Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #02469
To: beam beam@corp.sgi.com
From: Richard Piotter richfile@rconnect.com
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 14:20:17 -0500
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: Structured approach / genome, was: Clarification
It's good to hear someone who isn't caught up in the "hype"!
All this makes me wonder what a "ruccas" would be raised if I were to
anounce all details of Quadrapod! I have not worked on it for months,
cause I want to save my money for other things (like paying bills,
tuition, etc! hehe! ;) but I have worked on the design on paper, and I
was planing on using a CPU with it. I figured I'd actualy have some
skills with it by the time I had the money to back up development. The
BEAM controller is actualy pretty pathetic, and there is so much logic
between the BEAM circuits and the servos that there is absolutely no
feedback. I'm very tempted to start from scratch, but the design is
already built. I just need a dozen 7408s to plug into the sockets! Hehe!
I'll probably try to get them from school, so if I decide to ditch all
that work, I'll have spent nearly nothing on it! (:
I've recently become MUCH better with working on branched walking
circuits, and I'm tempted to redo the whole routing board with Nv
technology, but I'm still interested in adding a CPU. Don't get me
wrong, BEAM is great, and without it, I'd have NO robots, but it also
has it's technological limitations. B_E_AM. I see that E standing for
Electronics, not Solar power, not Non CPU. As long as it uses part of
the TRUE BEAM technology, it's BEAM, nomater what crazy stuff you add to
the BEAM technology. That's my opinion anyway, and it ain't changing
anytime soon.
We need more building and less hype! the time it took to do my e-mail
has been enough to update 2 of my pages. I'm outa here (I'll be at the
BEAM Chat tonight if it's going on though. Considering recent topics, it
could be a very active chat! Hehe! ;)
Bob Shannon wrote:
>
> Richard Piotter wrote:
> >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Ah, but did you read NUMBER 2!!!!
> >
> > 2.Try to keep on the Topic of BEAM robotics.
> > It is a really wide topic. It includes, but is not limited
> > to,
> > BEAM Solar Engines - one 'neuron'
> > Nervous Networks - microcore, bicore, etc.
> > NOTE: ---> CPU Interfaces to Nervous Networks <---
> > Robotics Event announcements
> >
> > RIGHT THERE, in the list guidlines, CPUs interfaced to Nervous networks
> > DOES fall under the BEAM list guidelines, If you disagree, you're wrong.
> > READ the ENTIRE BEAM list guidelines. CPU only bots may be shunned, but
> > I think that there is one point we are missing: If someone Emulates a
> > Nervous network, I think we deserve to hear it, and know how well (or
> > not) it runs. I count that as the ultimate interfacing of a CPU and a
> > nrrvous network. There you do have your right to an opinion, but I think
> > it'd be suplimental to BEAM to try emulating Nv nets and compare them to
> > real ones. That's just my own personal opinion. You have the right to
> > your own there, but DON'T say ANY CPU has no place on the list, cause
> > according to rule 2, that's simply not true.
>
> Excellent point Rich!
>
> Also Tilden's patent (clearly on topic) makes claims that cover a pure
> CPU based implementation of what the 'pure BEAM' design does!
>
> This is doublespeak. BEAM is full of this.
>
> We hear that BEAM is a philosophy, but then we hear that some forms of
> technology are out of bounds, even though they are specifically
> mentioned
> in the patents!
>
> But if I apply banned technology while keeping to the philosophy, it
> does
> not belong on this list? Thats a hell of a philosophy we have here.
>
> It reminds me of a cult, and I'm not trying to bait any flames here,
> honestly.
>
> Lets put the emotional hype aside and focus on the science first, then
> we
> can all go back to having fun while making progress in the field of
> robot evolution.
>
> Who maintains the list rules? When was the last time they were updated?
--
Richard Piotter
richfile@rconnect.com
The Richfiles Robotics & TI web page:
http://richfiles.calc.org
For the BEAM Robotics list:
BEAM Robotics Tek FAQ
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/bushbo/beam/FAQ.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home