Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #10628
To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
From: "Timothy Flytch" flytch@hotmail.com
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 02:54:27 PST
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: BEAM: Tendency toward miniaturization
Bruce,
I like your points on scaling ... I can also see a deferent possible
future, or at least a faction... That is shoe box sized robots... small
enough to stay out of your way but big enough to do real yard work... to
walk over grass you need a bot that can take 3-5 inch steps and be big
enough to be able to pick up a leaf and do something with it... Tall enough
to reach the tops of the grass with enough span so as to be stable so that
as it cuts, the cuts are all at the same relative height... Big enough to
sweep the kitchen but small enough to fit under the counters where it seeks
refuge when you enter...
Or to go over your socks you left on the bedroom floor...
and so on...
What do you think???
Timothy...
______________________________________________________
10629 Tue, 22 Feb 2000 07:31:26 EST [alt-beam] Re: Steering an Aquabot and giving it a purpose. beam@sgiblab.sgi.com JVernonM@aol.com In a message dated 2/21/00 11:56:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, todman@icon.net
writes:
> Now hook up a fin/rudder to a photopopper ciruit so
> that one side makes it turns left and the other side makes it turns
> right. Has anybody worked out the steering mechanics for the
> fin/rudder assembly? I have thought about using coils, magnets, motors,
> and solenoids, but I haven't come up with a solution in my mind that
> works yet.
Hi Tod,
Now you are talking! Aquabots can be soooo much fun. Here's what I was
thinking of. You have a standard solar engine for main thrust, as you said.
But, don't expect to get a useful pop every few seconds. A pop long enough
and powerful enough to propel the bot any useful distance will take at least
a couple of minutes to charge. As for the steering method, the obvious choice
seems to be Wilf's Power Smart Head. Hook a very efficient gearmotor to the
rudder and place the eyes on the front of the bot similar to a hammerhead
shark. This will separate the eyes enough for a good effect. When the bot
fires the main prop produces forward thrust, the head circuit turns the
rudder left or right as needed. The gravy part of the Smart Head is that no
power is drawn if the head is locked on to the light source and the bot goes
straight. Add a couple of Hydrofoils to the sides of the bot to induce
shallow diving and you're all set. I'll be building this design soon
(Proteus2), but if you get one working first, I'd love to see it.
See ya,
Jim
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Exhibit/8281/beamart.html
ICQ# 55657870
10630 Tue, 22 Feb 2000 07:41:21 EST [alt-beam] Re: BEAM: Tendency toward miniaturization beam@sgiblab.sgi.com JVernonM@aol.com In a message dated 2/22/00 12:02:19 AM Eastern Standard Time,
davidperry@geocities.com writes:
> Also, a simple silicon neural net made to achieve a goal - same as us!
> Personality isn't magically achieved, it is the result of an immensly
> complex neural net.
>
You've just disproved EVERY religious belief known to man. Not to mention,
claravoiance, telekenisis, distant viewing, premonition, intuition, and
prophecy. This is something that fascinates me about robotics. Are we more
than the sum of our parts? Or, can a machine be built that can reproduce
every facet of what it is to be alive? To be sentient and aware of things
greater than ones self? Will a robot one day look to the stars and wonder,
"Is this all that I am? Is there no more?" Great stuff!
See ya,
Jim
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Exhibit/8281/beamart.html
ICQ# 55657870
10631 Tue, 22 Feb 2000 14:26:28 +0100 [alt-beam] Re: BEAM: Tendency toward miniaturization "Thomas Pilgaard" > Also, a simple silicon neural net made to achieve a goal - same as us!
> Personality isn't magically achieved, it is the result of an immensly
> complex neural net.
Personality doesn't causally arise with complexity. Our skills as humans is
not a product of our brains - it is the result of not only a lifetime of
being-in-the-world, but also a of many generations passing of "tacit"
knowledge through genetic material. One may think of this as the hardest
part about creating biomorphic and antropomorphic machines. In creating BEAM
robots for instance we are extracting a very bleak reflection of what it is
to be a living creature and observes these creatures as having
characteristics that are similar to their biologic counterparts. However,
there's a difference between ascribing characteristics to a robot through
observation and what the robot actually does.
In my personal humble opinion the question is not whether or not it is
possible to create antropomorphic (or biomorphic) machines. It seems more
reasonable to ask: do we !want! antropomorphic or biomorphic macines. When
we look at insects and attempt to synthesize them, we are not attempting to
make an electronic counterpart to a biological creature; surely we are
attempting to augment the electronic creature to satisfy some of our needs
and help us solve problems and tasks. The same thing goes for the
antropomorphic machines.
Cheers,
Thomas
Home