Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #00088
To: BEAM List beam@corp.sgi.com, tmairs@aasland.com
From: dennison dennlill@buffnet.net
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 12:19:12 -0500
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: BEAM classification
feedback can be implemented useing microprocessors. There are sensors for
this sort of stuff. You don't even nessesarlly have to program in the
reflexs before hand. Computer code is possible that allows a computer to
react differently based upon novel threshold type data. And remeber, a BEAM
bot does has reasonably preprogrammed reflexes. We build the robots to do
something. A 'preprogramed task' if you might say. One way to classify BEAM
is as a device whose actual design is it's programing.
Dennison
Dennison
>But doesn't the PIC's *programmed reflex* - the code to move the motor -
negate
>the inherent feedback that helps to adjust gait (in walkers) ? I am
working on
>an 8-leg walker that uses BEAM legs , steered by a microprocessor that
sends
>occasional pulses to the leg microcores, but then leaves them until a
direction
>change is needed. I would consider this to be BEAM.
>
>TOM
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: dennison [SMTP:dennlill@buffnet.net]
>Sent: Monday, February 01, 1999 8:07 AM
>To: beam; BEAM List; Tom Mairs
>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