|
|
| |
John Hansen has released a utility that's great for projecting the NXT screen
for the entire class to see. There are two versions in a zip file.
<http://bricxcc.sourceforge.net/nextscreen.zip>
I've already used NeXTScreen2 in class to demonstrate how to use the View mode.
It worked marvelously.
To run:
1. Download and unzip the two versions of the utility to a folder of your
choice. NeXTScreen2 displays a graphic of the NXT with clickable buttons.
NeXTScreen just shows the screen with text icons for buttons. Both work the
same way.
2. Run the version of your choice.
3. Connect the NXT to the PC using a USB cable and turn it on. Start polling by
pressing Ctrl-P on the PC.
4. Proceed with your demonstration using your mouse to click on the button
icons on the PC. Your actions will also actuate the NXT as if you had pressed
its keys directly.
There's more to be found in the original discussion in lugnet\news\Robotics\nxt
under the heading "Another new NXT Utility"
|
|
| |
> > You have to use the EOPD (red) sensor from Hi Technic. I've tried the • LEGO light
> > sensor in raw mode but it doesn't work as well.
I initially thought it might just be because of the lego light sensor being
incapable of recognizing the light difference for a slight tilt. Then, I
thought, if that's the case, perhaps I can mount 2 light sensors on the same
port to increase the sensitivity. Then, use 2 light sensors simulating the
self-alignment...
--E
-----Original Message-----
From: news-gateway@lugnet.com [mailto:news-gateway@lugnet.com] On Behalf Of
Chio Siong Soh
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 10:11 PM
To: lugnet.robotics.edu@lugnet.com; lugnet.loc.sg@lugnet.com
Subject: Legway with ROBOLAB 2.9
At the recent LEGO Engineering Conference 2007 in Singapore,
http://news.lugnet.com/robotics/edu/?n=177
I showed how kids using ROBOLAB 2.9 could learn about proportional control
and
apply it to their robots like making a model car go a precise distance and a
proportional control line follower.
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=241093
The height of their learning would be to make a two-wheeled balancing robot,
none other than Steve's Legway. Except it would be programmed in ROBOLAB 2.9
rather than BrickOS.
The balancing bot was demo'ed at my talk and drew a lot of interest but
nobody
caught on the significance of it being done in ROBOLAB 2.9 rather than in
BrickOS.
The vi is here for those who want to try their hand at it.
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=242330
Note how you can write algebraic equations in the expression box.
The OptimizeRCX box is essential for real-time control. It really grinds the
motors, thanks to Dick Swan!
You have to use the EOPD (red) sensor from Hi Technic. I've tried the LEGO
light
sensor in raw mode but it doesn't work as well.
After you press the run button, you have 1 second to set it upright then the
PID
will take over. So far it only does the balancing act. But the kids love it.
I haven't yet figured how to make it spin and follow the line like Steve's
original Legway.
Have fun
CSSoh
|
|
| |
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=242330 - Legway-RL-2-9 -
This folder is not yet public.
-----Original Message-----
From: news-gateway@lugnet.com [mailto:news-gateway@lugnet.com] On Behalf Of
Chio Siong Soh
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 10:11 PM
To: lugnet.robotics.edu@lugnet.com; lugnet.loc.sg@lugnet.com
Subject: Legway with ROBOLAB 2.9
At the recent LEGO Engineering Conference 2007 in Singapore,
http://news.lugnet.com/robotics/edu/?n=177
I showed how kids using ROBOLAB 2.9 could learn about proportional control
and
apply it to their robots like making a model car go a precise distance and a
proportional control line follower.
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=241093
The height of their learning would be to make a two-wheeled balancing robot,
none other than Steve's Legway. Except it would be programmed in ROBOLAB 2.9
rather than BrickOS.
The balancing bot was demo'ed at my talk and drew a lot of interest but
nobody
caught on the significance of it being done in ROBOLAB 2.9 rather than in
BrickOS.
The vi is here for those who want to try their hand at it.
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=242330
Note how you can write algebraic equations in the expression box.
The OptimizeRCX box is essential for real-time control. It really grinds the
motors, thanks to Dick Swan!
You have to use the EOPD (red) sensor from Hi Technic. I've tried the LEGO
light
sensor in raw mode but it doesn't work as well.
After you press the run button, you have 1 second to set it upright then the
PID
will take over. So far it only does the balancing act. But the kids love it.
I haven't yet figured how to make it spin and follow the line like Steve's
original Legway.
Have fun
CSSoh
|
|
| |
In lugnet.robotics.edu, Chio Siong Soh wrote:
> my favourite is the one on "GBC - A Fun Way to Learn
> Maths, Science and D&T".
Thanks for the heads up, this is wonderful to see. We primarily came up with the
GBC idea for exactly one of the reasons you mention in the PDF - we wanted a
collaborative, not competitive, LEGO event for groups, clubs, and kids. It has
succeeded in ways we never really imagined, and continues to grow.
Was there much interest in this during the presentation? Do you think folks will
try it out? What is the largest GBC you've personally seen (and yeah, they are
*very* addictive)?
As to your rolling ball clock, that's a nice set-up. I think it uses a slightly
different mechanism to catch the "carry" ball from the level above, while still
allowing the rest to dump to the bottom. Sigh, yet another thing I'll have to
put in... >grin<
--
Brian Davis
|
|
| |
At the recent LEGO Engineering Conference 2007 in Singapore,
http://news.lugnet.com/robotics/edu/?n=177
I showed how kids using ROBOLAB 2.9 could learn about proportional control and
apply it to their robots like making a model car go a precise distance and a
proportional control line follower.
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=241093
The height of their learning would be to make a two-wheeled balancing robot,
none other than Steve's Legway. Except it would be programmed in ROBOLAB 2.9
rather than BrickOS.
The balancing bot was demo'ed at my talk and drew a lot of interest but nobody
caught on the significance of it being done in ROBOLAB 2.9 rather than in
BrickOS.
The vi is here for those who want to try their hand at it.
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=242330
Note how you can write algebraic equations in the expression box.
The OptimizeRCX box is essential for real-time control. It really grinds the
motors, thanks to Dick Swan!
You have to use the EOPD (red) sensor from Hi Technic. I've tried the LEGO light
sensor in raw mode but it doesn't work as well.
After you press the run button, you have 1 second to set it upright then the PID
will take over. So far it only does the balancing act. But the kids love it.
I haven't yet figured how to make it spin and follow the line like Steve's
original Legway.
Have fun
CSSoh
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
