Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #06707
To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
From: JVernonM@aol.com
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:15:28 EDT
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: Was: What do I Need?
In a message dated 10/13/99 10:48:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
richfile@rconnect.com writes:
> If you can find them at a dump or ask the utility
> company what is done with damaged ones... Might be worth while. I've
> never asked, and I don't know if they'd be cooperative.
I'm not sure they would. It seems to me I remember someone saying that the
power companies considered those meters extremely proprietary. They guard the
technology like a soft drink formula. They are paranoid of someone figuring
out the mechanism and letting the word out on how to cheat the power
companies. That's probably why everything BUT the meter can be installed by a
sub contractor. Your local power company may be different, which is why your
school has so many meters. It would be interesting to see what they say when
you ask for surpluses.
See ya,
Jim
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Exhibit/8281/beamart.html
6708 Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:30:02 -0400 [alt-beam] Re: Was: What do I Need? beam@sgiblab.sgi.com "Sathe Dilip"
JVernonM@aol.com wrote:
>
> sub contractor. Your local power company may be different, which is why your
> school has so many meters. It would be interesting to see what they say when
> you ask for surpluses.
I think it should be possible to buy new meters from the manufacturers.
Particularly in a school situation, you sometimes have to wire these up
to measure power consumption of your own set ups. They need not come
necessarily from the utility.
I know as BEAMers we are not interested in new meters but am just
explaining why the school can has so many.
Dilip
--
Pl. remove *s from the e-mail address to reply
6709 Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:10:10 PDT [alt-beam] another new (?) drive concept alt-beam@egroups.com "Patrick Yeon" I did some serious thinking in the tub yesterday and wound up with this:
I believe that most walkers I've seen use a VERY un-legish kind of leg. They
just have a bent wire which turns around so that the "foot" starts out in
front, pulls the bot forwards, then just flips over to the front again.
Yuck! I came up with a better-looking leg that also does not have to flip
over so the bot can fit in tighter spaces then most. This is untested so
dont get mad at me if it doesn't work.
In the picture attached;
1 is the bot's body or frame
2 is a flat piece of immobile metal attached to the frame
3 is a slot in the flat bar
4 is an pin that goes through the slot into the frame
5 is a hole to solder your leg into
6 is a circle attached to the motor's shaft
7 is a pin that goes through a hole in the bar and one in the circle with
heads on both ends
8 is your motor
9 is the motor shaft
10 is your leg soldered in the apropriate hole
basically, the motor makes a "piston" go up & down which is attached to the
leg that has a gait determined by the heigt of the leg placed on the bar
(the lower the leg, the bigger the gait).
If anything isn't understandable, just ask.
Pat
______________________________________________________
6710 Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:19:59 -0300 [alt-beam] Re: robotic laws alt-beam@egroups.com michael.hirtle@ns.sympatico.ca (Michael Hirtle) Did u see on "robots riseing" where they were interviewing rodney and cog
sortof got pissed and it looked like it tryed to do an upper cut on him?
Hyndman wrote:
> During the time when the three "laws" of robotics were concived, it was
> basically a thing for the public. No one is going to fund robotics research
> when they think that the researchers might built a robot that goes bezerk
> and starts terrorizing people. Most people have dropped these "laws". The
> only thing they are good for right now is in science fiction publications.
> I bet Cog has smashed in a few noses. Rodney Brooks I'm sure wouldn't admit
> to the media about the minor(I hope) injuries Cog as caused to him over the
> years.
> Devin
>
> >THE THREE LAWS OF ROBOTICS
> >1 - A robot may not injure a human being, or, through >inaction, allow
> a
> >human being to come to harm.
> >2 - A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings >except
> where
> >such orders would conflict with the First Law.
> >3 - A robot must protect its own existence as long as such
> >protection
> >does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/alt-beam
> http://www.egroups.com
- Simplifying group communications
Home