Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #13546
To: beam@corp.sgi.com
From: Justin jaf60@student.canterbury.ac.nz
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 22:09:47 +1200
Subject: Re: You guys disappoint me.
[Disclaimer: While I might accept some of the conclusions, this seems to
be co-incidence as I completely disagree with the reasoning behind them.
Hence this rant:]
>I am a little disappointed in Beam community. I just cant stand people are
>calling a few blinking LED's a bot. Even a solaroller doesn't seem very
>"bot" to me.
Pay more attention - few, if any here consider these things to be robots
in any useful sense. Do you read Dilbert comics? A lot seems to have
gone over your head.
Let's say Dilbert invents the stepper-motor and control circuit
(something that will go on to revolutionise robotics). The Pointy Haired
Boss (that's you) looks at it and says "So you made an electric motor
that turns? I think I'll divert your funding to Wally - he's working on
cold fusion from apple juice. "
The Pointy Haired Boss has failed to grasp that while the stepper motor
rotates - the same as every other motor, it has fundamental advantages
that are apparent to an engineer like Dilbert (like the BEAM LED blinker
for some tasks) and is A Step Forward for technology, and will
consequently allow the construction of devices previously not possible.
Robots are complex systems made out of many subsystems. Those subsystems
must be individually developing, and trying them out in real world
applications is a Good Thing (that doesn't happen nearly often enough).
Well, a blinking LED BEAM circuit might not be as fundamental to
robotics as a stepper motor (we can't all revolutionise the world), but
it _does_ have advantages that consequently allow the construction of
devices previously not possible with existing commercial LED blinking
technology. Included among these is a super-low-voltage micro-power
charge status readout that for _me_ will be a great asset to my bots. It
might be a step forward, but it's probably not "cool" enough or
revolutionary enough to "count" in your world. Unfortunately, if your
sort of thinking was applied to all sectors of development, we'd still
be in the stone age. Boring stuff (like Dilbert's stepper-motor) is the
foundation of future useful stuff. Technology moves forward more by
taking lots of little steps than it does by the breakthroughs.
(However, I would like to make the disclaimer that I personally don't
see anything revolutionary ever coming directly out of BEAM - just the
sort of useful or practical but not incredibly exciting technological
progress we see already, such as the Green Thumb).
>Maybe we should make some rules what is a bot and what not or even make
>categories ranging from blinking LED's to 134562 motor walkers with
>76437tons of electronics and are superior to humans.
Here's an easier solution - recognise that the word need not soley mean
"robot" and that most people can grasp from context whether someone is
using "bot" as a quick three-letter shorthand for "my current project".
I don't see the problem myself. Does it somehow insult other robots to
call a toaster a "bot"? How do these non-sentient creations register
"insult"? Or does it insult their creators perhaps? (who seem remarkably
un-insulted by it all.) What is the big deal?
>I don't want to be a pain in the ass, but just want some quality in the
>community.
The problem is, your concept of "quality" seems almost
Hollywood-influenced, which is _my_ concept of "trash". When someone can
produce a device that is beyond the abilities of mass-manufacturing to
produce (not all that hard actually), this is a real gain in a culture
where most people consume the same drek from the same companies. Useless
as they are, some BEAM devices I've seen would require a base retail
price of thousands of dollars if produced by the commercial sector.
That's quality - that's quality so high that it is priced right out of
any large potential market. The commerical BEAM-like solar robot fish
etc. have to keep the mechanical complexity to a minimum and be sold on
great scale to reach a price bracket where they become commercially
viable. Hobbiests have no such restrictions. I don't know what you mean
by "quality", but it doesn't sound like anything I'd want to pursue :-)
>I hope you all agree with me and forgive me if I made a fool out of you
>because you just finished your garden blinking LED's
Might I also point out that solar garden night-lights actually sound
more useful to the average person than the sort of "gee-whizzery"
"look-at-all-the-motors"
"it-might-lead-to-something-useful-in-the-distant-future" type robots
that you seem to think have _earned_ the name "robot".
When I was a kid, all the books on robots included the note that the
definition of "robot" even includes things like toasters. Has this all
changed? (No-one ever tells me anything).
:-)
13547 Mon, 17 Apr 2000 22:13:17 +1200 Re: You guys disappoint me (a sordid political side to BEAM?) beam@corp.sgi.com Justin > Well, experience tells me that the opposite has just occurred. You just
> stated what you feel is true, and it conflicts with acceptable BEAM behavior.
> I'm sorry to say, that makes you the fool here. The powers that be don't want
> to hear the truth, they want to talk about building bipeds with only one
> motor and a single 240 chip. Ludicrous you say? Just don't say so out loud.
Actually, it's easy. The thing I don't understand is why people want to
use two motors to make something functionally equivalent to just using
one motor and a simpler circuit :-)
First of all, I disagree with him - regardless of whether his
complaints can be levelled at BEAM or not, his reasons for making those
complaints seem quite silly, while you OTOH make similar complaints, but
for much better reasons - so I might simultaneously agree with you.
