Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #04010
To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
From: Terry Newton wtnewton@nc5.infi.net
Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 23:25:01
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: BEAM and machine evolution
At 04:45 PM 5/30/99 -0400, Bob Shannon wrote:
>
>"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 .
Whatever works for the builder is a good solution.
Unless you need a cpu, you do not need a cpu.
You'd know it if you needed one...
>> 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!
Indeed, exactly why I used one. Less parts in trade for a little knowledge,
some software and a pc-compatible computer. Works for me anyway.
>> 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
>> !
Many old-timers on this list experiment with processors, we just don't
speak of it that often (just every month or two, with predictible response).
I can speak only for myself, but I know that much of the philosophy that
is "beam" makes it into my processor bots (except for my first one that
I made before discovering this fine list). Good ideas are still good even
if implemented differently (!!). This list should be fine for the occasional
beamy cpu discussion so long as we don't get carried away. There shouldn't
even be much need for discussion beyond pointing the interested in the
right direction. And perhaps to (briefly) defend undeserved attacks.
>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.
I have to agree, just when other folks were trying to dispel the
bias myth, there it is. At least it has decreased somewhat.
> [...]
>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.
I recently declared my picbot non-beam and off-topic, but I think it was
mainly to avoid a subject which seemed to cause argument among the natives.
In fact there is so much beam in picbot I could not legally (or at least
morally) sell it like it is without arrangements. Let's see, solar cell,
cap, simulated solar engine in software, two pager motors angled to drive
with heatshrinked shafts, front skid, balanced to "pop" when the motors
fired... sounds like a photopopper to me. Everything but the software
and parts of that are debatable. I classify it as a cpu version of a
classic beam design, and non-beam if speaking only about the electronics.
But I don't care how others classify it, I do my own thing. Why? I bought
a photopopper and thought it was really neat, but would be even neater if
I could make one that backs up and learns. And there was a PIC chip so I
used it. It worked, I'm happy, end of story. (I hope! :)
Terry Newton
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/alt-beam
http://www.egroups.com
- Simplifying group communications
Home