Alt-BEAM Archive

Message #10721



To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
From: Bill Richman bill_r@inetnebr.com
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 23:31:53 -0600
Subject: [alt-beam] Jim's BEAM Bots


Wow. Just looked at your web site; your 'bots are works of art. =
Amazing.
Wish I had the patience for it. I mostly just make big, clunky, non-BEAM
robots and such, but I like looking at the BEAM stuff. The descriptions =
and
comments are great, but the tutorial on the Aquabot was especially
interesting. Thanks for sharing all this with the rest of us.

On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 16:31:06 EST, JVernonM@aol.com wrote:

>In a message dated 2/22/00 12:58:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, =
Ld5253@aol.com=20
>writes:
>
>> How about designing the Aquabot with a motor on either side, with no =
rudder.
>That will work too. But to get a popper kind of movement, you need more=20
>ooommmpphhh on each side, but not to much. The only way to do this is=20
>limiting resistors to keep the bot from dumping the whole cap into one =
motor.=20
>Bob Shannon did this on Vore-n-more. A similar circuit should work on an=
=20
>Aquabot.
>
>See ya,
>Jim
>http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Exhibit/8281/beamart.html
>ICQ# 55657870


-Bill Richman (bill_r@inetnebr.com)
http://incolor.inetnebr.com/bill_r - Home of the COSMAC Elf =
Microcomputer
Simulator, Fun with Molten Metal, Orphaned Robots, and =
Technological Oddities.



10722 Tue, 22 Feb 2000 21:52:03 -0800 [alt-beam] Re: Steering an Aquabot. beam@sgiblab.sgi.com Bruce Robinson Tod Dow wrote:
>
> Ok, I'll bite. Where do I get a Smart Head?

Off your workbench. After you build it :)

Head on over to the BEAM heretics site

http://www.serve.com/heretics/

and leaf through the Rigter Archive. It's about 7 circuits down the
page.

Bruce



10723 Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:09:29 -0800 [alt-beam] Re: BEAM: Tendency toward miniaturization beam@sgiblab.sgi.com Bruce Robinson Daniel Grace wrote:

> ... Robotic minds recreating robotic minds,

In Japan, the Fanuc robot factory is entirely automated. The
manufacturing is carried out by the very same industrial robots that are
being manufactured. Self-replication. They do not improve themselves
directly ... yet.

> A massive disease comes along, or any other great tragedy that
> robots would be able to outlive and humans wouldn't, and viola,
> a non-magical way that robots could become the dominant 'life'
> on Earth.

And if the disease is one that wipes out robots instead? Will they have
the capability to deal with it? This is not as far-fetched as it sounds.
Bio-films. Ordinary bacteria, in blanket-like colonies. They are able to
break down any material tested so far. Granite, stainless steel,
ceramics. Could these become the "AIDS of robotics"?

Regards,
Bruce



10724 Wed, 23 Feb 2000 01:20:22 EST [alt-beam] Re: Steering an Aquabot. beam@sgiblab.sgi.com JVernonM@aol.com In a message dated 2/22/00 11:31:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, todman@icon.net
writes:

> Ok, I'll bite. Where do I get a Smart Head? Is that the one at
Adaptobotics?
>
Yes, Adaptobotics has a PCB for the smart head. Schematics for the circuit
are archived in a couple of places. BEAM Heretics for one. A couple of people
have posted PICS of various versions of the head as well.

See ya,
Jim
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Exhibit/8281/beamart.html
ICQ# 55657870



10725 Tue, 22 Feb 2000 23:06:34 -0800 [alt-beam] Re: Walker problems beam@sgiblab.sgi.com Bruce Robinson Bernard Nazari wrote:
>
> I think I'm going to do this method. Bruce, do you know how to make one
> that handles the higher 800 mA?

Yup. But first, remind me, are you using a microcore or a bicore to
power your walker? I ask 'cause it makes a difference what H-bridge
configuration you use.

Bruce



10726 Tue, 22 Feb 2000 23:08:20 -0800 [alt-beam] Re: Robotic philosophy (Tendency toward miniaturization) beam@sgiblab.sgi.com Bruce Robinson BUDSCOTT@aol.com wrote:
>
> ... as for Asimov, has anybody read the book "i, robot",
> i'll have to borrow it from a friend sometime, i do believe
> it has some interesting things about robotic "laws".

