08480 [alt-beam] Re: Frist, let's keep it simple. Lets Hypothesise...

Alt-BEAM Archive

Message #08480

To: Timothy Flytcher flytch@hotmail.com
From: Dennison I Bertram dibst11+@pitt.edu
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 12:23:17 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: Frist, let's keep it simple. Lets Hypothesise...

In my opinion, things should be kept simple. I know there is the urge to
build really cool electronic circuits, but if you want robots to
communicate the location of a really bright source of light, you don't
need anything fancy. Think about it, were all talking about sound, using
chirps or IR transmitters. And then talking about triangulation and dead
reckoning and stuff. It's nice, but in my opinion, we don't need it for
waht we are trying to do. THink about it. Nature tends to keep things very
simple. Often many of the most complex mechanisms came about by accident,
and were more of 'adverse effects' of something else. I have a super easy
and effective solution for communication between our little photovores.

Paint them white.

See? And if you think about it, it would work marvelously. The brighter
the light pool the robot sit's in, the more reflected and disperesed light
will be reflected out in all directions. Any ordinary photovore would be
easilly attracted to something like a white colored bot. Flocking would
natural. Then think about the possible predator/prey results. The predator
bots would chase down the prey bot's because they would know what to look
for (a bright bot) but then takeing ita step further, if it were in nature
the prey bots would be colored BLACK so as not to attract predators, but
the predators would be colored WHITE so the prey is attracted to the
Predators. Interresting? I know it defeats the purpose of fancy
electronics. But It works, Mark T's Unicores could tell the difference
between white and black squares, so bot's would be no problem. Anyway,
that's enough of my theorizing self.

dennison

On Mon, 20 Dec 1999, Timothy Flytcher wrote:

> >I don't think having two ears helps me estimate distance to a noise
> >source. I estimate distance based on the volume of the noise and my
> >expectation of how loud that noise should be at a given distance. I can
> >do this fairly well even with one ear covered (or congested with an ear
> >infection).
> >
> >Having two ears does help, however, in figuring out the DIRECTION of a
> >noise source.
> >
>
> but yes it dose... if you know the db's (sound level) of the source... like
> finding your pager or phone... two ears gives you direction... the rest is
> reasoned... this can be duplicated in a bot... especially if they are
> talking/listening to one another(fixed sound level)...
>
> ______________________________________________________
>

8481 Monday, December 20, 1999 10:29 AM Re: Lets Hypothesise... beam@sgiblab.sgi.com Peter A. Low
>I think this is consistent with my comment.
>
>One ear gives you a scalar, two give you a vector.
>
>
>At 07:30 AM 12/20/99 -0800, you wrote:
>>>I don't think having two ears helps me estimate distance to a noise
>>>source. I estimate distance based on the volume of the noise and my
>>>expectation of how loud that noise should be at a given distance. I
can
>>>do this fairly well even with one ear covered (or congested with an ear
>>>infection).
>>>
>>>Having two ears does help, however, in figuring out the DIRECTION of a
>>>noise source.
>>
>>but yes it dose... if you know the db's (sound level) of the source...
>>like finding your pager or phone... two ears gives you direction... the
>>rest is reasoned... this can be duplicated in a bot... especially if they
>>are talking/listening to one another(fixed sound level)...
>>
>>______________________________________________________
>>

8482 Mon, 20 Dec 1999 12:19:33 -0500 Frist, let's keep it simple. Re: Lets Hypothesise... Timothy Flytcher Dennison I Bertram
>
> In my opinion, things should be kept simple. I know there is the urge to
> build really cool electronic circuits, but if you want robots to
> communicate the location of a really bright source of light, you don't
> need anything fancy. Think about it, were all talking about sound, using
> chirps or IR transmitters. And then talking about triangulation and dead
> reckoning and stuff. It's nice, but in my opinion, we don't need it for
> waht we are trying to do. THink about it. Nature tends to keep things very
> simple. Often many of the most complex mechanisms came about by accident,
> and were more of 'adverse effects' of something else. I have a super easy
> and effective solution for communication between our little photovores.
>
> Paint them white.
>
> See? And if you think about it, it would work marvelously. The brighter
> the light pool the robot sit's in, the more reflected and disperesed light
> will be reflected out in all directions. Any ordinary photovore would be
> easilly attracted to something like a white colored bot. Flocking would
> natural. Then think about the possible predator/prey results. The predator
> bots would chase down the prey bot's because they would know what to look
> for (a bright bot) but then takeing ita step further, if it were in nature
> the prey bots would be colored BLACK so as not to attract predators, but
> the predators would be colored WHITE so the prey is attracted to the
> Predators. Interresting? I know it defeats the purpose of fancy
> electronics. But It works, Mark T's Unicores could tell the difference
> between white and black squares, so bot's would be no problem. Anyway,
> that's enough of my theorizing self.
>
> dennison
>
>
> On Mon, 20 Dec 1999, Timothy Flytcher wrote:
>
> > >I don't think having two ears helps me estimate distance to a noise
> > >source. I estimate distance based on the volume of the noise and my
> > >expectation of how loud that noise should be at a given distance. I
can
> > >do this fairly well even with one ear covered (or congested with an ear
> > >infection).
> > >
> > >Having two ears does help, however, in figuring out the DIRECTION of a
> > >noise source.
> > >
> >
> > but yes it dose... if you know the db's (sound level) of the source...
like
> > finding your pager or phone... two ears gives you direction... the rest
is
> > reasoned... this can be duplicated in a bot... especially if they are
> > talking/listening to one another(fixed sound level)...
> >
> > ______________________________________________________
> >

