Subject:
|
Re: robotica on TLC
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 Apr 2001 20:04:05 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
<jason@creativespiralAVOIDSPAM.com>
|
Viewed:
|
2021 times
|
| |
|
|
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 and modify its environment.
That's a pretty standard definition.
These machines do have the above... where we hit semantics is the sensors.
In each remote controller is potentiometers that sense the rotation of a
throddle or steering control. So in a sense (pun intended) they are sensing
the outside world (fingers moving) and making intelligent decisions on what
to do.
Now, nobody wants to call a regular old tenth scale radio controlled car a
robot, but I think a case could be made for it.
Jason - definately a BattleBots fan... and robot games and Lego and Junkyard
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Hystad" <dean.hystad@mts.com>
To: <lego-robotics@crynwr.com>
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: robotica on TLC
> 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 is in Reply To:
 | | Re: robotica on TLC
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Robotics
|
|
|
|
|
|
