Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [SeattleRobotics] Re: anybody recognize the sensor being used here?

Expand Messages
  • David Buckley
    Thank you The problem with heavier bases is safety, Cycler weighs 72lb and is really underpowered for a good base, however it normally works in school halls
    Message 1 of 78 , Apr 3, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Thank you
      The problem with heavier bases is safety,
      Cycler weighs 72lb and is really underpowered for a good base, however it normally works in school halls which don't have carpets and it doesn't move about a lot during a performance. Nevertheless it can still push small tables and chairs out of the way. On low speed it doesn't move fast either, 10inch per sec, but if autonomous it would still need soft bumpers and good obstacle sensors if it wasn't going to hurt somebody's ankles or scratch the paintwork.
      If somebody could get a Cycler size robot to move about autonomously in a domestic environment at human speed with a 3 or 4lb payload then I would say it time to consider larger care robots.

      I think it is because Cycler has a head, and deliberately, has large interesting eyes, that people especially children relate to it easily. From the handlers reports it seems that maybe about 1 in 5000 children age 7 or 8 don't like Cycler but then they are the ones which cry at everthing and always have to be taken out of an assembly. It was supposed to be made of scrap and found objects - old drinks cans etc - but I didn't like that and made something which I thought the kids could relate to as a robot, which they do.

      We could make arms run on rails but then they become a machine and we (in general) don't have a lot of experience with free roaming machines in a domestic setting so it makes it harder to predict what they are going to do because they are associated with the MACHINES.
      Humanoid looking robots like Cycler don't have this problem, we know how humans move, we are used to them so if the robot doesn't move in some really stupid freaky way then it is easy to keep the association with humans and hence have a higher acceptance factor.

      Now this is my opinion, probably there are people researching this and there may be papers, but I think I have the edge on them with numbers. MIT did a study with about a dozen toddlers and Qrio. However my Cyclers have been seen and enjoyed by over half a million children.

      David

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: dan michaels
      To: SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 10:11 PM
      Subject: [SeattleRobotics] Re: anybody recognize the sensor being used here?


      --- In SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com, "David Buckley" <david@...> wrote:
      >
      > That was the right SmartPal, the body isn't round it is box shaped, more obvious in other photos.
      > I think lifting 50 to 100lb should be somewhat in the future as it is very ambitious, even we can't do that without using our whole body.
      > Kawada's HRP2 humanoid has been videoed helping to carry sheets of plywood, not too good at it yet though.
      > Some time ago I did some stability and load tests on one of my Cycler robots
      > http://www.davidbuckley.net/FR/Cycler/Stability+Loads/Stability&LoadTest.htm

      Looks good. I like it. That is basically the better route to a "helper bot". Wheeled bases are much more practical than those humanoid-walkers. You're almost there. If you were to make the base 150-200 lbs in weight, mainly be adding several heavy lead-acid batteries, plus nice hefty motors, and spread the wheels out a little more, then it could carry around upwards to 100 lbs.

      You can also have arms that run vertically up/down on rails, so they don't have to hold a suspended arm, and can therefore hold much more weight. IOW, support the weight by the mechanics [skeleton] rather than by the "muscles" [motors].

