Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #00435
To: beam@corp.sgi.com
From: Steven Bolt sbolt@xs4all.nl
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 18:46:15 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: BEAM `claims' and misdemeanors, WAS: question
On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 JVernonM@aol.com wrote:
> 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.
Knocking Dave Hrynkiw like this is unjustified. Making good quality
kits for a small market isn't going to make him rich - I know,
because I've been making (much simpler) kits since 1984. It's too
much work and you inevitably end up with prices much higher than
you'd like to ask. But it's also fun :)
> 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.
Dennison> 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.
These `real bots' are coming, you think? Not any time soon, I hope.
Anyway, anything like that obviously won't be a programmed automaton.
It would be an entity way beyond our present hardware/software
concepts.
TurtleTek> That's why many of us got into BEAM, the idea of artifical life.
`Artificial life' is a nice buzzword, or plain hubris. BEAM-type
`bots are educational toys and sometimes works of art which can teach
you a lot about electronics. They're fun and you learn - isn't that
enough?
TurtleTek> Well, as I see it, isn't the cybug BEAM? The meaning of BEAM is
TurtleTek> so very vague and I don't think it's much of a stretch to include
TurtleTek> the cybug under BEAM. Why not?
Simply because the Cybug is a commercial product, and BEAM is a
trademark. To quote the BEAM Robot Games Rules and Guidelines version
4.0:
"BEAM Robotics, BEAM Robot Olympics, and Robot Olympics are
trademarks of BEAM Robotics Inc., a Division of Square Deal
Productions Inc."
Imho the Cybug - which I like, btw - is not quite in the spirit of
BEAM either, because it could be a micropower device and isn't.
> 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.
Offensive nonsense. I haven't caught any of the Small Gods trying to
turn BEAM into a serious money machine. The concept just isn't
suitable for high finance, and has *much* appeal for beginning
as well as advanced hobbyists. I find the micropower side of BEAM
quite inspiring.
> 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.
That's comparing apples and pears, because Dave's Photopopper *is* a
micropower device.
[ CPUs, programmers, cost of ]
> 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.
Sharon> If I were to buy all the equiptment needed for programing even a
Sharon> basic stamp it would cost from $400 to $700, and it would be VERY
Sharon> expensive if I didn't already have a PC.
The Atmel AVR series uCs can be programmed while in the target
circuit, using just a cable between a PC parallel port and your `bot.
Several assemblers programmer software packages are available as
freeware, limiting the total cost of working with these chips to
almost nothing. The AT90S1200 was the first AVR to appear and can
be found for $5 or less. It's very suitable for doing interesting
robotic stuff. So the cost of even the smallest and cheapest robot
is likely to be determined by its motors, power source and sensor
hardware. There is no cost advantage to not using a 1200.
And according to the master himself it's quite alright to use uCs,
as long as you don't port Unix to them :)
> I've been told that's because BEAM uses only the Cadillac of parts.
Not necessarily expensive parts, though. Broken Walkmans contain very
high quality motors, quite suitable for micropower devices - as my
SunEater_III demonstrates. The solar panel used for the SunEater
series is high quality, yet costs less than $3. All other parts of
most Solar Engine designs are run of the mill.
Best,
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------------
# sbolt@xs4all.nl # Steven Bolt # popular science monthly KIJK #
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home