Re: Are Hobby Servos Stunting Robotics?
- --- In SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com, "Naphtali Moore"
>the "table top" scale. The real question is what is the answer? What
> The existing hobby systems like lego mind storm only enforce
is there for an easily scaleable, extendable robotics system. Maybe
there needs to be some sort of open yet consolidated standardization.
>Most of these arguments totally dissipate if one puts things into the
perspective of the "learning curve". Lego kits, servos, etc, make it
very easy for people to become involved in an area [robotics] that
requires learned aptitude in many different subareas - namely,
electronics, mechanics, sensors, motors, programming, basics of AI,
etc. It makes no sense to throw the baby out with the bath water
Plus, I think, there are many moves being made towards
standardization, although not all are viewed in that way at present.
First, you have the Microsoft Robotics Studio, plus several efforts
going on in sourceforge. Then, you have all of the various kits - the
general ones like Lego, Vex, Bioloid, and the more specific ones,
like from Lynxmotion, like Aibo, and all of the humanoid robots
currently coming out of Japan.
There must be an enormous amount of $$$$$ being spent, by people we
don't know about, to support those markets. My guess is that "most"
of the people buying those things are not true roboticists, but
rather dapplers with more money than general skills in all the areas
necessary to produce sophisticated robots from scratch. So, they buy
a prefab kit, and concentrate on mainly one area - like programming.
Then, there are many people who are taking the "next step", like
Robert with his robomagellans, George and his wifi router-equipped
tank, and even dpa with jBot [nothing is stunting dpa's efforts ;-)].
So, what's all the stew about? All progress happens according to
pyramid-shaped demographics. A lot of people do simpler sorts of
things along the bottom of the pyramid, and a few people push the
envelope near the top.
- --- In SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com, PeterBalch <PeterBalch@...>
>satisfaction problem. The constraints include keeping the CoG inside
> IMHO, you're on the right track. Treat walking as a constraint-
the triangles - calculate where the CoG is in the triangle by
measuring the force on each foot then adjust the overall posture.
>Don't pick up a foot if the force on it is large.Yes.
>touchdown. Maintain roughly the correct phase relationships between
>Keep theCoG moving forward. Don't let the CoG aproach the fron
> of the current triangle unless the Flight foot is approaching
>Yes. This is what you get with the Gait 6 step sequence, and which is
similar to the diagonal-walk of Jake on my page, and also the trot.
This is especially clear with Jake, where the sequence is essentially
one of falling-forward onto the new tripod. With the trot, the
forward inertia of the CoG performs the same function.
These are all variations on the same thing, which is the back-to-
front "wave". You [Peter] might not see it as a "wave", but it's
really the same step sequence as goes on in hexapods and also
octopods, except here there are fewer feet.
>disparate goals. In my imagination, the constraint satisfaction
> The problem is, I don't see any easy way to reconcile all those
algorithm that made it walk on the flat happens to work equally well
on rough ground.
>As I see it, this is because creep, diagonal-walk [Jake's], and trot
are all just variations on the same sequence, just like metachronal-
wave, ripple, and tripod are for hexapods.