Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #10700
To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
From: "Timothy Flytch" flytch@hotmail.com
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 15:51:25 PST
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: Aquabots
>Hi all,
>One important thing to remember is to put a small package of desiccant in
>the
>electronics and motor housings. When you seal these things up, you trap a
>small amount of air inside. When you place the bot into water that is
>cooler
>than the air inside it causes the moisture to condense out of the air and
>onto your electronics and motor. Over time this can lead to severe
>corrosion.
>A small container or packet of desiccant will solve this problem.
>
Just a thought to add to this... you can get nice little packages of this at
your local pharmacy... they come one each in the bulk bottles of pills that
they re-bottle... just ask them to save some for you... If you have some old
ones you can rejuvenate them by placing them on a cookie sheet in a 350'
oven for 20min...
Timothy...
______________________________________________________
10701 Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:05:43 GMT [alt-beam] Re: Robotic philosophy (Tendency toward miniaturization) beam@sgiblab.sgi.com "Mike Kulesza" Read "The Age of Spiritual Machines - When Computers Exceed Human
Intelligence" by Ray Kurzweil. Alot about nervous nets, brains, and
computers. Very compelling.
>From: Bruce Robinson
>Reply-To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
>To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
>Subject: Robotic philosophy (Re: Tendency toward miniaturization)
>Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 12:13:09 -0800
>
>JVernonM@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > ... 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?
>
>Read "The Society of Mind", Marvin Minsky, Simon & Schuster, 1985, ISBN
>0-671-60740-5.
>
> > ... I wonder at times if a robot will someday, in the far future,
> > write a note to a list asking whether it is a good idea to create
> > a biological lifeform that emulates mechanical life :).
>
>And, if you can get your hand on it, "Farewell to the Master", Harry
>Bates, found in "Famous Science-fiction Stories", ed. Raymond J. Healy
>and J. Francis McComas, Random House, 1946, 1957.
>
>Thomas Pilgaard wrote:
> > ... We tend to create something to which we eventually find a use....
>
>A concept defined by Michael Hammer as a "rhetorical answer". We find
>the answer to a question, without knowing which question we are
>answering. Then we have to figure out what question we should have
>asked.
>
>JVernonM@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > ... technology in and of itself has it's roots in violence. The
> > first use of technology was simple weapons and tools to simplify
> > hunting and killing. Some of our greatest advancements come from
> > the military applications.
>
>Sadly true. I suspect this is due to a more fundamental drive to control
>our personal environments. Now if only we could learn to UNDERSTAND our
>personal environments before trying to control them ...
>
>Wyzrd1 wrote:
> >
> > ... Robotics may not change human nature - we always have been and
> > probably always will be a bunch of violent buttheads at heart-
> > but it MAY (if we play our cards right) make our most dangerous
> > forms of violence into something that just costs money and bots,
> > not lives.
>
>Not until you find a cure for testosterone poisoning :)
>
>
> > Dane Gardner wrote:
> >
> > ... You can't honestly believe that genetic material makes one
> > act a certain way.
>
>Now, now. Don't go telling people what they can and can't believe :)
>
>We are all genetically "wired" to some extent, in that each of us is
>predisposed to learn and communicate in a certain manner. This
>influences, but doesn't determine, our personalities. Other genetic
>factors (e.g. hormone levels) influence the degree to which we respond
>to a certain stimulus.
>
> > You are taught whether intentionally or unintentionally whatever
> > it is that make you you, throughout your lifetime.
>
>Not quite. A common fallacy, promoted by the teaching profession. We
>LEARN whatever it is that makes us what we are. Teaching is merely an
>attempt to influence what we learn.
>
> > Modern American psychology upholds this belief.
>
>Interesting. A great deal of "modern american psychology" is
>contradictory. You just don't get to hear too much from those who stray
>from the "mainstream" beliefs. Thus it has always been.
>
>Regards,
>Bruce
______________________________________________________
10702 Tue, 22 Feb 2000 19:07:18 EST [alt-beam] Re: Dizzy Symet beam@sgiblab.sgi.com JVernonM@aol.com In a message dated 2/22/00 6:20:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, BUDSCOTT@aol.com
writes:
> Here's kinda what my bot looks like
From what I can gather from your description, the bot may be overly stable.