8483 Monday, December 20, 1999 11:40 AM Frist, let's keep it simple. Re: Lets Hypothesise... Timothy Flytcher Dennison I Bertram
>
>In my opinion, things should be kept simple. I know there is the urge to
>build really cool electronic circuits, but if you want robots to
>communicate the location of a really bright source of light, you don't
>need anything fancy. Think about it, were all talking about sound, using
>chirps or IR transmitters. And then talking about triangulation and dead
>reckoning and stuff. It's nice, but in my opinion, we don't need it for
>waht we are trying to do. THink about it. Nature tends to keep things very
>simple. Often many of the most complex mechanisms came about by accident,
>and were more of 'adverse effects' of something else. I have a super easy
>and effective solution for communication between our little photovores.
>
>Paint them white.
>
>See? And if you think about it, it would work marvelously. The brighter
>the light pool the robot sit's in, the more reflected and disperesed light
>will be reflected out in all directions. Any ordinary photovore would be
>easilly attracted to something like a white colored bot. Flocking would
>natural. Then think about the possible predator/prey results. The predator
>bots would chase down the prey bot's because they would know what to look
>for (a bright bot) but then takeing ita step further, if it were in nature
>the prey bots would be colored BLACK so as not to attract predators, but
>the predators would be colored WHITE so the prey is attracted to the
>Predators. Interresting? I know it defeats the purpose of fancy
>electronics. But It works, Mark T's Unicores could tell the difference
>between white and black squares, so bot's would be no problem. Anyway,
>that's enough of my theorizing self.
>
>dennison
>
>
>On Mon, 20 Dec 1999, Timothy Flytcher wrote:
>
>> >I don't think having two ears helps me estimate distance to a noise
>> >source. I estimate distance based on the volume of the noise and my
>> >expectation of how loud that noise should be at a given distance. I
can
>> >do this fairly well even with one ear covered (or congested with an ear
>> >infection).
>> >
>> >Having two ears does help, however, in figuring out the DIRECTION of a
>> >noise source.
>> >
>>
>> but yes it dose... if you know the db's (sound level) of the source...
like
>> finding your pager or phone... two ears gives you direction... the rest
is
>> reasoned... this can be duplicated in a bot... especially if they are
>> talking/listening to one another(fixed sound level)...
>>
>> ______________________________________________________
>>

8484 Mon, 20 Dec 1999 10:27:23 -0800 [alt-beam] Re: Frist, let's keep it simple. Lets Hypothesise... beam@sgiblab.sgi.com Bruce Robinson Dennison I Bertram wrote:
>
> In my opinion, things should be kept simple ...
> ... I have a super easy and effective solution
> for communication between our little photovores.
>
> Paint them white.
>
> ... The brighter the light pool the robot sit's
> in, the more reflected and disperesed light will
> be reflected out in all directions.

Wonderful! Simple AND elegant, Dennison. Shade the "eyes" of all the
robots from overhead light, and the attraction will be greatly enhanced.

There is potentially a significant difference in behaviour between
Richard's sound attraction idea and your suggestion. By having robots
chirping in sequence and moving toward the latest sound heard, there
will be a discontinuous attraction. Rather chaotic at first, followed by
(I suspect) gradual convergence. Throw in some proximity sensors (e.g.
feelers) that turn off the sound emitters for a while, and things could
be very interesting indeed.

Your idea would provide a continuous attraction, and probably less
chaotic movement. If the robots were true photovores (i.e. light eaters)
using solar engines, then discontinuity would be there in the motion,
but not in the attraction. Battery powered photophiles (light lovers)
would probably tend to converge very quickly.

For some REALLY interesting effects using your suggestion, throw in one
robot that is a photophobe (light fearing). It would try to run away
from the light. Paint it a highly reflective silver, so it is the most
attractive object in sight, and the other robots will chase after it,
while it tries to run away from them.

Or go one step further. Make all the robots photophobes. They will try
to maximize the distance between each other, and will tend to disperse
themselves equally about the park.

ALL these ideas are interesting and worth exploring. I suggested to
Richard that setting standards for sound emission and hearing would
allow BEAMers to throw together sound-reacting robots whenever they get
meet somewhere. By the same token, you could set some standards that
would enhance the attraction/repulsion between light-reacting robots. A
simple thing like shading photosensors from direct overhead light might
be all it takes.

Now for some real fun, mix the two ideas -- sound-reacting,
light-reacting robots, with an occaisonal flash from a parkside strobe
just to stir things up :)

Bruce

8485 Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:43:46 +0000 [alt-beam] FREE SEX, Free forever, forever free! From: 134.119.231.83 beam@sgiblab.sgi.com mbhdkp5@hotmail.com Ok, I'll keep this short! At the following site... http://www.geocities.com/ilovethisfreeplacex/enter.html you can download a program called Sextracker that finds you free sex on the internet, download is forever free, and free forever, no credit cards, no memberships, no hassles!.

However, if you feel like spending some money, you can buy a legitimate password that would give you
access to over 70,000 high quality adult sites 24/7 for a whole year (or a whole lifetime), your choice! Costs start from $1 A YEAR up to $1.20 a month (for the exact same service), go to http://www.geocities.com/ilovethisfreeplacex/enter.html to see for yourself! Also a great Christmas pressent for your friends!

----

I am very sorry if you did not appreciate this email, your address was submitted from : 134.119.231.83
However, rest assured, this is a one time only email and you would never receive it again, have a wonderful year 2000 and don't forget, DRIVE SAFELY ON THE ROADS and DON'T drink and drive, for goodness sake :)! Take care out there and goodbye!

Home