Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #00389
To: rigter@cafe.net
From: JVernonM@aol.com
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 17:46:06 EST
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: question
In a message dated 2/14/99 4:48:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, rigter@cafe.net
writes:
> Hence the work to modularize BEAM bots with (industry standard
> interface) hextiles, configurable analog arrays, motor and sensor
> modules. These "off the shelf" functions are then plugged together for
> specific applications reducing the design costs.
And to broaden the availability of BEAM only components that are limited to
BEAM only applications, and therefore extremely overpriced in the BEAM only
tradition of whipping together yet another lucrative hobby supply market.
These things will NEVER be real world robots. They make for extremely
expensive toys at best, and unique novelties at minimum. REAL robots are
coming sir, and they are not BEAM. I can take a lot of shit, but this idea
that 3 transistors, and 50 year old approaches to artifical behavior is really
starting to irk me. The truth is that the real appeal of this tech is
designing ways to make those at the top of the pyramid more financially
stable. I realize that, and so does everyone I show it to when I drag out my
photopopper and compare it to my Cybug on the basis of behavior verses cost.
You and yours keep harping on this idea that BEAM is the most economical way
to build the real world robot, But no matter what kind of actual real life
cost comparison I make, I invariably come to the same conclusion-BEAM costs
more to produce than either competing analog systems or cpu based designs.
I've been told that's because BEAM uses only the Cadillac of parts. OK, fine,
but that still raises the overall cost per robot behavior, i.e. BEAM costs
more. The really devious part is you don't realize that until after you've
spent about 3-400 bucks on kits, motors, and parts to delve into
scratchbuilts. Then suddenly you realize the best your going to get is very
expensive toys. It's called bait and switch, and it's not right. So, you guys
keep preaching on the idea that BEAM is the only holy grail of robotics, and
I'll just build my toys and try to find applications in the artistic fields
(because in my opinion, that's all it's good for). I'd even buy the idea that
the tech is good to introduce kids to the world of electronics and robotics,
but stop telling them they can eventually build robbie the robot, because you
can't, and I fear, never will. Now excuse me while I go and do some serious
research on hive behaviors with my Cybug, or did you guys figure that one out
with the BEAM bots yet? Or, I could do some challenging work on one of the cpu
based kits out there that give a wide range of behavior modifications and
practically unlimited upgradablility. Or, I guess I could try to build a BEAM
walker that CAN turn.
Sincerely,
Jim
JVernonM@aol.com
PS. Could someone tell me what happened to the BEAM gospel on feedback, it
seems to be reversing itself.
How about the "Principa Robotica" I'm still waiting for those real world robot
applications.
What about a bot with more than 25 neurons, seeing how you need at least 400
or so to get a bot with the brains of an earth worm.
Never mind, I'll just make another symet, and pay my tythe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home