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

Re: AND how about this idea?

Expand Messages
  • connor_ramsey@ymail.com
    ... and ... set ... Well, it s not analog trickery, it s discrete digital construction. I didn t have any more room on my 240 for the reverse circuitry, so I
    Message 1 of 8 , Nov 13, 2012
    • 0 Attachment


      --- In beam@yahoogroups.com, Martin McKee <martinjaymckee@...> wrote:
      >
      > I check regularly but I'm not the one to ask about tricks in analog
      > electronics design. I'm atrocious!
      >
      > Martin Jay McKee
      >
      > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:30 AM, mikerobe@... wrote:
      >
      > > **
      > >
      > >
      > > Be patient
      > > I'm half asleep.right now, but I remember something about a reverse and
      > > turn function and I think it used spare gates on a 240 with a cap to set
      > > the duration
      > >
      > >
      > > Mike Robertson

      Well, it's not analog trickery, it's discrete digital construction. I didn't have any more room on my 240 for the reverse circuitry, so I put the 2 Nus on an AC14, but otherwise Mike's version sounds similar, although my design has a "double-reverse" function. Where if the bot is reversing, and it hits an object from behind, it moves forward again, and the reverse trigger simply times out.

      Say, I've been thinking(like usual), and I've realized something. I believe the term "robot" is somewhat of a misnomer when it comes to BEAM. It's understandable that the distinction between true robots and biomorphs be obscured, but I think there IS one key quality that vastly separates the two. Autodecisiveness. A robot may perform actions on its own, but requires an operator to command the robot to perform that action beforehand. A biomorph is completely autodecisive, able to perform actions on its own, and performs these actions by its own choice, completely free of user input. I mean, when you consider it, the word "robot" is derived from the Czech word for "slave". This is fitting for your typical automaton, but a biomorph doesn't quite obey instructions like a "slave" would. Therefore, I don't think a biomorph should technically be called a robot, although by extension, may sometimes be considered  a robotic sub-system. And if a "rider" component is attached to the biomorph to influence the biomorph's behavior, and the "rider" permits user-control over the biomorph, then the biomorph, coupled with its "rider" component, can then be considered a true robot.

      So here's the overall point of this post: a robot is NOT a biomorph, some biomorphs ARE robots, most biomorphs are NOT robots. Oh yeah, and Braitenburg vehichles are also NOT robots. So strictly, robots and biomorphs are related yet distinct classes of machine. Although you may consider biomorphs robots by extension. Otherwise, they are simply not.

      I had to get that out. Enjoy. Connor.

       

    • David Buckley
      Exactly. It is no use having a domestic robot if you keep having to rescue it from behind the kitchen door. Robots should be able to take care of themselves,
      Message 2 of 8 , Nov 13, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Exactly.
        It is no use having a domestic robot if you keep having to rescue it from behind the kitchen door.
        Robots should be able to take care of themselves, then you can give them tasks to do without all the 'remember to blow your nose' rules.
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 12:22 AM
        Subject: [beam] Re: AND how about this idea?

         


        --- In beam@yahoogroups.com, Martin McKee <martinjaymckee@...> wrote:
        >
        > I check regularly but I'm not the one to ask about tricks in analog
        > electronics design. I'm atrocious!
        >
        > Martin Jay McKee
        >
        > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:30 AM, mikerobe@... wrote:
        >
        > > **
        > >
        > >
        > > Be patient
        > > I'm half asleep.right now, but I remember something about a reverse and
        > > turn function and I think it used spare gates on a 240 with a cap to set
        > > the duration
        > >
        > >
        > > Mike Robertson

        Well, it's not analog trickery, it's discrete digital construction. I didn't have any more room on my 240 for the reverse circuitry, so I put the 2 Nus on an AC14, but otherwise Mike's version sounds similar, although my design has a "double-reverse" function. Where if the bot is reversing, and it hits an object from behind, it moves forward again, and the reverse trigger simply times out.

        Say, I've been thinking(like usual), and I've realized something. I believe the term "robot" is somewhat of a misnomer when it comes to BEAM. It's understandable that the distinction between true robots and biomorphs be obscured, but I think there IS one key quality that vastly separates the two. Autodecisiveness. A robot may perform actions on its own, but requires an operator to command the robot to perform that action beforehand. A biomorph is completely autodecisive, able to perform actions on its own, and performs these actions by its own choice, completely free of user input. I mean, when you consider it, the word "robot" is derived from the Czech word for "slave". This is fitting for your typical automaton, but a biomorph doesn't quite obey instructions like a "slave" would. Therefore, I don't think a biomorph should technically be called a robot, although by extension, may sometimes be considered  a robotic sub-system. And if a "rider" component is attached to the biomorph to influence the biomorph's behavior, and the "rider" permits user-control over the biomorph, then the biomorph, coupled with its "rider" component, can then be considered a true robot.

        So here's the overall point of this post: a robot is NOT a biomorph, some biomorphs ARE robots, most biomorphs are NOT robots. Oh yeah, and Braitenburg vehichles are also NOT robots. So strictly, robots and biomorphs are related yet distinct classes of machine. Although you may consider biomorphs robots by extension. Otherwise, they are simply not.

        I had to get that out. Enjoy. Connor.

         

      • Tom Gray
        I m lurking. Post a schematic, please, so I know what you re talking about.
        Message 3 of 8 , Nov 14, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          I'm lurking.  Post a schematic, please, so I know what you're talking about.
        • Richard Piotter
          I m gonna have to concur. It s hard to visualize conceptual concepts like circuitry, played out in text. If you want results, fire up MS Paint, or it s
          Message 4 of 8 , Nov 16, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            I'm gonna have to concur. It's hard to visualize conceptual concepts
            like circuitry, played out in text. If you want results, fire up MS
            Paint, or it's equivalent, if you are a Linux or Mac or tablet! No one
            is gonna take the time to do it for you, just to MAYBE hit on what you
            were going for. It'll take some effort on your end to create those
            images. Without those, it becomes a wall of text that you want to
            paint as an electrical map.

            Hmm... November 16th today... We'll see how long my message takes to
            post. I've had spans of 2 weeks before. That's what frustrates me
            sometimes. From time to time, this list becomes too laggy to hold a
            thread. I don't know why.

            Richard P


            Begin forwarded message:
            > From: "Tom Gray" <grayed@...>
            > Date: November 14, 2012 10:53:51 AM CST
            > To: <beam@yahoogroups.com>
            > Subject: [beam] Re: AND how about this idea?
            > Reply-To: beam@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > I'm lurking. Post a schematic, please, so I know what you're
            > talking about.

            Begin forwarded message:
            > From: "connor_ramsey@..." <connor_ramsey@...>
            > Date: November 13, 2012 8:38:04 AM CST
            > To: beam@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: [beam] Re: AND how about this idea?
            > Reply-To: beam@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > Ok, someone respond sometime THIS YEAR! I'M STARTING TO GET ANNOYED
            > AT BEING THE ONLY PERSON WHO CHECKS THIS FORUM REGULARLY!
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.