Alt-BEAM Archive

Message #00410



To: BEAM List beam@corp.sgi.com, BEAM Group beam@corp.sgi.com,
From: dennison dennlill@buffnet.net
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 23:53:28 -0500
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: question




>> If MIT funded BEAM research I'd bet serious money
>> that they would churn out some serious quality items.
>>
>I'd have sworn LANL was funding BEAM tech. Hmmmmm...

True, you've got me there only slightly. Why? Becuase LANL doesn't get a
nice new hundred student class each year. Think off all the innovation that
comes around with all those fresh minds!

>> What do you mean by REAL WORLD?
>I mean real robots. Autonomous, seemingly sentiant, and possessing the
ability
>to interact with humans on a level that produces meaningful relationships.
>This can be construction, hazardous employment, servitude, entertainment,
>pets, household maintenance, this is limited only by your imagination.
Perhaps
>this is my own interpratation. I basicly believe we (builders) are
attracted
>to the idea of human created artificial life. Being alive entails much more
>than being able to walk over sand dunes.
>

Good point. However what I'm looking to do, IS walk around sand dunes.
Personally, that is what would be really cool. I'll conceded that without
some serious integration of things NV nets aren't going to pull a R2-D2
anytime soon.



>> And are you saying that the CPU controlled Robotic assembly arm in car
>> factories wasn't incorporated for the same reason?
>Yes I it was. I was talking about the claims of being able to build the bot
>mentioned above out of 3 transistors.
>
Yeh, but no one's made THAT sort of claim. I think it's generally assumed
that BEAM bot's aren't ment for anything Of that sort of precision. I
remeber Mark T talking about how he had been approached by some Car
companies who were interested in seeing how they could use the tek to build
autonomous cars. Seriously! Mark T however said that was unrealistic with
his tek, at this point, and he said that due to the unpredicatablilityy of
this stuff he wouldn't put it in and sort of life dependent situation.

>> 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"
>That statement, in it's self, is the reason for much of this discent.


Yep.

>
>> 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.
>Of course a three transistor machine is cheaper to build, if your goal is
to
>make a bot that only "jiggles" every few seconds.
>
Ok, but lets say we adhere to the BEAM philosophy, and instead of three
transistors, we pack in an equal number as the CPU, lets say, hum, 500,000
to be kind (and it's a small processor). Now, sure no ones done stuff with
that many transitors, and that hasn't been done with BEAM becuase we have't
quite found the Boolean logic equivalent that lets us produce huge
sequential logic array type stuff. But if there is an equivalent for BEAM in
some matter, I'd dare say we could build something near equal.

>> 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.
>I don't see the comparison of pathfinder and a symet, sorry. I haven't been
>able to build anything from parts pulled EXCLUSIVELY from an old walkman. I
>still had to buy at least a couple of new parts from suppliers. Hype.


Well, that depends on your effort. While the solar panel tends to be an
item you need to purchase, you can gut those 'survival' walkmans (the ones
with generators and solar panels) and build a complete Bot. I have however
make an entire SE (except solar panel) with one casset player. So it is
possible, TRUE, not enjoyable or easy or particualry rewarding but not
totaly hype.


>
>> 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.
>Sorry you feel that way. I see it differently.
I don't mean it exactly like that. What I mean is that for the individual
who is interested in it for his own sake, I think the details aren't so
important. We don't particularly have many rules are guidlines to follow. I
was also refering this to mean that much of this is very Hobbyish. Thats
what I mean by saying we don't need a robot. Much like someone doesn't need
a RC car or plane.

I think Mark Tilden is very serious.I think Craig Maynard is also serious. I
think the advances in Japan by Sony are also serious.

I agree, but I also think that these are people who are actually DOING
something in particular. Not to say other people aren't. But they are
fufilling some end greater than a photopopper in a robot park.

well, let this not become a flame war. I think we both have some valid
points.

Sincerely,
Dennison
>
>
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Home