics.edu, Danny Staple wrote:
> Rafe Donahue wrote:
>
> > The figures, unfortunately and arguably incorrectly,
> > show the [wrong lengths]
Dang. Yes, they do... and I'm ashamed to say I've known about those for some
time, and neither myself nor several other folks never picked up on that. Drat.
> > They can learn to count starting at zero
Since that's the way numbers work, that's how I'd teach (more to the point
that's how I *have* taught this - 3-4-5 (& other) triangles like this entered
the piture long before studless parts. I've also used the 1.5-2-2.5 version of
this.
> > I might suggest using 'stud' as a unit...
> ...maybe Lego should borrow the "LDU"...
I don't have a big problem with using "m" or "modulus" (confusion with meters is
possible... but, sadly, perhaps only for kids in Europe, where they would also
realize immediately how silly that was). As to "stud" or "LDU", well... there
are no studs (even if we adults know they are the same thing, distance-wise),
and LDU is longer. Personally, I'll still call them studs (or even just a
unitless number... "hey can you hand me that 12 long axle?").
--
Brian Davis
|
|
| |
On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 14:51 +0000, Rafe Donahue wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics.edu, Merredith Portsmore wrote: • <snip>
>
> 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.
This I would be concerned with too, as it would confuse my group also.
<snip>
>
> (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.
My own take on this is maybe Lego should borrow the "LDU" from the
community and use it. It is a measurement suited to Lego, and is already
in use. It means LDraw Unit I believe, and was specifically created for
representing Lego measurements in Lego CAD tools.
Cheers,
Danny
--
Danny Staple MBCS
OrionRobots
http://orionrobots.co.uk/blogs/dannystaple
(Full contact details available through website)
|
|
| |
"Merredith Portsmore" <merredith@legoengineering.com> wrote in message
news:J6M3F1.us@lugnet.com...
> 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
Merredith,
Thanks very much for the link. It looks promising.
Mark Haye
Professional programmer. Closed source. Do not attempt.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
