Jim (JR)

Member Since: November 24, 2012

Country: United States

  • 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".


    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!

  • Greetings!

    I am trying to create a traffic sensor / data-logger using sensors like this.

    I want to place a sensor on one side of a street, and a piece of reflective metal on a fence opposite the sensor, that's about six-or-so meters away. I want to detect either an object closer than the fence, (usually by a factor of two), or an interruption of the beam, (in case the vehicle is a truck with non-reflective fabric sides - or has such a horrible paint-job that the beam doesn't reflect.)

    This will be used out of doors, so ambient light is a serious concern.

    I don't need millimeter accuracy. In fact, I was originally considering a simple IR emitter/detector sensor pair bouncing off a reflective surface. The easy-to-assemble Qwiic systems sound like an answer to my prayers without having to re-design the wheel.

    Question: Which, of the many sensors you sell, would be a good fit? (Hopefully not the Garmin sensor for $150-or-so!)


    Jim "JR"

  • I can understand everything about the kit from the description, except for the small PCB with eyes. Since it's a PCB with a few components attached - aside from the googly-eyes - it's obviously there for a purpose, What purpose?

    I've seen different illustrations showing the "eyes" pointed in different directions. Is that part of the robot servo controlled somehow? Or is it just a friction mount that can be moved by hand one way or the other?

    Is it possible for this to be clarified within the description?


    Jim "JR"

  • @emc2

    There had better be a damn good reason for somebody to use more than 5V in a USB port… if they did, a looot of people would be reporting burnt devices.

    This is only true for the USB 2.n protocol. USB 3.n (blue plastic insert instead of black), is rated to supply a max of 20+ vdc, as the 3.n spec makes provision for driving devices that are much more power hungry than your run-of-the-mill 2.n device. (http://www.usb.org/developers/powerdelivery/)

    In fact one of the bullet points on that page reads like this:

    • Increased power levels from existing USB standards up to 100W (No, that is not a typo! Imagine, USB powered space heaters!)

    The same thing is also mentioned at this site:


    I have an ASUS TF-201 tablet that has a USB 3.n charger that supplies 15 vdc charging voltage to the device.

    One thing I do not know (but strongly suspect), is if this particular charger, (or USB 3 in general), can detect and supply the correct voltage to the device. I wold not be surprised if USB 3.n can do that, as all it would have to do is put the rails at +5, interrogate the device and receive voltage info, and then adjust the positive rail to match the requested voltage.

    I also strongly suspect, but do not know as a fact, that USB 2.n (or earlier) devices communicate in such a way that the 3.n interface automagically falls back to 2.n, since I have no devices that have a USB 3 host port.

    @everybody Thanks for the info!

    p.s. If I understand the LiPo spec properly, just so long as the battery you are charging can accept a charging current of 500ma or more, this should work like a charm. The only difference is that devices that can accept a larger charge current will take a correspondingly longer time to charge at 500ma.

  • @Teslafan et.al.

    "Unlimited data" does not mean "Unlimited data at LTE speeds", as is mentioned above. "Unlimited data" means you can stream as much data as you wish, for 6 months, within the bandwidth limits of your device and the carrier's plan. Many plans, by T-Mobile and others, have "unlimited" usage, but it's usually for one month, and is $50 each month. So, six months for $80 isn't such a bad deal. I'm seriously considering getting one of these beasties for the USB dongle I use with my laptop.

    Another important caveat: T-Mobile in the United States does not, repeat not, support full LTE speeds or the advanced LTE protocol due to the fact that Verizon and AT&T gobbled up all the available LTE frequency bands here. The best you can hope for is HPDSA if your modem supports it, or EDGE (2G) if it doesn't.

    This is especially important if you purchase a "4G-LTE" modem from a source outside the U.S. as they will likely NOT support T-Mobile's HPDSA frequency bands.

    However, if you use a data-modem, and you are often abroad, (i.e. outside the U.S.), it might well be worth it since roaming charges are often horrid at best.

    What say ye?

    Jim (J.R.)

  • @everyone,

    Comparing things like the Pi, the Edison, and even the Jetson TK1, is an interesting pastime, but saying that (for example), the Pi isn't a good platform for "robotics" (or whatever), because it runs Linux misses the point. In fact, the TK1 has a development O/S which is also a Linux re-spin.

    As I notice from many of the prior comments, what you want to use really depends on what your specific application is.

    You CAN do interesting things with the Pi, if you really want to. In order to do that - as is also true with the Edison and the TK1 - you have to code "bare metal". And yes, you can do that on the Pi too. If you REALLY want to be totally anal with your code, drop down into raw assembler. Code everything else in C/C++, and the really time-critical stuff in assembler.

    Now, I don't want to come off like an absolute fan-boy of the Pi, but I think its being criticized for the wrong reasons. The Pi has more interfacing options than just a few GPIO pins. There's I2C, (for one), and a few other interesting interface methods too - and I read this out of a "for beginners" guide to the Pi.

    I guess the bottom line for my rant is this: Never underestimate the power of human ingenuity. If you need to get something done, and you wish you had a TK1, but all you have is a Pi or an Edison, it's a better than even-money bet that you'll figure out how to do it.

    What say ye?

    Jim (JR)

No public wish lists :(