Jim (JR)

Member Since: November 24, 2012

Country: United States

  • Member #1272652 said:

    it would be a bit counterproductive to work on micro:bit while they are distributing RedBot kits

    Well. . . . .

    They do sell the micro:bit and a number of interesting add-ons for it, so maybe this isn't so far fetched after all?

    Another thought: Most of their stuff is covered by a Creative Commons-type license, so it might be possible to get source code from their GitHub repo, (if they have one), do something creative and create a pull request.

    I'm already researching how to do that for the moto:bit extensions for MakeCode, since they are so abysmal at present.

  • From the Technical Assistance pages:

    Micro:Bit Not Showing Up On My Machine - Try unplugging the USB cable and plugging it back in. Also, be sure that you have the cable inserted all the way into your micro:bit.

    There is also one other possibility - that your USB => micro-USB cable may not be an actual DATA cable.

    If you have a phone charger cable that plugs into a USB jack for power, it may not have all four/five wires attached!

    What you will see is the micro:bit light up and appear to be working, but it does not actually appear on your system. If this is the case, swap out the USB cable with one you absolutely KNOW is a data-cable, like from a USB optical media device.

  • The full and proper name is "moto:bit"

    Type in "moto" and click on the magnifying glass on the right-hand side of the search box. It's like the third or fourth extension returned.

  • @nate

    1. Interesting!

    2. I've worked with government agencies and various certification processes before, (but not the FCC), so "ah feel yer pain!"

    3. I appreciate the time and effort you put into getting this device certified. Many other companies would just punt, say it's a subassembly, and leave the end user to certify it themselves.

    4. This whole series on the Artimus and the efforts you folks put into it is extremely interesting in its own right.

    The next time I have a client who thinks that RF certification is just a matter of filling in an application, writing a check, and stuffing everything in an envelope, ("Really now, how complicated can that POSSIBLY be!!"), I'll just point them to your article and watch their jaw drop

    Thanks again for such an awesome job!

    Jim "JR"

  • You said: "What sets the RED-V RedBoard apart from the rest is the completely open-source approach from hardware to ISA. That means anyone can make full use the microcontroller without requiring royalties, licenses, or non-disclosure agreements."

    Apparently not true?

    On your page located at: https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/red-v-development-guide, there is the warning:

    " Warning: Do NOT attempt to reprogram the NXP K22 ARM Cortex-M4. It has proprietary Segger firmware flashed onto the chip, which allows it to upload programs the SiFive Freedom E310 core. Reprogramming the NXP K22 ARM Cortex-M4 will overwrite the firmware and you will no longer be able to reprogram the board. To replace the firmware, you will need to purchase a license from Segger along with one of their programmers."

    So, it appears to me that this may not be "completely open" as the boot loader is proprietary. Or am I missing something here?

    Thanks!

  • I'm not a python programmer, (yet!), so I might be talking nonsense here, but is it necessary? Aren't you able to control the micro:bit with the python libraries that already exist for the micro:bit? If that is true, can't you control the micro:bot board in the same way?

    My apologies if I am not understanding something here.

    Jim "JR"

  • Suggestion: Because the robot kit is called the "micro:bot" there should be a link to the extensions called "micro:bot" At the very least there should be an alias linking "micro:bot" to "moto:bit".

    Why?

    I suspect that many people will remember that the robot is named the "micro:bot" - less will remember that the extension is named after a specific circuit board. At least I get confused every time I try to use the robot with Make Code and have to look it up.

    An additional point, the vast majority of robot kits (that result in a moving, active robot) - as opposed to robot boards, (that can be made into robotic devices with the addition of additional parts) - are named after the kit instead of the circuit board.

    Since you sell both - the board and the kit, maybe it should be listed under both names?

    What say ye?

    Jim "JR"

  • The particle pricing link is broken when I checked 11/23/18. Can you provide an updated link please?

  • +1 - totally agree! Nothing frustrates me more than a potentially interesting article that is some sloooowly paced video that takes five minutes to download and doesn't say anything more than a short paragraph would.

  • Reminds me of the time my wife and I visited the Grand Canyon. Looking across the canyon, your mind really can't "get its arms around" the sheer magnitude of it. That is until you almost don't make out some nearly invisible specks on the opposite face. . . When you realize that those nearly microscopic specks are people on a viewing platform, the real scale of the magnitude snaps in and your jaw drops off the edge of the cliff!

No public wish lists :(