However, while I suspect I share many of your views, I lack your
apparent bitterness and would like to hear of some of the episodes that
have lead to this - it's the side of BEAM I understand even less than
the electronics :-). (Email me if flaming is an issue -
jaf60@cantva.canterbury.ac.nz)
My own impression is that most people who have been BEAMing away for a
few years happily ignore the marketing bollocks that is part of Tilden's
job, and are secure enough to not need BEAM to be the next saviour of
the universe in order to recognise its (often great) merit.
I'm fairly confident (and have vaguely good reasons) that BEAM will
never, ever blossom into a Grand New Way of doing anything of great
significance. Just like many (most?) other fields of robotics. I fail
to see that this is a big deal.
I actually like it - as someone who makes a living from artistic
creation, I find beam tech well suited to doing cool and obscure things
that people don't expect. I (like others, I suspect) even have
solar-powered jellyfish designs sitting in my notebook from years ago,
and now that has been shown to (probably) be commercially viable,
despite limited usefulness. Once you start looking beyond "can it cook
me dinner, just like every other field of robotic research can't", BEAM
really opens up some fantastic possibilities.
Some food for idle speculation: I also suspect that if nanotech lives up
to its wildest predictions, not only would BEAM have been aced in terms
of ever being useful, but virtually nothing learned from BEAM would be
remotely applicable in that fundamentally incompatible approach to
engineering. The problem is that before nano-tech lives up to such wild
predictions, I don't see how the manufacturing industries could produce
BEAM bots without them being uselessly over-priced. Without
mass-manufacture, BEAMbots are unlikely to make much impression anywhere
but where they already do - hobbies, novelties, art, and the odd
esoteric industrial use (eg satbots).
Perhaps nanotech will appear, but be a lot more limited than many people
assume - perhaps that way BEAM can become both cheap and viable yet not
completely obsolete.
But I'm not holding my breath... :-)
13548 Mon, 17 Apr 2000 19:40:37 +1000 A call to all UK BEAMers "'BEAM'" "Dr. Duncan Lawrence"
> All of our fellow US/Canadian BEAMers have a rather extensive range of
> new/used component suppliers.
>
> However, we seem to have quite a limited range of options here at home
> (Maplins. RS, Farnell).
>
> If anyone has had success in obtaining suitable parts/components, or knows
> of local suppliers around the UK, then shout them out!!
>
> Support the UK economy, even though the exchange rate supports filling
> Solarbotics bank account!!!
>
> Dr. Duncan
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
13549 Mon, 17 Apr 2000 10:03:04 -0400 [alt-beam] solarbotics solar panels? "Joe Tochka" Here is solarbotics' description of the SC2433 solarcell:
"
Solar Cell - SC2433 24x33mm Competition-grade Sunceram Solarcells producing 2.7 volts (open circuit) @ 16mA (short circuit)2.7 volts in noon sunlight. Perfect for you ambitious Solaroller racers who want that extra edge in the competition!
"
and here is the description of the sc2422:
"
Solar Cell - SC2422 24x22mm Standard Sunceram Solarcells producing 3.5 volts (open circuit) @ 6mA (short circuit) in noon sunlight.
"
Does the latter actually produce more voltage than the larger, first one? because the second one is smaller and cheaper, but it says it produces .7 more volts.
Also, (no offense dave), does anyone know of anywhere else that I can buy solarpanels from??
Thankyou very much.
13550 Mon, 17 Apr 2000 09:06:37 -0700 RE: A reply to Zoz ... and a challenge for advanced/bored BEAMers. owner-beam@sgiblab.sgi.com [mailto:owner-beam@sgiblab.sgi.com]On
--------------------------- The Challenge ---------------------------
Here is a challenge for BEAMers that are getting bored with solar
engines and microcores. Try building a robot that tries to avoid getting
stepped on. Zoz's diagram is an excellent model ... do it in
BEAM/digital as he suggests, or try it with 99% BEAM as I advocate.
The avoidance part is easy: Move out of the way, hide, or attract
attention (flash a light, make a noise, wave a flag, dance a jig). These
have all been done by various people.
The sensors are the tricky bit. You probably need to use several sensors
to be "sure" that a human/animal/predator is approaching. Sound,
proximity, vibration, heat detection ... these all come to mind.
To add to the challenge, avoidance activities should be appropriate to
the conditions. Dancing a jig in the dark isn't likely to attract
attention :)
You can also extend the idea to anti-predator activities. Squirm or make
a loud noise when picked up (OK, no scalpels or lethal voltages please
:)
I'd love to hear about your successes (and failures as well), and I'll
be happy to help if you decide to go the all-BEAM route.
Enjoy,
Bruce
Home