This may be why parts in threes are common with symets. I think if you place
a feeler or some other type of spring between each cap and extend it down to
the table, slightly decreasing the angle, it may give you more random
movement. Also, you could try a ring around the bottom for the bot to ride
on. The less stable the bot the more random the movement.
See ya,
Jim
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Exhibit/8281/beamart.html
ICQ# 55657870
10703 Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:12:37 -0600 [alt-beam] Re: Steering an Aquabot and giving it a purpose. alt-beam@egroups.com Ben A Micklin Hopefully you can make some very DURABLE robot to withstand a punishment
such as being chewed up by a fish. Either that or make it very
distasteful.
~ben~
On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 13:20:54 -0600 "cbrenizer"
writes:
> Ever one to try to turn an obstacle into an advantage...
>
> 'bout the fish eating the bots. have you noticed any repeatable
> behavior
> from the fish? something your bot could use to it's advantage, such
> as do
> the fish dive and settling into a dark place right after gulping in
> something or surfacing or going to some particular spot?
>
> by picking a purpose for the bot that the fish can assist with, a
> contest or
> successful bot mission might consist of what bot can coax a fish to
> eat it
> the quickest, or most times, etc...
>
> it's probably illegal for the average joe, but as an example, if you
> wanted
> to tag the fish, your auquabots would entice the fish to attempt to
> swallow
> them, discharge whatever voltage/current needed to stun the fish,
> float to
> the top in the stunned fish's mouth, recharge via it's solar panels,
> and
> repeat.
>
> or if you wanted pebble samples from the bottom, hitch a ride in a
> fish's
> mouth, do something to make the fish dive (i'm just throwing stuff
> around
> here), do something else to make itself get spit out, collect the
> samples,
> then float to the top.
>
> i know, i know, these are a little complex and contrived. i'd like
> to hear
> if there is a good use of this symbiosis type behavior.
> Þ-:
> - cbrenizer@mail.trib.net
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Caudle
> To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
> Date: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 8:13 AM
> Subject: Re: Steering an Aquabot and giving it a purpose.
>
>
> >> 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.
> >
> >Hello you AquaBEAMers!
> >
> >I've had a design for what I call and Icthybot for some time, but
> have yet
> >to get it built. My version is a manta ray style bot that is
> battery
> >powered (solar recharge, 'natch!) with a gearmotor for each 'wing'.
> Kinda
> >built like my Wigglebots, but with wings. Mantas have the wide set
> eyes
> >like hammerheads, but it seems like it would be easier from a
> control
> >standpoint to do the ray instead of the more 'fishy' type fish
> robot.
> There
> >is also a better platform for placing solar cells (horizontal
> instead of
> >vertical, like fishes). My ultimate goal is to make a fishybot,
> but I need
> >to get my feet wet (no pun intended) with something a bit simpler
> first.
> >
> >As far as purpose goes, where I work there is a large gravel pit
> (quarry)
> >that has filled in with water. According to topographic maps, the
> quarry
> is
> >over 400 feet deep. I'd like to explore this with a school of
> Icthybots.
> >The plan is to make them with a slight positive bouyancy so that
> when the
> >battery runs down that it will float to the top so that it can
> charge
> during
> >the day, only to return to it's job at night. The only thing that
> I
> haven't
> >figured out is how to prevent them from being ingested by larger
> fish.
> >There is a quarry in the county where I live that is filled with
> crystal
> >clear water. I've seen divers in the water being followed by fish
> that
> were
> >every bit as big as the divers! That one's only 100 or so feet
> deep! I'd
> >hate to spend the time making a robot that gets eaten!
> >
> >Something to think about.
> >
> >Richard
> >
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> For the fastest, easiest way to backup files and access them from
> anywhere. Try @backup Free for 30 days. Click here for a chance
> to win a digital camera.
> http://click.egroups.com/1/1783/5/_/5594/_/951247754/
>
> -- Check out your group's private Chat room
> -- http://www.egroups.com/ChatPage?listName=alt-beam&m=1
>
>
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
10704 Tue, 22 Feb 2000 19:02:56 -0500 RE: Robotic philosophy (Re: Tendency toward miniaturization) Thomas Pilgaard
> In light of the discussion one may think to ask the question: what is the
> definition of a robot?
>
> Should we take Asimov's defintion or is it something to eventually replace
> mankind? Something other?
>
> Regards,
>
> Thomas
>
>
Home