Subject:
|
Re: robotica on TLC
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 Apr 2001 17:35:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2036 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, David Buhl writes:
> Wow, some of you get really defensive about this thing,
I didn't realize that expressing an opinion was being defensive. Personally
I enjoy the conversation much more if the participants are at least a bit
passionate about the subject. I realize this is contrary to U.S. culture
with it's emphasis on correctness and civility (I can't believe my
Scandinavian heritage allowed me to type that!!).
> It comes down to one simple question: What's the difference between a remote
> controlled vehicle and a robot?
This is actually a really good question. Back when I was studying robotics
in college, I remember one robot definition as "A machine that can be
programmed to perform a variety of tasks". The emphasis was on
programmability and the idea that a robot was not a single purpose machine.
However, in practice, the industrial robots that were just coming into being
at the time, though programmable, were usually designed to perform a fairly
small range of tasks. Pick and place robots didn't work well for applying
paint, painting robots weren't resistant enough to electrmagnetic radiation
and power fluctuations to be used for welding applications, etc... Yet I
think most people would call these programmable machines robots.
So we allow a computer controlled, programmable device to be called a robot,
even though that device is designed to solve a fairly limited range of
problems. Now I ask, is a fly-by-wire avionics system a robot? Is it a
robot if it contains an autopilot? What about a washing machine that uses
sensor feedback in conjunction with rule based control software to minimize
the amount of water and energy used to clean your clothes? My clothes drier
is nearly as sophisticated as the autonomous seam tracking laser welding
robot I worked on 15 years ago. Just where do we draw the distinction
between what is a robot and what is not?
> You certainly didn't need a Ph.D. to figure out how purely these RC vehicles
> where constructed for the task (more ground clearance anyone? better turn
> ratio?)
I can't figure out why nobody tries to make an omnidirectional vehicle. It
would be nice to see a synchro drive, Killough's platform or some omni wheels.
> And the people on the control looked like my neighbors 6 year old son who
> just started "racing" his RC car up and down the street and gets confused
> about left and right depending in what direction the car goes (toward him or
> away from him) and smashes into walls (they smashed more into walls then
> into each other).
Yup. Why don't they realize that practice and strategy can make up for a
lot of design shortcomings.
> Now to the real robots, I see that most are replying that smashing each
> other (eliminating) is very hard if not impossible at this time.
> Why must there be any smashing/killing be involved?
I think we are responding more to "Battle Bots" then "Robotica". Battle
bots is all about smashing and I find it a little disturbing. Robotica is
much less this way, and should be applauded for that, but still contains an
element of mayhem.
> There are a lot of other tasks a robot could accomplish in competing with
> another robot, without smashing into each other (ever heard of
> brickbots.com?)
I try most of the brickbots challanges. I loved the can stacker problem and
hated taking my solution apart. Did anyone solve the inverted pendulum? I
have also participated if FIRST and FLL competitions and found them to be
great fun. However I once saw a program (on TLC or Discovery, I don't
remember for sure) about a FIRST competition and found it rather dull
television. Maybe this is just one of those activities that is directed
much more at the participants than it is at the spectator (but then I also
think sports are for playing and not for watching).
> Oh and one more thing
> Please stay within the subject, you can always start your own thread called
> "Junk Yard Wars" or what ever other show you might like (I had to say that
> ;>)
Oh, like I'm sooo sorry. I didn't know you owned this thread ;>)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: robotica on TLC
|
| Okay, gotta play the devils advocate and take this a step further. ;) Robot (noun). A robot has to have an onboard computer (processor) that is takes input from sensors and decides what to do with its outputs (actuators). It must be able to sense (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: robotica on TLC
|
| Wow, some of you get really defensive about this thing, Here is the reason why I started this thread. For every show they show on TV there will be someone who loves it and someone who wouldn't watch it even if you paid him/her to watch it. My (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
38 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Robotics
|
|
|
|
|
|
