Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #02466
To: Steven Bolt sbolt@xs4all.nl
From: Bob Shannon bshannon@tiac.net
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 14:36:51 -0700
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: Structured approach / genome, was: Clarification
Steven Bolt wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Bob Shannon wrote:
>
> > > While that would be nice, it also tends to make BEAM more heavily
> > > depend on Mark's library of circuits and mechanical concepts. I'm
> > > strongly in favour of the "no programmable devices" rule for the
> > > mailing list and the accent on solar power in general.
> >
> > First we see a problem in becomming too dependant on Mark's liberary
> > of concepts, but then endorse a "rule" against technology originally
> > shunned by the 'big god'?
>
> There are many other newsgroups and mailing lists which cater for
> the uC/computer crowd. the BEAM list is intended for those who've just
> discovered the mechatronical world, and needs to maintain that
> focus. Enough said, I hope.
I hope not!
I would like to respectufully ask a few questions on this it I may:
From what Steven has just said, this list is specifically intended
for "those who've just discovered..." BEAM.
Should this preclude those who discovered it long ago?
This is not a 'newbie' only list I beleive.
Should this preclude the adoptation of new and possible superior
technologies, and their discussion on this forum, given that they
close to the spirit of BEAM design?
> > BEAM itself does not limit itself to solar power, why should the list?
>
> There is an *accent* on solar power. Is my English that bad?
No sir, I stand corrected. Thanks Steven.
> > Is there any valid reason why this list could not coexist with a common
> > development platform for small (even solar powered) robots using the
> > minimalist approach this is common to BEAM philosophy?
>
> If it's to be uC controlled, coexistence is fine, but imho it doesn't
> belong on the list.
>
> > Is BEAM really becomming this much of a clique?
>
> Oh, come on. What have I done to deserve this flame bait?
My statement was honestly not intended as flame bait, but in retrospect
I do with I had phrased this a bit differently.
But what I've been reading here is every bit as imflamatory. BEAM is
clearly in danger of becomming a clique. There are many rumblings along
these lines floating around this list.
> > > They are required to maintain focus. But putting all weight on
> > > Nervous Nets, Bicores and so on has imho the same disadvantage
> > > as the recently proposed structure of standard brains and body
> > > parts. What you get is a structure without purpose, which will
> > > be perceived as a hollow facade.
> >
> > Can you justifiy this opinion? Is there some reason that being able to
> > exchange and test sets of behaviors on a common chassis, or being able
> > to compare different mechanical innovations objectivly must yeid
> > structure without purpose?
>
> I said "perceived as," as opposed to "intended as." Please, do go
> ahead with your standardized modular robot. I'll be interested, but
> not a participant, and I predict that if a contest is limited to
> these devices, it will fade into almost immediate oblivion as far
> as this list is concerned. (That's the best I can do for you; my
> predictions aren't usually correct ;)
Once again the arena contests I've proposed would not limited in this
way at all. The whole point is to provide an objective way to test
which
technologies, designs and behaviors work best.
Unlike BEAM, this would not be biased against any specific technology.
> > Now we are talking about rules against CPUs? What the heck is this?
>
> Quoting the words of the list owner (mailed to you when you joined):
>
> 3.If someone e-mail a non-related topic, please move
> the discussion off-line.
> Reason: There are a ton of places to talk about CPU
> based machine s, R/C machines and CPU based robots.
> But this is the only BEAM discussion
> list, of which I am aware.
>
> How you want to interpret that is up to you.
Tilden himself has spoken of useing CPU's in BEAM deisgns. Time for a
rule change
I think.
This rule appears to be outdated and needing some clarification.
ACtually I think that the concept of BEAM has evolved beyond the wording
of that rule. Going back to the recent discussions of what is and is
not BEAM appears to support this view.
>
> ---8<---
> > > In these arena's, excluding programmables would be considered weak,
> > > and I don't think it's necessary. The arena should merely restrict the
> > > size of the `bots and provide them with an environment where cheap and
> > > simple sensors are sufficient.
> >
> > Ahh, I was under the impression that Steven thought that sensors
> > were a major area needed innovation? Please forgive my saying
> > so, but this sounds like doublespeak.
>
> Much innovation is possible without raising the investment in
> dollars and time to the TVcamera level.
Yes, I agree, but no one is saying otherwise are they?
If you recall, I suggested that the common development platform be based
on something very close to PICBOT II, which has no TV camera at all.
In fact, its about as complex as a Cybug.
> > I think that pure BEAM fans can only gain from seeing the results
> > of such a common platform approach, and working to implement the
> > more interesting behavior sets in hardwired controllers. I would
> > have thought that the cross pollenization would benifit both
> > design philosophies.
>
> I would like to define just the arenas and tasks, and not exclude
> any `bot that fits. So your common platform could have a go and
> prove itself superior - or not, as the case may be. What are you
> harping about?
I am harping about a faster, cheaper way to evolve robotic behavior and
design, very much in line with the BEAM philosophy of minimalisim.
This is quite clearly a different thing that a CPU driven robot running
Linux of something like that.
Sometimes using a CPU is much more minimal than a hard-wired approach.
(Unless someone things that can match the functionality of Terry's
design
with fewer components!)
But you (Steven) seem to be saying that if its got a CPU, it should be
booted off of this list, based on your reading of the rules. This line
of reasoning closes off a huge area of possible evolution, and for what
good reason?
If this is an issue of the list rules (and it now appears to be just
that)
then I suggest we put it to a vote.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home