Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #00476
To: beam@corp.sgi.com
From: Steven Bolt sbolt@xs4all.nl
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 10:21:03 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: BEAM `claims' and misdemeanors, WAS: question
On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, Bob Shannon wrote:
> > 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.
And they would `eat' it all. The idea of a Solar Engine is to run a
motor.
> The solar cells your using for the SunEater's, isn't that a
> 'Calculator' cell?
Calculator cells tend to be optimized for artificial light. This
one likes sunlight. I haven't seen it used on a calculator.
> Hmmm, thats a tiny, fixed program CMOS CPU, right?
There are various examples of using solar power on a small scale
(with backup caps instead of batteries) to do remote data
acquisition, and uCs are quite useful there. But I think you'll
find it difficult to improve a photovore-type `bot by adding a uC.
> 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.
I've ranted against out of spec `use' of components a long time
ago, so here we see eye to eye. It's indeed a bad way to start.
Using a proper little driver to pull current through the motor does
improve a Solar Engine, for instance. So why pretend that any small
signals transistor is fine?
> > > 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.
Without a concrete example, I find that hard to answer or believe.
> Its also neglecting to give due credit to the true pioneers of robotics.
Grey Walter has gotten plenty of credit on this list, and is the
most obvious BEAM precursor.
> Your getting rather defensive Steven.
And you were getting rather offensive.
> 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'.
Anything can be called (though not labeled for trade as) `BEAM'.
The Small Gods are rather careful with the word. And note that Grey
Walter's phototropic Turtles are well known here.
Linkname: Grey Walter Background information
URL: http://idle.uwe.ac.uk/IAS/gwonline.html
Linkname: Grey Walter Picture Archive
URL: http://idle.uwe.ac.uk/IAS/gwarkive.html
> > 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'm not aware of any strictly solar powered `bots (without
batteries for storage) prior to BEAM, and I'd like to know about
them. Please provide an example.
> > > 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.
Small God Andrew Miller called it the `horse and jockey' principle,
I think. A device which knows how to walk in difficult terrain,
with a uC on top to have a memory of where it's going to. There was
talk of GPS for the UXO-hunting `bots. But none of those projects
were labeled `BEAM', afaik.
Your point is probably that the label could be applied to almost
anything - computer controlled `bots included. I recall a "Robot
art/best modified appliance competition: BEAM Games competition#10"
About the only demand made whas that it had to "move deliberately
by itself. Purposefulness not essential."
That could be called `vague', but it was a Good Thing, imho.
> > 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,
...To which the commercial label was applied, afaik...
> and in the other hand, you can use one in the BEAM spirit?
...In the spirit of the BEAM Robot Games, yes.
> 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?
Satellites don't typically crawl about on my desktop. And often run
at kilowatt power levels, btw.
[ Ground up robotics controllers existed long before BEAM. ]
> 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.
Fine. Publish a timeline.
> As it is today, there is no clear consensus on what BEAM actually is!
What is gained by sharp definition here? It's basically 1) a trademark
for educational toys, typically solar powered, and 2) a vehicle to
promote entry-level electronics of the robotic kind, while having
some fun.
[ real world `BEAM' jobs ]
> > With a little luck, they teach their builders something of value.
> > Discounting that, nothing at all, so far. Note that the same can be
> > said about almost every small mobile robot.
>
> This may be true, but only on a per-design level.
>
> There are some small robot designs that have been (are being) produced
> in large numbers for real world applications ranging from Education to
> military applications.
Education, yes, military - still research, afaik. If we're talking
about the wheeled or legged kind. Of course there are mines and other
munitions which one might call robots.
> I think that research related small robots still outnumber hobby robots,
> but its clearly time for the first robot census!
I'd like to see that sensus happen - ought to be good for an
article in the mag.
> > > Yeah we can say mine disposal
> >
> > Hardly a proven application and afaik not being funded anymore.
>
> Tell that to IS Robotics.
Afaik Mark T's UXO-hunter isn't being funded anymore. There are of
course other projects, like Ariel and family, amd also this one:
Linkname: Pemex-PE Portrait Gallery
URL: http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/minerats/figures/pemex.html
None of these are proven applications. There is a pretty good case
against robotic mine disposal:
Linkname: Robots and Landmines? - No solutions yet
URL: http://www.mech.uwa.edu.au/jpt/demining/why-not.html
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