Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #00100
To: dennison dennlill@buffnet.net
From: James Wilson jameswilson@globalserve.net
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 19:49:21 -0500
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: BEAM classification
Alittle off topic but... In one of my dumpster dives I came accross some old
mother boards including cpus and static ram. My understanding of the more
complex issues of electronics is sorely lacking but, would you consider a robot
that uses a cpu and ram and a language like LISP to be beam? LISP is recursive
and it is possible to create code that can change itself due to the FEEDBACK it
receives.
James
dennison wrote:
> 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