Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #00461
To: Steven Bolt sbolt@xs4all.nl
From: Bob Shannon bshannon@tiac.net
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 18:57:25 -0800
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: BEAM `claims' and misdemeanors, WAS: question
Steven Bolt wrote:
> I don't know of a Solar Engine being published before Mark T. did.
> And Living Machines contains quite a few other original ideas.
> Btw, Mark T. calls BEAM a philosopy rather than a technology. More
> important than any particular circuit are the Robot Olympics.
>
> > and that its better at some tasks that CPU's (its not).
>
> Adding a uC to a Solar Engine won't usually make sense, as it
> consumes significant power - good SEs charge on a current
> well below 100uA at 2 or 3 volt - and may forget what it was doing
> during a charge cycle or when it stays dark for a while. uCs are
> fine, but not generally in tiny solar powered devices.
I can run processors at this power level. The solar cells your using
for the SunEater's, isn't that a 'Calculator' cell?
Hmmm, thats a tiny, fixed program CMOS CPU, right?
> And more to the point: Simple uC-less gadgets serve better at the
> entry level of electronics as a hobby. BEAM shows the newbie how to
> have fun and learn something with just a few basic parts.
Agreed, for the most part.
Please do not think that I'm anti-BEAM in some way. I love BEAM robots,
and
have worked to improve their behavioral capabilities and skills.
My only cavet with BEAM being a good way for beginners to learn
electronics is the apparent facination with violating the design
specifications of common parts.
This is not a good thing for beginners to learn.
> > The popularization of BEAM has done a disservice to the true pioneers of
> > robotics.
>
> Oh really. Pray tell what disservice was done, exactly?
The current popularization of BEAM is fostering several misconceptions
about robotics, and the history of its evolution. Its practicing
revisionist history
when it perpetuates the many falsehoods commonly found here.
Its also neglecting to give due credit 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.
>
> The Tilden patents are not about phototropism, so your dare is
> irrelevant. If you are so troubled by BEAM and the BEAMers, then
> why are you on this list?
Your getting rather defensive Steven. My resons for being here are
quite clear.
But why do you ask?
I understand something about patents. I also understand that my
response was directed to the idea that the many ways of implementing
phototropisim might all be called 'BEAM'.
> > The Cybug reflects a method of building phototropic robots that predates
> > CPU's and BEAM by decades. BEAM is thought to be new and different, but
> > a brielf study of the history of robotics will quickly show that this is
> > pure hype and showmanship.
> In concentrating on (solar) micropower, BEAM is new and different.
> Other and older `bots are/were rather careless with energy, often
> requiring a tether connecting to mains power.
I disagree with this opinion. Micropower robots are not new and
different.
> > I find it dishonset to try to emcompass the prior art as being BEAM.
>
> And it would also be dishonest to use the trademark for any
> commercial `bot which doesn't pay for the pleasure.
>
> > Over the years, BEAM has become so vauge that even the use of a CPU does
> > not preclude the design being called a BEAM robot.
>
> It's a trademark. There are no BEAM 'bots containing a uC, period.
Really? I beleive that Mr. Tilden has specifically discussed CPU's
being
added to BEAM robots.
> Is it possible to use a uC in the BEAM spirit? Of course; just read
> the BEAM Robot Games Rules and Guidelines.
> BEAM is vague only in the sense that almost any small `bot can have
> a go at the Games.
So here we have a cut and dry definition in one hand, no BEAM bots with
a CPU, period, and in the other hand, you can use one in the BEAM
spirit?
Now I've read that BEAM is new and different because of an emphisis on
solar driven micropower design.
So are satellites using the BEAM philosophy, even though they predate
its formal definition? See my point?
> > Ground up robotics controllers existed long before BEAM. In junior
> > highschool I read a book that started off with some simple TTL circuits
> > and made a robot that avoided obstacles or followed lines. As you added
> > more logic and sensors, its behaviors became much more complex and
> > robust.
>
> I actually built and sold a `bot like that in the '80s: Willie
> (http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbolt/e-andere_robots.html#willie)
> He put my hobby in the financial blue for quite a few years :)
>
> > Are we going to retroactivly claim that this was 'Tilden's' technology?
>
> No, I don't feel threatened by Mark T. It has never occurred to me
> that he was trying to steal my ideas - or those of Grey Walter,
> who's Turtles inspired Willie. You seem to be overreacting to
> something, but I have no idea what...
Its not anything to do with the theft of intellectual property per se,
but
its something quite similar. I often read statements on this list that
show
that the populaization of BEAM is also perpetuating some major
misconceptions
about robotics in general, and their evolution specifically.
If we want BEAM to advance robotics as a whole, we need to embrace the
true history of mobile robotics, not some misconceptions about what is,
or is not new.
As it is today, there is no clear consensus on what BEAM actually is!
> > Hunger reactions, subsumption behaviors, it was all there.
>
> Subsumption is a `trademark' of Rodney Brooks :)
I'm glad your kidding Steven!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home