      > It would be just possible for Cycler to carry 56lb at 9inches in front of the shoulder as would be carrying over 10lb at arms reach.
      > However I think 3 or lb would be a reasonable maximum to aim for because of the limitations of practical arms.
      > David
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: dan michaels
      > To: SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 10:51 PM
      > Subject: [SeattleRobotics] Re: anybody recognize the sensor being used here?
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com, "David Buckley" <david@> wrote:
      > >
      > > From their website information I don't think Gecko are yet profitable and depend on continued investment.
      > > The square bodied SmartPal looks good and in the videos is seen to be doing things.
      >
      > Not sure what you are referring to. The SmartPal I found is not square.
      >
      > http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp\
      > ?NewsNum=1331
      >
      > For a practical home "helper" bot, I would favor something with a *very* heavy wheeled base plus at least one strong arm, so it would not fall over when picking up 50-100 lbs or more. Legged bots are unpractical for this. Eg, none of the Asimo or other japanese humanoids are even close to being practical, AFAIAC. They can barely hold themselves up.
      >
      > OTOH, if you don't need heavy lifting, then it seems to me you also don't really need a bot tall enough to reach up over table top height, and a smallish bot like I'm working on should make a good home bot.
      >
      > > Others are the `Toshiba-ApriAttenda 2009
      > > and
      > > IRT Research Institute of Tokyo, HOMUASHISUTANTOROBOTTO
      > > David
      > >
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: dan michaels
      > > To: SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com
      > > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 9:32 PM
      > > Subject: [SeattleRobotics] Re: anybody recognize the sensor being used here?
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com, "David Buckley" <david@> wrote:
      > > >
      > >
      > > I assume the Carebot is somewhat successful for what it does as the company has been building them for several years, and the blurb on their website indicates some funding interest from China ... of all people. Maybe they had orginally intended to add arms, but the basic base design doesn't appear to be stable enough for that. Hate to see it spilling hot soup on gramma lying in bed.
      > >
      > > OTOH, for my 0.02, I favor that "basic" design for a homebot, but probably with a much much heavier and more stable base and at least one strong arm. See ...
      > >
      > > http://images.google.com/images?&q=home+robot
      > >
      > > and especially this one from the 2nd page ...
      > >
      > > http://www.palsrobotics.com/simulatn.jpg
      > >
      > > or this, although I could forgo the funny puss [face] ...
      > >
      > > http://www.care-o-bot.de/Bilder/Care_II3_Big.jpg
      > >
      > > >
      > > > Uncanny Valley
      > > > Yes, I think a much misunderstood idea with too much talk of Teddy bears and dead people.
      > > > I can make my animatronic figures be really scary, disturbing or fascinating just by subtly altering their timing and degree of movement, just as Plasic sugeons can change someone from average to beautiful by altering the inter feature distances on a face by as little as 1mm.
      > > >
      > > > The Gecko bot is a mess, born of CAD, where the screen images have no mass and the people putting together the flat plates and cylinders and cubes have no idea of mass either. It is just a set of ideas stuck together like a collage without integrity, either that or they were in an awful hurry and it boiled down to the Aw f*** it.
      > > >
      > > > Thinking about the chin, the bump is to big for microphones unless they were ribbon mics. So I would guess it is another PIR to detect people sitting down.
      > > >
      > > > David
      > > >
      > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > From: dan michaels
      > > > To: SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com
      > > > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 10:26 PM
      > > > Subject: [SeattleRobotics] Re: anybody recognize the sensor being used here?
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- In SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com, "David Buckley" <david@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > > Forgot to mention, the apparent "scariness" of such bots certainly falls in the area of the "uncanny valley", if you're not familiar with the concept.
      > > >
      > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley
      > > >
      > > > Personally, I'm not sure to what extent this bot can even be called a "carebot", since it doesn't seem to be able to "do" anything actually useful as it has no arms/etc and doesn't appear to be stable enough to pick up much weight/etc [note the jerkiness on going through the door over the bottom lintel in the youtube movie], and mainly appears to act as a form of telerobotic communicator.
      > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Hi Dan
      > > > > http://www.robotliving.com/2009/03/19/carebot-by-geckosystems/
      > > > > has a better photo.
      > > > > The pan+tilt webcam is on top of the head.
      > > > > It has 2 or 5 speakers or sensors on its chest and maybe some more (IR?) sensors in the handlebar, and what is the funny holoprojector on its chin?
