Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #10463
To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
From: BUDSCOTT@aol.com
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 11:14:48 EST
Subject: [alt-beam] Finished that @#%&ing symet
Finally ridded myself of that tape player motor that was just sitting 'round.
i finished my FLED SE symet yesterday and am still working out bugs. i used
four 1000uF caps in parrallel and most of the time it works okay. but for
some odd reason, occasionally it will trigger every time the FLED flashes,
this is terible inefficient because the motor can't pull itself anywhere!
Most of the time it triggers after three of four flashes, depends on the
light.? anyways, it's tiny, 1 1/2 x 1 1/2 x 1 in, pretty dang small. it pops
around in little tight circles until it hits something and then it gets stuck
for a while before it tips. still work out those @#%&ing bugs though. now i
can devote more time to making a walker!
-Spencer
10464 Fri, 18 Feb 2000 11:33:11 -0800 [alt-beam] Re: reconfigurable Robots: Severing the master/slave bicore connection. "Dennison Bertram"
>
> I've experimented with modular bicores along these lines. From what I
> beleive I was on the bench, the best solution is NOT to couple the bicores
> via resistors at all. The Bicores sould be coupled ONLY by feedback from
> sensors that measure the overall bots behavior.
>
That's an interesting idea. I'm slighly surprised that no connection at all
is the best method. For example, if you look at the Unicore, there you
clearly have an information processing head that then influences a bicore.
It would seem that this would still be nessesary. (the resistor connection
between the bicores) What do you mean by feedback sensors?
>
> How about letting each module 'feel' the actions of the others. If you
place
> sensors so they are effected by other modules, or by the collective
actions
> of all modules I think you will be very close to what your looking for.
That is an interesting idea, I'm not sure what you mean by this, but it
would seem that perhaps sensors and electrical connection would provide even
more advantages.
>
> Also you can provide higher levels of behavior by controlling which
modules
> are active at any given time.
>
> This approach also bypasses the problems of scaling BEAM circuits up to
higher
> levels of complexity, by keeping the feedback in the real world, rather
than in
> the electronic domain.
I still think you need a method of propogating basic information along a
chain of robotic elements, besides just feedback.
>
>
> I beleive that highly modular, adaptive turbots are the most robust
practical
> BEAM design.
I agree with that.
>
> neuron linkage, and this is a good thing in my opinion. Rather than
thinking
> that
> BEAM emulates insects, we should be aiming a lot lower on the evolutionary
> ladder, at microscopic lifeforms.
I don't know about that. I think we can manage emulating insects. The basic
Mobile robot's work to emulate insects through subsumption architecture, yet
with BEAM subsumption architecture tends to be built into the design, as
BEAM reacts immediatly to changes in stimuli beyond that, it also acts in
accordance to the degree of change. Very Subsumption like. But if you look
at some of Mark T's solar bot's they easilly act like insects. Sure insects
may in actuality be much more complicated, but Mark T's bot are capable of
surviving and seeking out new food sources. Besides reproduction the do seem
to fufill the requirements of life. They seek out a food source, they change
their environemnt, and the excrete, (heat).
dennison
Home