Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #02754
To: Bob Shannon bshannon@tiac.net
From: Steven Bolt sbolt@xs4all.nl
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 09:36:55 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: Contest!!!!
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Bob Shannon wrote:
[ `arena' ]
> Several people have already begun working on an Arena based robot
> evolution program, and it seems rather unfair for the BEAM list to first
> reject the discussion of this 'new approach' but then adopt the
> terminology.
>
> As a matter of mutual respect, please find another name.
So you own the word `arena'? I guess I shouldn't be surprised,
since my publisher managed to trademark `Yes'.
`Arena' sounds a little too Roman anyway, so I'll be using
`Playground' from now on. And since I intend to actually build a
Playground and ball-gathering `bot - don't anyone *dare* use
"Playground" for anything else ;)
> This sounds a lot like the MIT ants project.
There are differences. I hope they didn't trademark alu foil balls.
> Is 'simpler' easy to define here? Simply using the component count
> would be unfair I think. Given the same parts count, would a
> BEAM design be judged as being simpler, or more complex than a
> CPU based design?
Some decisions can and should be simply left to the judges.
> It would seem that this would place a heavy penalty on solar robots.
It seems to me that a task oriented contest should be all solar or
free - barring in/external combustion - and `free' will turn out to
mean rechargeable. The disadvantage of solar is that the Playground
definition would have to include the light source.
> Rather than being efficient, you could simply buy an unfair advantage in
> the form of a Lithium Ion battery cell, and burn the milliampers up like
> they were free. A more powerful, lighter, but highly inefficient design
> can easily beat a highly efficient, less powerful design.
I rather doubt that, actually. A case to prove on the Playground.
> You just made this a contest of battery technology. Let me enter one of
> the lithium sulfer based experimental cells, and you'll see what I mean.
You'd be quite welcome to demonstrate the advantages of new
batteries this way, as far as I'm concerned. But merely driving
fast won't win you the contest, which is about finding and
gathering all the balls.
> But if more exotic batteries are used, sending them off for charging
> becomes risky.
A rechargeable `bot would obviously have to bring its `food' along.
Proxies can't be expected to have the right charger for any robot.
> Dammaged prototype's might not be recognised until after the events, and
> what protocol would permit a very expensive return, repair and re-trial
> in time for the final determination to be made?
After arrival of a `bot - at least a week before the contest - the
proxy confers with the owner and runs appropriate tests, including
a ball-gathering run on a standard Playground. Indoor model
aircraft are *very* fragile, yet they do survive the mail.
> Shipping alone could easily cost more than the prizes!
I've shipped quite a few electronic devices over the Pond, and so
far all have arrived in good condition. The cost is now about $12.
Participants should also pay the cost of having the `bots returned,
so the minimum entrance fee would perhaps be $30.
Best,
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------------
# sbolt@xs4all.nl # Steven Bolt # popular science monthly KIJK #
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/alt-beam
http://www.eGroups.com
- Simplifying group communications
Home