      > > > > http://geckosystems.com/images/sensorfusion.jpg
      > > > > Ah so that is where the sensor info is.
      > > > > In that case I'll bet the scanner is U/S, the IR are in the handlebar including downward looking for tabletops, and the PIR are in the chest.
      > > > > The chin Holprojector is probably a camera for table tops and grippng.
      > > > > If they got a decent (non wobbly *1) base and had multiple US instead of the scanner (*2) then it could develop into a nice system.
      > > > > *1 previous videos showed they had to be very careful to accelarate slowly or the base tipped up.
      > > > >
      > > > > *2 personally deep down, I find the scanner disturbing, freaky and not a little scary.
      > > > > Today I was demonstrating my robots at the re-vamp-opening of 'Science Oxford',
      > > > > Oxford's hands on Science venue, and had my hexapod Simplhex there as well as 9 bipeds.
      > > > > All the members of 'Science Oxford' were invited and many of these were retired, science interested, and being Oxford probably ex Uni. science lecturers who knew where I meant when I refered to MIT. A good number of them said they found robots scary physically, scary because people might get emotionally attached, scary because it might be unethical to turn them off and or wipe their memories, you name it scary. These are probably the more reasonable end of Gecko's proposed user-base.
      > > > > I think Gecko need to look at the robots image not from the perspective of a recently left art-school turned techno geek, with a penchant for the 80s personal robots, but from people the age of their propsed user-base.
      > > > > David
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > > From: dan michaels
      > > > > To: SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com
      > > > > Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 11:29 PM
      > > > > Subject: [SeattleRobotics] Re: anybody recognize the sensor being used here?
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com, "David L Buckley" <david@> wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Hey David. The Gecko sensor fusion page doesn't say anything about laser scanner, but does mention pan-tilt webcam.
      > > > >
      > > > > http://geckosystems.com/images/sensorfusion.jpg
      > > > > http://geckosystems.com/products/
      > > > >
      > > > > I wonder about either route, from a practical perspective. If laser-scanner, then it can't be nearly as efficient as using a SICK [although maybe cheaper, ie home-brew].
      > > > >
      > > > > If pan'tilt webcam, (a) why would someone want to do such a fast continuous sweep, and (b is current-day machine.vision even up to the job of processing so many images per second? [I doubt it]. And (c) if simply transmitting a webcam image, it would surely drive anyone nuts to watch those rapid-slewing images. Not to mention the low mounting position in the first place. All in all, I have problems seeing the practicality of the sensor.
      > > > >
      > > > > For a camera system, I think you would be better off using a wide-field lens, or if these weren't wide enough, then 2 cams side-by-side, etc.
      > > > >
      > > > > Just some thoughts.
      > > > >
      > > > > > Dan
      > > > > > I am pretty sure it is a laser scanner, I seem to remember details on an old Gecko page. (not tried the Wayback Machine or my archive). Just been there and all the how we did it stuff has been removed and it is all now 'hoping for major funding' corporate.
      > > > > > I don't know about their statement that the motors are powerfull to go up 1.5 inches, the base looks unsteady enough as it is with normal floor and rugs and was always really wobbly.
      > > > > > They may be able to recognize table legs with the laser but how about table tops hitting the body, can't see or remember any sensors for that.
      > > > > > Note that they are pretty sure they have the mechanical side covered and just need electrical and software which must be able to sort everything out!
      > > > > > Personaly I think the scanner is in a really stupid place. One swift kick (Oh I just fell) from a frustrated 'Care Receiver' could wreck it completely.
      > > > > > David -robots42
      > > > > >
      > > > > > --- In SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com, "dan michaels" <oric_dan@> wrote:
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > --- In SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com, twcarroll@ wrote:
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > In a slightly subversive manner, I was actually hoping to get a discussion going, but not much interest.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > Instead of trying to guess what the sensors are, call Martin Spencer,
      > > > > > > > President and CEO at Gecko Systems Intl. Corp., 1640B Highway 212, SW, Conyers, GA
      > > > > > > > 30094-4225, Phone:(866) 227-3268) or (678)-413-9236.
      > > > > > > > Tom C.
      > > > > > > > **************Check all of your email inboxes from anywhere on the web. Try
      > > > > > > > the new Email Toolbar now!
      > > > > > > > (http://toolbar.aol.com/mail/download.html?ncid=txtlnkusdown00000027)
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • dan michaels
      ... Sorry, I wasn t very specific. Cycler looks very nice for its intended purposes. When I mentioned the specs for a helper bot, I was following along the
      Message 78 of 78 , Apr 6, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com, "David Buckley" <david@...> wrote:
        >


