|
|
| |
We've just had our first LEGO Engineering Conference in Singapore with Prof
Chris Rogers as the Keynote speaker.
http://lsl.nie.edu.sg/lego.htm
Among other things I had the opportunity to give three presentations, of which
my favourite is the one on "GBC - A Fun Way to Learn Maths, Science and D&T".
Specifically I detailed a Rolling Ball Display Clock and its relevance to Maths,
Science and D&T.
My other presentations were on "Teaching Children Proportional Control using
ROBOLAB 2.9" and needless to say one on "Evaluating LEGO Air Compressors with
RCX and Control Lab". The models were also on display.
The slides can be found here for educators who might find them useful for their
classes.
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=241093
Enjoy
CSSoh
|
|
| |
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
|
|
| |
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
>
|
|
| |
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
|
|
| |
Hi
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Best Regards,
Elizabeth Mabrey Partner
of
Director
LEGO MINDSTORMS
3322 Rt. 22 West, Bldg 4, Ste 402 Robotics Community
Branchburg, NJ 08876
Ph: (908) 595-1010 ; M-F: 10-5; Sat: 11-4
Fax: (908) 891-2026
--
MIME ATTACHMENTS DISCARDED:
1. Content-Type: text/html;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Length: 3108
|
|
| |
In lugnet.robotics.rcx, Elizabeth Mabrey wrote:
| |
Hi,
I am trying to look for a few lego end effectors configuration. I got the
one from CMU’s robotics educator. Suggestion will be greatly appreciated.
--thanks
|
Do you mean robot hands? If so, try the one from my robot:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=82738
It’s actuated with pneumatics at the moment but the two 24mm pulleys have bevel
gears linking them, to keep the fingers synchronised, so you could use a motor
and low gearing to power it from an RCX instead. The fingers use parallelograms
to stay parallel with each other, so that they can grip any amount of the
object. In this case the object is a 2x10 brick, held vertically (11.2mm
thick).
The actual grippers are rubber tyres from 12V train motors, though wide rubber
bands would do.
In this robot, the gripper cylinders are in parallel with two cylinders that
move a much bigger load, that of a bank of 5 switch valves on the back of the
robot. Therefore the gripper moves before the bank of switches.
There’s also a diagram of the pneumatic circuit in the folder.
Mark
|
|
| |
Hi,
I am trying to look for a few lego end effectors configuration. I got the
one from CMU's robotics educator. Suggestion will be greatly appreciated.
--thanks
--
MIME ATTACHMENTS DISCARDED:
1. Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Length: 1046
|
|
|
