Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #02951
To: rdraycott@CPL.co.uk
From: Bob Shannon bshannon@tiac.net
Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 20:37:28 -0700
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: common body
rdraycott@CPL.co.uk wrote:
>
> I feel that I perhaps did not express myself very well
> so I will try again after clarifying my position
>
> Beam tec :- anything to do with the development of and evolution of
> devices following the beam philosophy ! So yes it is
So if something follows the philosophy in your opinion, its BEAM, but
only in your opinion.
But BEAM is also a trademark, and as a matter of business it is not
BEAM.
The Cybug may be BEAM in your opinion, but its not in its inventors
opinion.
Who's to say what is right here?
> Now, the fundamenental aspect of a creatures evolution is only partially
> its behaviour. Real world animals developed their anatomical differences as
> a result of the environment they where in.
In terms of long term evolution this is true, but short term (faster)
evolution
seems to favor modifying behaviors. Some (of the most important?)
anatomical advances are dedicated to providing behavioral adaptability
(like brains).
Please also remember that the Arena-based evolutionary program also
gives us
a way to advance the brawn as well as the brain.
> You only have to look at nature
> individual and group behaviours are not the only issue, how far do you
> think evolution would have got if the amoeba had been the common body and
> the only aspect of change was behaviour , indeed as in nature the
> anatomical structure of the animal dictates its behaviour (e.g. peacock ,
> courting display compared with that of a scorpion).
Wow, now thats a sentance!
I know that behavior is not the only factor, but its the fastest
changing
factor in both biology and robotic technology.
> You also fail to interpret the test requirements , ( I develop software so
> do understand the issues of testing I do it daily!)
Really?
So do I. I test the integration of software (bios to OS) and prototype
hardware
for laptop computers.
But I never critique a test plan I have not read first.
> you suggest 2 sets of tests one for behaviour and one to apply to test the
> bot / environment but make no attempt to show any way of interpreting one
> set of results against the other!!
Where did you read that?
> wasteful...........
Or a misunderstanding perhaps?
> the real answer if you want a valid set of tests is to combine both and
> leave the body issue open.
Actually the plan is to have a series of tests, or trials. Several trial
runs may be used to evaluate two or more competitors. Their differences
may be behavioral or physical.
The plan also describes standard development chassis to serve two roles,
one
as standard for software development (so we can all evolve better code
by cross pollenization) and the second is to provide a standard
performance benchmark.
> And this all starts with a requirements specification with this as a
> grounding it is acting as the environmental conditions.
In progress.
> you have to specify your expectations AND the circumstances surrounding
> those expectations,
> as I said before the mars lander cr*ped out and needed re programming
> because the spec it was designed on didn't include that requirement.( they
> just got lucky that they could fix it !!!!!)
Agreed!
> the spec should read for example (Simple example )
> environment 4ft X 4 ft table 1 inch surrounding wall 500 watt light source
> (obstacles to be specified , you think of something , very shallow pyramid
> slope, 3 or for sided ? , you get the idea )
> 1) bot should keep moving ( not too long a delay between triggers)
> 2) bot should not lock into repeated behaviour (e.g. stand still or just
> spin in the strongest light source)
> 3) bot should not require intervention during a minimum time.
> 4) bot should avoid collision's that could be detrimental to survival or
> cause 2 or 3.
>
> etc etc
Thanks for your input. Would you have any objection to using metric
paramters
for the Arena?
My thinking here is that it should be easily and reliably reproducable
in any
country with common materials.
> with a standardised set of test requirements it ensures that full
> development is retained ( builders don't centre just on one aspect of the
> design) and that both issues, behaviour and environment handling are
> tested.
We are working on exactly this, and an open set of rules for developing
new trials, competition formats, actual design work....web domains, etc.
Its a huge undertaking. When the web site it ready, I'll sing out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/alt-beam
http://www.eGroups.com
- Simplifying group communications
Home