        Sorry, I wasn't very specific. Cycler looks very nice for its intended purposes.

        When I mentioned the specs for a "helper" bot, I was following along the lines of previous comments, re what might be really useful around the home. I would want it to be a little heavier, and able to carry a good deal of weight in a stable manner. Depends upon the purpose, of course. My little Oliver [15" tall] is fine for home mapping and monitoring purposes, and for use as a test-platform, but it isn't going to carry much, or do many practical tasks.



        > Thank you
        > The problem with heavier bases is safety,
        > Cycler weighs 72lb and is really underpowered for a good base, however it normally works in school halls which don't have carpets and it doesn't move about a lot during a performance. Nevertheless it can still push small tables and chairs out of the way. On low speed it doesn't move fast either, 10inch per sec, but if autonomous it would still need soft bumpers and good obstacle sensors if it wasn't going to hurt somebody's ankles or scratch the paintwork.
        > If somebody could get a Cycler size robot to move about autonomously in a domestic environment at human speed with a 3 or 4lb payload then I would say it time to consider larger care robots.
        >
        > I think it is because Cycler has a head, and deliberately, has large interesting eyes, that people especially children relate to it easily. From the handlers reports it seems that maybe about 1 in 5000 children age 7 or 8 don't like Cycler but then they are the ones which cry at everthing and always have to be taken out of an assembly. It was supposed to be made of scrap and found objects - old drinks cans etc - but I didn't like that and made something which I thought the kids could relate to as a robot, which they do.
        >
        > We could make arms run on rails but then they become a machine and we (in general) don't have a lot of experience with free roaming machines in a domestic setting so it makes it harder to predict what they are going to do because they are associated with the MACHINES.
        > Humanoid looking robots like Cycler don't have this problem, we know how humans move, we are used to them so if the robot doesn't move in some really stupid freaky way then it is easy to keep the association with humans and hence have a higher acceptance factor.
        >
        > Now this is my opinion, probably there are people researching this and there may be papers, but I think I have the edge on them with numbers. MIT did a study with about a dozen toddlers and Qrio. However my Cyclers have been seen and enjoyed by over half a million children.
        >
        > David
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: dan michaels
        > To: SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 10:11 PM
        > Subject: [SeattleRobotics] Re: anybody recognize the sensor being used here?
        >
        >
        > --- In SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com, "David Buckley" <david@> wrote:
        > >
        > > That was the right SmartPal, the body isn't round it is box shaped, more obvious in other photos.
        > > I think lifting 50 to 100lb should be somewhat in the future as it is very ambitious, even we can't do that without using our whole body.
        > > Kawada's HRP2 humanoid has been videoed helping to carry sheets of plywood, not too good at it yet though.
        > > Some time ago I did some stability and load tests on one of my Cycler robots
        > > http://www.davidbuckley.net/FR/Cycler/Stability+Loads/Stability&LoadTest.htm
        >
        > Looks good. I like it. That is basically the better route to a "helper bot". Wheeled bases are much more practical than those humanoid-walkers. You're almost there. If you were to make the base 150-200 lbs in weight, mainly be adding several heavy lead-acid batteries, plus nice hefty motors, and spread the wheels out a little more, then it could carry around upwards to 100 lbs.
        >
        > You can also have arms that run vertically up/down on rails, so they don't have to hold a suspended arm, and can therefore hold much more weight. IOW, support the weight by the mechanics [skeleton] rather than by the "muscles" [motors].
        >
        > > It would be just possible for Cycler to carry 56lb at 9inches in front of the shoulder as would be carrying over 10lb at arms reach.
        > > However I think 3 or lb would be a reasonable maximum to aim for because of the limitations of practical arms.
        > > David
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > From: dan michaels
        > > To: SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com
        > > Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 10:51 PM
        > > Subject: [SeattleRobotics] Re: anybody recognize the sensor being used here?
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com, "David Buckley" <david@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > From their website information I don't think Gecko are yet profitable and depend on continued investment.
        > > > The square bodied SmartPal looks good and in the videos is seen to be doing things.
        > >
        > > Not sure what you are referring to. The SmartPal I found is not square.
        > >
