Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #03999
To: sargon@gte.net
From: Bob Shannon bshannon@tiac.net
Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 16:45:16 -0400
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: BEAM and machine evolution
"Ed Jones Jr." wrote:
> Hey Bob ,
>
> I don't know about the rest of the Beamers , but I for one will stick with
> solar powered beam bots WITHOUT CPUs . Thats why I like the concept of Beam
> , simple , low cost , with plenty of room left for expermentation . Are you
> saying we have learned all we can about Beam and now we should move on to
> CPU bots ?
No, not at all. I'm only saying that BEAM should not have an anti-CPU bias.
Often using a PIC is simpler and cheaper than the alternatives, and are easily
solarizable. Often the CPU is the most minimal soultion!
> I said this a year and a half ago and I'll repeat myself : Those
> of you that want to build stamps or cpu bots , mega-expensive walkers and
> who knows what else , maybe you should go somewhere and start your own list
> !
First, what does this have to do with what we were discussing earlier?
SEcondly, check with the list owner on what is, and is not on topic.
This is such a clear bias its disgusting.
> ! Look at the last few weeks e-mails and really look at the volume of
> questions relating to just plain beam bots , circuits , solar cells , caps
> , etc . My three cents-inflation you know .
>
> Ed Jones
> sargon@gte.net
You happened to fail to notice that the thread had been dropped long ago Ed.
As I have posted before, the anti-CPU bias crowd clearly out numbers those who
agree with the list owners rules, so the subject was dropped.
But don't anyone dare suggest that any solar and cap powred CPU based robot
like Terry Newton's PICBOT II is in any way BEAM technology! Its quite clear
that new designs
along those lines are unwelcome here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/alt-beam
http://www.egroups.com
- Simplifying group communications
Home