Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #00080
To: beam; BEAM List; Tom Mairs
From: dennison [SMTP:dennlill@buffnet.net]
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 09:08:32 -0800
Subject: Re: BEAM classification
I don't know about that. I could build a BEAM bot that instead of using a SE
used a PIC simply because it was easyer than a SE circuit, AND could
incorporate many other functions. Microprocessors do not exclude the robot
from being BEAM. Infact, I'd like to see a CPU walker around here.
I'd agree, anything remote controlled doesn't count.
It dosen't nessesarilly need to source it's own power. No problem witha
manual re-charge.
Dennison
A BEAM bot is NOT:
>
>Any thing that uses a preprogrammed set of instructions for primary
functions.
>A bot that is PRIMARILY microprocessor driven - incorporating a processor
for
>higher level functions seems to be OK.
>Remotely controlled by computer, or by person.
>Can source it's own power and recharge (not a wind-up, or manual re-charge)
>
>Hope this helps,
>
>
>TOM
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: George Rix [SMTP:rix.g@bmts.com]
>Sent: Monday, February 01, 1999 5:26 AM
>To: Ian Bernstein; beam@corp.sgi.com
>Subject: Re: BEAM classification
>
>>Hi
>>I was writing up some more stuff for my FAQ and I was going to write on
>>what a BEAM robot is, then I thought.....
>>
>>What makes a particular robot a BEAM robot?
>>
>>
>>Size? Circuit????????
>>
>>I mean if I build a robot, how do I know if it's a BEAM robot or just a
>>regular robot?
>>
>>What is the classification of a BEAM robot?
>>
>>I'd like some input on this :-)
>Well, it should meet as many of the letters in BEAM as possible, and be
>autonomous for the most part, I believe. I'm a newbie though.
>Signing off,
>Rob Rix
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>'If anything can possibly go wrong, it probably already has' ? Murphy's law
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home