Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #10480
To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
From: Dave Hrynkiw dave@solarbotics.com
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 15:19:10 -0700
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: photodiodes
At 08:30 AM 2/19/00 , Blumojo13@aol.com wrote:
>on the top of these PDs there is a notch. Is the notch the anode or cathode?
Cathode. It'll also be the one with the shorter leg.
-Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Um, no - that's H,R,Y,N,K,I,W. No, not K,I,U,U, K,I,_W_. Yes,
that's right. Yes, I know it looks like "HOCKYRINK." Yup, only
2 vowels. Pronounciation? _SMITH_".
http://www.solarbotics.com
10481 Sat, 19 Feb 2000 18:10:44 EST [alt-beam] Re: reconfigurable Robots: Severing the master/slave bicore beam@sgiblab.sgi.com JVernonM@aol.com In a message dated 2/19/00 3:18:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jester96beam@iname.com writes:
> I don't think BEAM has really evolved that much recently. Everyone seems
to
> be building the same robots and most are 2 motor walkers (or rollers), of
> which we really can't expect too much other than for "proof of concept".
>
Hi Chris,
Not a flame, but I think some advancement has been made recently. You just
don't see much being built with it yet. The Power Smart Head is a good
example. Also, Wilf's SIMD1 could finally make nocturnal behavior last
through most of the night. There is also Justin's Hemicore configuration.
When hooked to the Smart Head, you can make a two motor that turns and can
actually be called truly positively phototropic (something that only 6 months
ago I thought couldn't be done). You may be basing your conclusion on what
most on the list are starting with. Mainly, a Miller two motor Microcore, or
a Symet or photovore. They are the best places to start and therefore produce
the most questions and are most visible on the list. There really is some
cool stuff going on at the sidelines. Give the tech a couple more years to
make these advances become more common.
And mostly, don't quit when the going gets tough. That is, when you run out
of tutorials and things to copy. At that point, you are on your own and most
abandon the hobby. The ones that hang around get a little less active on the
list at that point because they've been there, done that. But, they are still
out there swinging :). Neural nets will become your meat and potatoes at that
point and we need all the sluggers we can get for that game.
See ya,
Jim
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Exhibit/8281/beamart.html
ICQ# 55657870
10482 Sat, 19 Feb 2000 18:34:19 EST [alt-beam] Re: BEAM: Tendency toward miniaturization beam@sgiblab.sgi.com JVernonM@aol.com In a message dated 2/19/00 4:38:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,
dibst11+@pitt.edu writes:
> Note exactly, there are quite a few highly adpet two motor walkers. While
> most may be aggrivating there still are a few that can be considered in the
> relm of serious bots. You would actually be surprised but 5 motor walkers
> are far more aggrivating to build than two motor walkers. Why do you think
> you don't see many?
Because they require quite a bit of mechanical skill to build. Most hobbists
don't hang around long enough to get to that level of complexity. A higher
population of two motors does not imply in any way that they are superior to
4, 5, or more actuators.
> Even Mark T must have several times as many two motor
> walkers than five and four. While indeed they are nice, they are
> complicated. In addition they are expensive.
Yes, he does. But, I thought he had put more complex designs aside to really
delve into making lesser designs more viable. Again, this doesn't imply that
he prefers one over the other. Yes, they are complex and expensive. That's
the price of making mechanisms better emulate life.
> >>>
> I don't think so, not yet anyway. We can make them LOOK like insects and we
> have pretty much mastered getting them to find a light source, but that's
> about it.
> If you build an environment
> specifically suited to the bot, with no cracks and minimal obstacles, you
> can
> get some semblance of "survival".
> >>>
>
> Well, perhaps that is true with our RJP's. But you could build a two motor
> walker that could take care of iteslf pretty nicely out in the desert, or
> the snow. Do you disagree with that?
Somewhat. I agree you could make a bot operate fairly well in the
environments you describe, as long as it doesn't get to complex. But, even
then, you are controlling the environment somewhat.
> I'm not saying we are Exactly on the
> level with insects, but indeed we can start to emulate them reasonably
well.
Long way to go yet.
> Sure there are things out of our reach, smell, vision, etc... But for basic
> insects we can start to get neat things going on. There are a variety of
> insects out there as well, some being more capable than others, (IE Ants)
> But if surviving is what is important, that's all you need to do.
If you base your definition of life on only one criteria, then yes.
> >>>
> it's simply
> a system that keeps the bot moving.
> >>>
>
> Ah! But what is living really? I'd say alot of living has to do with a
> system to keep the entity moving.
We can go round and round on this one. Barnacles? Mold and fungus? If
survival is the utmost and you are solar powered why move at all? Plants
figured that out a long time ago. No, for me anyway, there is much more to it
than that.
> A rider will be needed to break
> BEAM past the stage of singular sensing
>
> No dissagreemnt here. Rememeber Mark T talks about the concept of Smart
> bodies. He doesn't discredit the need for Microprocessors, but having been
a
> vetern AI programmer for years, recognizes the need for autonomous frames.
Yup, yup and of course, yup.
Don't get me wrong here. BEAM, or should I say, Tilden techniques, are quite
extraordinary to watch. If you had been in Atlanta with me and saw how people
warm up to these little critters, you would see what I mean. They do really
put people in mind of lifeforms. Even the simplest Symet. But, our quest is
the grail my friend. We know what they can and cannot do. We can see the
light at the end of the tunnel. Let's just not claim to be there prematurely.
See ya,
Jim
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Exhibit/8281/beamart.html
ICQ# 55657870
10483 Fri, 18 Feb 2000 19:17:13 -0800 [alt-beam] Re: BEAM: Tendency toward miniaturization "Dennison Bertram" You put up a good argument, and the reference to the grail cinches it. I
still think we've come a little bit farther than most will admit, but
obviously not nearly far enough.
dennison
> >
> > No dissagreemnt here. Rememeber Mark T talks about the concept of Smart
> > bodies. He doesn't discredit the need for Microprocessors, but having
been
> a
> > vetern AI programmer for years, recognizes the need for autonomous
frames.
> Yup, yup and of course, yup.
> Don't get me wrong here. BEAM, or should I say, Tilden techniques, are
quite
> extraordinary to watch. If you had been in Atlanta with me and saw how
people
> warm up to these little critters, you would see what I mean. They do
really
> put people in mind of lifeforms. Even the simplest Symet. But, our quest
is
> the grail my friend. We know what they can and cannot do. We can see the
> light at the end of the tunnel. Let's just not claim to be there
prematurely.
>
>
> See ya,
> Jim
> http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Exhibit/8281/beamart.html
> ICQ# 55657870
>
Home