Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #00429
To: beam@corp.sgi.com
From: Bob Shannon bshannon@tiac.net
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 11:32:38 -0800
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: question
JVernonM@aol.com wrote:
> > 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.
Exactly so, I beleive this is due to a lot of misperceptions that BEAM
is a new technology (its not) and that its better at some tasks that
CPU's (its not).
The popularization of BEAM has done a disservice to the true pioneers of
robotics.
And to call all the different ways of building a phototropic robot BEAM
TEK is
totally wrong. I dare Tilden to try to enforce his patents in this way.
He would loose in a heartbeat.
> > 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.
No, this is incorrect.
Production costs are a function of the scale of production. Thats why
CPU's are
so very inexpensive, they are used for millions of applications that a
SE cannot
do. The borader demand for the CPU's will make them less expansive than
the dedicated CPU. Also the three transistor SE is not as versiatile as
the CPU, so the engineering costs of getting those three transistors to
do the job you want is FAR HIGHER than using a CPU.
> Of course a three transistor machine is cheaper to build, if your goal is to
> make a bot that only "jiggles" every few seconds.
>
> > 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.
Ahhh, walkman are not that inexpensive. Half of the arguments for BEAM
being so inexpensive are based on using salvaged parts. Well friends, I
build CPU based robots out of 100% salvaged parts, at a cost of $0.
> 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.
Pure Hype, NASA was able to download new programming code to pathfinder
to work
around problems that might have shown up once the robot was on site.
BEAM cannot
do this.
But you can build a Symet out of a walkman without buying anything.
Lets all be
honest about this.
> > 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.
Ahhh, lets keep this civil if we can. Personally, I'm developing
comercial
devices. How on EArth can you place a value on work you have not seen?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home