1. A robot may not harm a human being, or, through inaction, allow a
human being to come to harm.

2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such
orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection
does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

The premise of all Asimov's robot stories (but one) is that these laws
are inherent in the particular design of brain that allowed the robots
to be sentient. In other words, it was impossible to build a sentient
robot that could violate these laws. The theme in many of his stories is
that a robot apparently HAS broken one of these laws (but of course,
cannot). In this way, he explores all the implications and ramifications
of such a set of laws.

In his last book, "Caliban", published posthumously, he postulated a
modification of this brain ... but go and read it yourself.

There is no law (yet) that say these laws apply to the robots humans are
making.


Daniel Grace wrote:

> With all the book mentioning, and the way you phrased
> this answer, I'm surprised you don't mention The
> Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy "Trilogy" by Douglas Adams.

Well, yeah, I suppose I could list my entire library :)
And, yes, I've got the four books in the trilogy :)

Seriously, I mention the Minsky book because the concepts presented have
provided me with some powerful insights, both in the business and
robotics worlds. Whether or not they are "right" is irrelevant; far more
important is that they have been useful.

"Farewell to the Master" lets us all know that these are not new ideas
we are discussing. They were being considered half a century ago
(pre-transistor age, I believe). And I see Jim Mullins has read it :)


Richard Caudle wrote:

> Men of Science talking Philosophy? If that's not an oxymoron,
> I don't know what is!

But you know, at one time Science & Philosophy were taught
simultaneously. You weren't considered a scientist if you were not also
a philosopher. Then we started to get "practical", and look at the mess
we've made of things.

Regards,
Bruce



10727 Tue, 22 Feb 2000 23:00:49 -0700 [alt-beam] Re: BEAM: Tendency toward miniaturization beam@sgiblab.sgi.com Senior I once read in my highschool Biology book that a cell can be reproduced,
chemically, at a lab, but it will not live. There is a certain "stuff"
(For lack of a better word!) that is in living things, that makes it
tick. And also lets it die. So I have to say, there is something beyond
what we see. Heck, there could an infinite amount of things than what we
see, we just don't have the right sensors. How could we know?

So I'm gonna have to say I definately think we're much more than walking
neural nets. But than Ants? Are ants more than a walking neural net?

-Kyle

JVernonM@aol.com wrote:
>
> 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



10728 Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:55:33 +0100 [alt-beam] Re: BEAM: Tendency toward miniaturization "Thomas Pilgaard" > Think of the spare parts you could find after the battles were over!
> That idea justs gets better and better!

** ROFL **

- Thomas

>
> Brad
>
>
>
> > too philosophical today I guess
> > Wyzyrd
> > <:)}
> __________________________________________
> NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
> Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
> http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
>



10729 Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:57:31 -0800 [alt-beam] Re: Walker problems beam@sgiblab.sgi.com Bernard Nazari At 11:06 PM 2/22/00 -0800, you wrote:
>Bernard Nazari wrote:
> >
> > I think I'm going to do this method. Bruce, do you know how to make one
> > that handles the higher 800 mA?
>
>Yup. But first, remind me, are you using a microcore or a bicore to
>power your walker? I ask 'cause it makes a difference what H-bridge
>configuration you use.
>
>Bruce

Heya Bruce,
I'm actually making Chiu's 3 motor walker, so its not using a the
2 neuron microcore, but rather the 6 neuron nervous-net. Basically, I guess
its the same 74HC14, just an extra neuron. I'm still slightly confused over
the whole bicore vs. microcore difference. The website describing what I'm
building is "http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/6897/walk3.html" and the
best H-bridge description so far is one
http://www.beam-online.com/Robots/Tutorials/Freeform/H-bridge/hbridge.html
Well, take care and thanks for all the help!
Bernie



10730 Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:59:19 +1100 [alt-beam] Re: Aquabots "HENDO" I was just wondering if using a drive shaft type thing on an aquabot would
work as i can never seem to get Jims tutorial right and water seeps in. Also
I don't have any spare walkman motors around (anymore) so I was wondering
are there any substitutes?

Home