        > > http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp\
        > > ?NewsNum=1331
        > >
        > > For a practical home "helper" bot, I would favor something with a *very* heavy wheeled base plus at least one strong arm, so it would not fall over when picking up 50-100 lbs or more. Legged bots are unpractical for this. Eg, none of the Asimo or other japanese humanoids are even close to being practical, AFAIAC. They can barely hold themselves up.
        > >
        > > OTOH, if you don't need heavy lifting, then it seems to me you also don't really need a bot tall enough to reach up over table top height, and a smallish bot like I'm working on should make a good home bot.
        > >
        > > > Others are the `Toshiba-ApriAttenda 2009
        > > > and
        > > > IRT Research Institute of Tokyo, HOMUASHISUTANTOROBOTTO
        > > > David
        > > >
        > > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > > From: dan michaels
        > > > To: SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com
        > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 9:32 PM
        > > > Subject: [SeattleRobotics] Re: anybody recognize the sensor being used here?
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --- In SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com, "David Buckley" <david@> wrote:
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > > I assume the Carebot is somewhat successful for what it does as the company has been building them for several years, and the blurb on their website indicates some funding interest from China ... of all people. Maybe they had orginally intended to add arms, but the basic base design doesn't appear to be stable enough for that. Hate to see it spilling hot soup on gramma lying in bed.
        > > >
        > > > OTOH, for my 0.02, I favor that "basic" design for a homebot, but probably with a much much heavier and more stable base and at least one strong arm. See ...
        > > >
        > > > http://images.google.com/images?&q=home+robot
        > > >
        > > > and especially this one from the 2nd page ...
        > > >
        > > > http://www.palsrobotics.com/simulatn.jpg
        > > >
        > > > or this, although I could forgo the funny puss [face] ...
        > > >
        > > > http://www.care-o-bot.de/Bilder/Care_II3_Big.jpg
        > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > Uncanny Valley
        > > > > Yes, I think a much misunderstood idea with too much talk of Teddy bears and dead people.
        > > > > I can make my animatronic figures be really scary, disturbing or fascinating just by subtly altering their timing and degree of movement, just as Plasic sugeons can change someone from average to beautiful by altering the inter feature distances on a face by as little as 1mm.
        > > > >
        > > > > The Gecko bot is a mess, born of CAD, where the screen images have no mass and the people putting together the flat plates and cylinders and cubes have no idea of mass either. It is just a set of ideas stuck together like a collage without integrity, either that or they were in an awful hurry and it boiled down to the Aw f*** it.
        > > > >
        > > > > Thinking about the chin, the bump is to big for microphones unless they were ribbon mics. So I would guess it is another PIR to detect people sitting down.
        > > > >
        > > > > David
        > > > >
        > > > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > > > From: dan michaels
        > > > > To: SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com
        > > > > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 10:26 PM
        > > > > Subject: [SeattleRobotics] Re: anybody recognize the sensor being used here?
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > --- In SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com, "David Buckley" <david@> wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > Forgot to mention, the apparent "scariness" of such bots certainly falls in the area of the "uncanny valley", if you're not familiar with the concept.
        > > > >
        > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley
        > > > >
        > > > > Personally, I'm not sure to what extent this bot can even be called a "carebot", since it doesn't seem to be able to "do" anything actually useful as it has no arms/etc and doesn't appear to be stable enough to pick up much weight/etc [note the jerkiness on going through the door over the bottom lintel in the youtube movie], and mainly appears to act as a form of telerobotic communicator.
        > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Hi Dan
        > > > > > http://www.robotliving.com/2009/03/19/carebot-by-geckosystems/
        > > > > > has a better photo.
        > > > > > The pan+tilt webcam is on top of the head.
        > > > > > It has 2 or 5 speakers or sensors on its chest and maybe some more (IR?) sensors in the handlebar, and what is the funny holoprojector on its chin?
        > > > > > http://geckosystems.com/images/sensorfusion.jpg
        > > > > > Ah so that is where the sensor info is.
        > > > > > In that case I'll bet the scanner is U/S, the IR are in the handlebar including downward looking for tabletops, and the PIR are in the chest.
