Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #00348
To: beam@corp.sgi.com
From: JVernonM@aol.com
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 07:04:52 EST
Subject: [alt-beam] in answer
>Soooo, why is it
>that I can buy a three motor hexapod walker kit from Lynxmotion that is
>programable, turns on a dime, reverses, has tactle sensors, and infrared
>object detection, for less than 200 bucks American? But a beam walker kit
from
>Solarbotics, that as far as I know, can only reverse, goes for 300 bucks.
Easy. We don't produce very many walker kits (yet), and with low volume you
have to expect high prices. When we're pumping out walker kits by the
hundreds like Lynxmotion, our prices will come down. I would rather
concentrate our efforts on the solar aspect of BEAM rather than walkers, as
they are more inexpensive and (in my opinion) more satisfying to own. I
prefer to work on the less-expensive non-walkers.
I agree. The solar bots and circuits are more fun to work with. I also
understand the complexities of retail sales, particularly of custom generated
products. It was not my intention to imply that your prices are to high. On
the contrary I find them quite reasonable for I understand what is involved in
bringing something new to market. My question, and my frustration, comes from
comparing the price ranges of the two technologies. Which often seem to be
compared in Tilden's writings as being linked to the consumer market, and
price as an indicator, showing beam tech as the way to a real world robot. I
still don't see that. Not in the real retail market place anyway, and if there
ever is a real consumer robot, it will come from a retail source.
>Another thing, My Cybug, a
>very advanced analog bot with many higher behaviors costs less than 100 bucks
>in kit form (including the hunger add on), while a simple miniball kit goes
>for 160.
Hand assembled gearmotors will do that to the cost of any kit. If I could
find gearmotors as good for cheaper, they'd be the ones used.
Again, I agree, custom parts make for expense. This also highlights another
potential problem with the future development of BEAM as employed to create
that real world robot, namely, the heavy dependence of beam on extremely
efficiant motors, and the serious lack of any kind of supply. I like many
others will probably use servos, as they are readily available. Again, how do
you build a real world robot when you can't get parts? And if the back shed
hobbiest can't get them to develope the prototypes that eventually lead to the
breakthroughs that lead to that real world robot, then how will one based on
BEAM ever make it to the retail stage? By the way, the pred / prey, co-
operative hive threads that just recently faded from the postings could quite
easily be done with a slightly modified Cybug. I mean slightly. Most of the
ground work has been done. This was suggested by at least 2 people, but was
completely ignored by those discussing the project. Is it nescasary to re-
invent the wheel just so you can slap a BEAM label on it?
>As a matter of fact the photopopper, a limited bot compared to the
>basic cybug, are almost the same price.
Not quite a fair comparison. Cybug has a 9V battery, and can get away with
a much heavier PCB; waaaay less efficient motors, and cheaper components.
You can't compare that with coreless motors, gold caps, ultra-thin & formed
PCB (hard to manufacture!) and custom-manufactured tactile sensors.
Yes, you are right. It is not a fair comparison when you compare kit to kit.
The photopopper is a wonder of solar and BEAM tech and I love mine to death.
And I do understand the quality that goes into each kit, that is obvious to
anyone who has bought one. What I was comparing was function and price. I
think a resonable argument could be made that the popper is innovative and
interesting. It also serves to introduce the novice to the concepts of beam. I
meant that if you compare them like stereo systems, as to function, the cybug
is more functional for about the same cost. The popper however is loads more
fun, and can lead to those more economic scratchbuilts.
>Could
>someone explain to me how this pricing reality jives with the BEAM philosophy
>of a better CHEAPER bot.
You answered your own question - by building it yourself. When you buy a
kit, you are paying for the R&D and development time, documentation, the
time in assembling the components into kits, and a reasonable margin so I
can afford my new baby daughter and the minivan she came in! I dare ANYBODY
to find comparable quality and documentation in any robotics kit. I'll
venture to say there's a scant few that can compare their quality with what
we produce.
I don't think anybody will argue the quality of your product, it is, in fact,
exemplary.
But what I'm saying, and this is ALL I'm saying, is that real world robots
won't be bought by people who build them their selves. In order for real
robots to ever become reality they must be built by corporations who will
market them and sell them to people, who for the most part, can't program a
VCR. If you can produce a robot that will fill that bill, using BEAM tech, you
need to do it, as Tilden states, simpler and cheaper. Otherwise, the BEAM
circuitry goes out the window in favor of a cheaper method. I personally feel
that a real world robot will be a mixture of analog and digital tech. What
bothers me is that BEAM may be stagnating now because of the very nature of
the tech. That is, extremely high efficiancy. At present rate a processing bot
is closer to reality than a BEAM bot, simply because digital will work with
present tech. Not motors that are few and hard to find, or motor efficiancy of
ten or twenty years from now. I got into BEAM in November. That's right only 3
months. I swallowed a lot of hype, and I just recently felt a little
indigestion over some of my expectations. I love building these bots, and I
find many uses for the tech in the fine arts. I think the greatest potential
for this tech is in the field of kinetic sculpture. I personaly love the solar
aspect of beam. No off switch. No batteries or chargers. The small scales that
are possible. If and when I do build a walker, it will be solarized. The self
sufficiancy intriques me. A bot isn't truly autonomous if it needs you to turn
it off and change its' batteries.
Dave, I hope you take what I've said in the spirit it was intended. I have
nothing but praise for your product and procedures. And by the way, we all
have that child and minivan in the drive.
Sincerely,
Jim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home