Alt-BEAM Archive

Message #08288



To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
From: Thomas Pilgaard Nielsen ascii@hum.auc.dk
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 23:55:55 +0100
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: Regarding Solar heads, such as Solarbotics model, and The tildens


Dennison Bertram wrote:

And a good point I might add. I've never thought of it that way
(inexperienced as I am). Until now I've regarded the solar-bots which
purpose is to seek the best conditions for what they're ment to do: to
seek out the best conditions for what they do. Probably as a sort of
infinite regression. I never thought of it as their purpose to just sit
and suck up the light and feel good, but I see your point. Compared to
bugs it sounds pretty natural too.

I feel enlightened. Thankyou.

P.S. Just for the fun of it I see it as my purpose in life to build the
worlds largest photopopper. All i need is a Caterpillar, a big*ss
sunceram and an H-bridge. That oughta be interesting :)

Cheers,

Thomas



>=20
> Good question, however the nature of a photopopper is such that the bot=
will
> continue to move regardless of the quality of it's lightpool. While it =
will
> be attracted to the brightest light source, even when it is in the brig=
htest
> light source, that only means that the bot is most capable for leaving =
that
> light source. Think of it, the brighter the light, the faster the bot w=
ill
> leave the light pool, even if it eventually returns.
>=20
> dnenison
>=20
> I am by no means an expert in electronics or BEAM robotics for that
> matter. However, your mail had me wondering.
>=20
> Wouldn't it be the case that for - say a photopopper - it would
> constantly evaluate the current situation regarding where to find the
> brightest source of light? So I'm having trouble seeing when a situatio=
n
> would occur where a bot - a popper or a head for that matter - would
> lock on to a source of light that was not the brightest available?
>=20
> Cheers,
>=20
> Thomas
>=20
> --
> ---
> "Stj=E5lne tusser skriver bedst."
> Yvonne Miller

--=20
---
"Stj=E5lne tusser skriver bedst."
Yvonne Miller



8289 Wed, 15 Dec 1999 23:16:45 GMT [alt-beam] Re: Active Surplus beam@sgiblab.sgi.com "Mike Kulesza"
YAAAHH!!! Suncerams for $2 CAN, doesnt get any better...

>From: Ian Tinker
>Reply-To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
>To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
>Subject: Active Surplus
>Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 11:52:10 -0500
>
>the website for active surplus is http://www.activesurplus.com/
>
>they are on 347 Queen st W. Toronto, Ont. Canada
>
>they are a BEAMers delight - lots of old Walkman guts, most common
>electronic components, and other cool electronics.
>
>See ya
>
>Tink
>

______________________________________________________



8290 Wed, 15 Dec 1999 23:18:56 GMT [alt-beam] TorontoBEAM beam@sgiblab.sgi.com "Mike Kulesza"
I live in Mississauga, next to Toronto, and I am very well aware of Active
Surplus....

>From: Ian Tinker
>Reply-To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
>To: beam@corp.sgi.com
>Subject: Motorola MC34164-3 in Toronto
>Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 08:45:15 -0500
>
>Any Toronto, Ontario BEAMer's out there ???
>
>I'm looking for a local source for Motorola MC34164-3 Micro power
>Undervoltage Sensing Circuit for the Chloroplast SE other than Digikey
>(although a great supplier).
>
>Any help would be appreciated
>
>Thanx
>
>Tink
>

______________________________________________________



8291 Wed, 15 Dec 1999 15:36:58 -0800 [alt-beam] Re: Regarding Solar heads, such as Solarbotics model, and The tildens beam@sgiblab.sgi.com Bruce Robinson Thomas Pilgaard Nielsen wrote:
>
> P.S. Just for the fun of it I see it as my purpose in life to build the
> worlds largest photopopper. All i need is a Caterpillar, a big*ss
> sunceram and an H-bridge. That oughta be interesting :)

I happen to have a defunct caterpillar out back. Fifteen tons of it.
Very reasonable price, too -- less than some robotics kits. You have to
collect it.

Bruce



8292 Wed, 15 Dec 1999 18:48:35 -0500 [alt-beam] Photovores [was: long] beam@sgiblab.sgi.com Richard Weait At 09:54 AM 12/16/99 +1100, you wrote:
>Remember that light (measured in Lux) will drop about a factor of four,
>for every foot(?? or metre....i cant quite remember) you move away from
>the source. So whilst one photopopper might "think" it is in the
>brightest light pool in a given area, there may be another light pool in
>a near by area that is brighter at its source but just appears less
>intense due to its distance from this bot.
>
>
>Elmo

Elmo,

Right conclusion! Light on a given area is inversely proportional
to the square of the distance. So if you are one (any unit) away
and move to two (same unit) away the apparent illumination is one
fourth of the original value. (x=1/2**2=1/4) If you then move to
three (same unit) away from the source illumination drops to one
ninth of the original (x=1/3**2=1/9) So the change in light is not
tied to the units you measure, just the relative distances.

Cheers,

Richard.




Home