        > > > > > The chin Holprojector is probably a camera for table tops and grippng.
        > > > > > If they got a decent (non wobbly *1) base and had multiple US instead of the scanner (*2) then it could develop into a nice system.
        > > > > > *1 previous videos showed they had to be very careful to accelarate slowly or the base tipped up.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > *2 personally deep down, I find the scanner disturbing, freaky and not a little scary.
        > > > > > Today I was demonstrating my robots at the re-vamp-opening of 'Science Oxford',
        > > > > > Oxford's hands on Science venue, and had my hexapod Simplhex there as well as 9 bipeds.
        > > > > > All the members of 'Science Oxford' were invited and many of these were retired, science interested, and being Oxford probably ex Uni. science lecturers who knew where I meant when I refered to MIT. A good number of them said they found robots scary physically, scary because people might get emotionally attached, scary because it might be unethical to turn them off and or wipe their memories, you name it scary. These are probably the more reasonable end of Gecko's proposed user-base.
        > > > > > I think Gecko need to look at the robots image not from the perspective of a recently left art-school turned techno geek, with a penchant for the 80s personal robots, but from people the age of their propsed user-base.
        > > > > > David
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > > > > From: dan michaels
        > > > > > To: SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com
        > > > > > Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 11:29 PM
        > > > > > Subject: [SeattleRobotics] Re: anybody recognize the sensor being used here?
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > --- In SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com, "David L Buckley" <david@> wrote:
        > > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Hey David. The Gecko sensor fusion page doesn't say anything about laser scanner, but does mention pan-tilt webcam.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > http://geckosystems.com/images/sensorfusion.jpg
        > > > > > http://geckosystems.com/products/
        > > > > >
        > > > > > I wonder about either route, from a practical perspective. If laser-scanner, then it can't be nearly as efficient as using a SICK [although maybe cheaper, ie home-brew].
        > > > > >
        > > > > > If pan'tilt webcam, (a) why would someone want to do such a fast continuous sweep, and (b is current-day machine.vision even up to the job of processing so many images per second? [I doubt it]. And (c) if simply transmitting a webcam image, it would surely drive anyone nuts to watch those rapid-slewing images. Not to mention the low mounting position in the first place. All in all, I have problems seeing the practicality of the sensor.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > For a camera system, I think you would be better off using a wide-field lens, or if these weren't wide enough, then 2 cams side-by-side, etc.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Just some thoughts.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > > Dan
        > > > > > > I am pretty sure it is a laser scanner, I seem to remember details on an old Gecko page. (not tried the Wayback Machine or my archive). Just been there and all the how we did it stuff has been removed and it is all now 'hoping for major funding' corporate.
        > > > > > > I don't know about their statement that the motors are powerfull to go up 1.5 inches, the base looks unsteady enough as it is with normal floor and rugs and was always really wobbly.
        > > > > > > They may be able to recognize table legs with the laser but how about table tops hitting the body, can't see or remember any sensors for that.
        > > > > > > Note that they are pretty sure they have the mechanical side covered and just need electrical and software which must be able to sort everything out!
        > > > > > > Personaly I think the scanner is in a really stupid place. One swift kick (Oh I just fell) from a frustrated 'Care Receiver' could wreck it completely.
        > > > > > > David -robots42
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > --- In SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com, "dan michaels" <oric_dan@> wrote:
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > --- In SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com, twcarroll@ wrote:
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > In a slightly subversive manner, I was actually hoping to get a discussion going, but not much interest.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > Instead of trying to guess what the sensors are, call Martin Spencer,
        > > > > > > > > President and CEO at Gecko Systems Intl. Corp., 1640B Highway 212, SW, Conyers, GA
        > > > > > > > > 30094-4225, Phone:(866) 227-3268) or (678)-413-9236.
        > > > > > > > > Tom C.
        > > > > > > > > **************Check all of your email inboxes from anywhere on the web. Try
        > > > > > > > > the new Email Toolbar now!
        > > > > > > > > (http://toolbar.aol.com/mail/download.html?ncid=txtlnkusdown00000027)
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.