Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #00420
To: wtnewton@nc5.infi.net
From: JVernonM@aol.com
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 02:27:07 EST
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: BEAM, CPU's and the future
In a message dated 2/15/99 2:08:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,
wtnewton@nc5.infi.net writes:
>
> CPU controlled robots, particularly those using tiny low-power
> controllers like PICs, ARE often as simple and cheap as traditional
> BEAM designs (besides being smarter) IF you have the programmer and
> computer and software and the knowledge it takes to work with them.
> If you don't, go analog, that's fun too! No need to argue about what
> is better. Pointless unless the application is also specified. If
> your goal is to pop to the light, no need for a cpu. If you want a
> robot that can maneuver out of anything and remember how it did it,
> I'd strongly advise learning how to use a microcontroller.
>
> My (freeformed) PIC-based "popper" is entirely light powered, can pop
> forward and reverse with one or both motors, and has a limited memory.
> Provided nothing hangs up its tiny "wheels" it never gets stuck in a
> corner. The maneuvering part of it could be done without a cpu but it
> was convenient to use an 18 pin PIC and get sensor processing, memory
> and future smarts upgrades for practically nothing.
>
> My current design uses a PIC16C56 with an external eeprom - cost
> about $6 for both. A PIC16LF84 has a built-in eeprom and runs down
> to 2 volts, about $7 and save 1/2". The real cost of using cpu's
> isn't in the processors and parts, they're cheap enough, it's in
> aquiring the capability to work with them. Take me... my programmer
> only does 5x parts (it's very old) so to use the new 2 volt PIC
> I'm going to have to upgrade or buy a new programmer. $30-$60.
> But I only need do this once and then I can do whatever I want to
> with the new chip. Brain and capabilities permitting of course.
>
> Having said all that, I think an analog (aka beam) reversible
> photopopper would rock! forget about the memory, we already kinda
> know what the feelers should do. I posted a rough design for one
> to this list months ago but it was much more complicated than the
> cpu-controlled design. Has anyone made a reversible popper-style
> robot without a cpu?
>
> BEAM changed my way of thinking when it comes to robots. My first
> attempts were battery power hogs, complete with passive regulators
> and relays wasting many hundreds of milliwatts. The current PICBOT
> computer draws 1ma at 3 volts while popping, sleeps between each pop
> dropping current down to a few microamps. It does need a bit of bright
> light to come alive, seems the PIC powers up doing everything but
> sleeping, but once the program gains control it conserves the charge
> it has even overnight. Although the circuits aren't beam per say, the
> specifications are inspired by BEAM doctrine. (besides the part about
> not using a cpu... skipped that part:) This I believe will be the real
> impact of BEAM technology, not so much the circuits themselves but
> bringing up future engineers to think about efficiency, to think about
> size, mechanics, survivability and the easiest way to get the job done.
> While pure BEAM circuits might have limitations, the broader concepts
> are just as applicable to conventional designs. BEAM teaches us to
> imitate biology with electronics, make it simple and pleasing to the
> eye (won't try to spell the A word right now...) and to pay attention
> to mechanical design. How we do that is up to each of us, builders of
> robots. We can be the future of robots. If it moves away from traditional
> BEAM, that's just proof that the concepts are more than a few circuits.
> If it stays with tradition, that's because those simple circuits are
> pretty cool and do a lot for what little is there. I suspect the future
> includes both. It is not either/or, it's whatever you want to do.
>
> Whether or not I actually use "pure" circuits, I credit BEAM and
> the visions of Mark Tilden and other BEAM experimenters for helping
> me to see the light. Efficiency! Carry on...
>
> Terry Newton
>
I agree. Beam tech has given me new insights to approaches. It has also given
me yet another outlet for artistic projects, and that in itself is worth the
cost of admission. I personally believe Tilden has contributed a very needed
boost to back yard robotics. The youth that are attracted today may be the
designers of tomorrow. I know I come off alittle heavy handed sometimes, my
passions run deep. Contrary to what the last few postings may have you believe
I love building, showing, and playing with these things. I do lose it a little
when the hype outweighs the progress. But, believe me, when I get that next
project done I'll be whooping and hollering for everyone within reach to show
them every detail of it until they are wriggling to get away like the female
cat in a Pepe Le Pue cartoon.
Sincerely,
Jim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home