Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #00391
To: BEAM Group beam@corp.sgi.com, BEAM List beam@corp.sgi.com,
From: dennison dennlill@buffnet.net
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 18:13:07 -0500
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: question
Fiesty.
Ok, you had your rant. I'll have mine.
>
>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.
Well, remeber this is the SOLARBOTICS approach. A one man deal, Most of the
robot tech kits and stuff like that are the offspring of UNIVERSITY FUNDED
PROJECTS. Seriously, where would all the rugwarriors be if it weren't for
the fat-walleted MIT? They have a serious commercial aspect, think LEGO
MINDSTORMs, ooh cool. Guess what, MIT project. Keep in mind, except for a
VERY select few of us, were mere amatures siting on our poor rumps at home
piecing together stuff. If MIT funded BEAM research I'd bet serious money
that they would churn out some serious quality items.
True, BEAM kits are expensive. But who cares? I could actually build the
BEAM Photopopper for like twelve bucks if I wanted to. ITS A KIT. And, if
you notice, THE ONLY KIT. If someone wants to prove how cheap the tech can
get I'd invite them to start their own company.
>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.
Not so. What do you mean by REAL WORLD? TRUE beam bot's won't be assembling
cars, but there's nothing stopping a SOLAR POWERED two motor walker from
walking across sand dune's in africa right now. See? Want 'real world'?
Strap some sort of atmospheric sensor to it, and a radio transmitter and
viola. REAL WORLD. All depends on application.
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.
Well it does simulate real life anamilistic behaviors.
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.
And are you saying that the CPU controlled Robotic assembly arm in car
factories wasn't incorporated for the same reason?
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.
So? There's a trillion ways to build a light seeking robot. And you know
what? Because the meaning behind "BEAM" is so vague, we can call every
single one of those techniquies "BEAM TEK".
>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.
No, your definitly wrong there. There is no way that you can say a three
transistor BEAM bot is more expensive to produce then a CPU based bot.
Perhpas if you POP out CPU's by the millions, but the fact of the matter is,
you pop out pre-made three transistor bot's like CPU's, and the BEAM stuff
will still be cheaper.
>I've been told that's because BEAM uses only the Cadillac of parts.
Oh, and like most robots don't? You can build a walker robot from lynxmotion
for a couple hundred. For a second play NASA, and build MAR's Pathfinder.
Now who uses Cadillac of parts? You can buy parts or you can wreck your
walkman for parts.
OK, fine,
>but that still raises the overall cost per robot behavior, i.e. BEAM costs
>more.
nope.
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.
I never bought a kit, and I'm doing just fine.
>It's called bait and switch, and it's not right.
Did someone make you buy a kit a gunpoint?
So, you guys
>keep preaching on the idea that BEAM is the only holy grail of robotics,
Mark T doesn't do that.
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).
True, it makes some nice art.
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,
Serious? Please, every one of us knows that there isn't ANYTHING anyof us
need a robot for. We don't explore mars or own a car factory. You're hive
behaviors are about as use-less as any other BEAM behaviors. Us,
'individuals' keep forgeting, what we does means jack.
Dennison
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home