Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #00147
To: "'Bob Shannon'" bshannon@tiac.net, beam@corp.sgi.com
From: Wilf Rigter Wilf.Rigter@powertech.bc.ca
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 18:14:10 -0800
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: Schmitt trigger
Bob, you iconoclast!
Don't get hung up on the patent bit. I found Tilden to be a nice
guy who wouldn't hurt a fly
(unlike his pitbull lawyers). Some 25 years ago, in the R&D group I
was working with, we
attempted patenting a "time constant" for an anti-aliasing filter,
which got a good laugh,
except someone had got there ahead of us and we had to buy the
rights. Oh well it's a
good story anyway. I think it was a pretty bold move for Tilden to
patent his ideas although
he probably hasn't made much money from it.
>Actually, I think that BEAM is a kind of RISC idea.
My opinion also!
>In my personal opinion, I think that BEAM as a 'new technology' is
pure hype.
Is there such a thing as BEAM technology? Perhaps only in the sense
of "appropriate"
technology. To me, BEAM is a set of guiding principles which can be
broadly applied.
There is the matter of BEAM as a copyrighted tradename falling into
the public domain
like Coke, please! Pepsi, OK? But Tilden should be so lucky if it
ever became an issue.
>Stimuli-response based robots predate the microprocessor as well as
Tilden's BEAM
>concepts (and Tilden himself). These simple devices used
non-linear analog circuits
>just like modern 'BEAM' technology.
Those were BEAM bots of necesity. While reading about them in my
high school library
some 35 years ago, I was similarly struck by the potential of these
electric eye/relay
technology photovores build by the early cyberneticists.
>I'm not suggesting that BEAM is not a valid, useful subject to
study,
>but Tilden's attatudes towards patents and claiming BEAM as his
personal
>intellectual property seems to be unjustified. I dont think his
patents
>are enforcable. Even the basic SE circuit has existed for some
time,
>but it was used for other applications.
Designed some BEAM things myself in the year 10 BT (Before Tilden).
>It all seems to be a game of terminology and showmanship rather
than new
>technology. On the other hand, it sure is great fun!
Oh yesss!
>Oh yes, look at digital cellular automata for example, but this is
not a
>BEAM-like thing, BEAM is an emergent, fractal thing. Emergent
systems,
>chaos theory, and fractal behaviors were all known long before BEAM
came
>into being.
Funny you should say that! About 18 years ago, I wrote a 100 byte
Game of Life program in Z80 assembler for the ZX81 (BEAM!) running
at 2 generations per second. Six months ago, I resurrected this
program
to run it on a ZX81 emulator on a Pentium 300 at about 100 times
normal
speed and was blown away by the dynamics. There were long cycle time
processes there that I never knew existed (ie evolution?). I
revised my original
program (goodlife) by including some very productive (apparently
imortal) templates.
After this I was determined to find some hardware equivalent based
on similar
simple rules with complex emergent behaviour. So I started my
trusty search
engine, and within minutes: BEAM!
In principle, these simple neural networks could be configured to
generate
cellular automata in the form of processes that operate on the same
two rules
as John Conway's Game of Life:
Using a regular two dimensional matrix of 8 input (NuLife) cells -
Rule 1 - a process is sustained if there are 2 or 3 adjacent
processes.
Rule 2 - a process is "born" in the presence of 3 adjacent
processes.
In all other cases a process dies.
I must say I got somewhat distracted by those damn cute walkers. So
I tried to think
of ways to use them as minimal robot automata and to develop some
behaviour rules
that could give rise to emergent group behaviour. Still working on
the NuLife cells though!
>BEAM is becomming almost religion, with 'gods' and fanatics. This
>bothers me. I've read responses from people that actually beleive
that
>a photopopper is 'smarter' than a Pentium chip, or superior to any
CPU
>based (which is often an 'evil' thing) robot.
Nah! Just great fun!
>This is really absurd. I've learned a lot from watching my BEAM
robots
>move about, even simply SYMETs. But I take what I've learned, and
use
>it to program CPU based robots that do things the BEAM robots could
>never attempt.
What a paradox! I love it!
>BEAM is a tool that can teach us many things, but it should not
become a
>fanatical movement or thought of as a revolution in robot design.
Yes! but I'm more worried about the microsoft and intel
establishment than
BEAM revolutionaries.
Indeed binary logic itself has this quality of complexity arising
from a system
based on one and zero. So we are not diluting BEAM when pointing to
the infinite
examples of BEAM both in nature and technology.
I'm trying to say the same as you: "Open your eyes, there's BEAM all
around us and most
of it is free!"
> To get the both of best worlds, you can use a NV circuit to drive
a
>schmidt trigger input of a PIC microcontroller. The
microcontroller
>could also wake from a sleep state on a regular basis to poll the
value
>of the capacitors. If the charge rate is sloping off, and there is
>enough voltage to move, the code could bypass the NV schmidt
trigger
>input and emulate the sought after type 3 solar engine.
Hey, it took a Pentium 300 to bring out the best in my ZX81 program!
>BEAM or not? I actually think the question itself is flawed,
because
>BEAM is a false concept as its being presented to people today.
The
>false concept is based on the incorrect idea that stimuli-response
based
>systems are new when they clearly predated the microprocessor!
If only they had called it BEAM instead of the stimuli-reponse based
systems
we might be running Linux on neural networks instead of Pentiums!
>After all, what about Marvin Minski's Perceptrons? That was back
in the
>1960's, they used vacuum tubes, but had learning machine robots
long
>before mobile CPU based robots.
Minski, a shining light for all of us! (don't worry, I didn't say
God)
Wilf Rigter mailto:wilf.rigter@powertech.bc.ca
tel: (604)590-7493
fax: (604)590-3411
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Shannon [SMTP:bshannon@tiac.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 7:25 PM
> To: Wilf Rigter
> Subject: Re: Schmitt trigger
>
> Wilf Rigter wrote:
> >
> > Yes! RISC is a kind of BEAM idea.
[Wilf Rigter] snip
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home