To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.roboticsOpen lugnet.robotics in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Robotics / 21761
21760  |  21762
Subject: 
Re: an idea, can someone tell me if this is possible/been done before/etc?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics
Date: 
Tue, 2 Dec 2003 20:05:31 GMT
Viewed: 
1231 times
  
In lugnet.robotics, Paul Kleniewski wrote:

"Kevin L. Clague" <kevin_clague@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Hp8uqD.8yM@lugnet.com...

I'd recommend pneumatics instead of large number of RCX's.

but pneumatics gives you just automation
you dont have "adaptation"

i can imagine sensor-like pneumatic valve configuration
but it would be much more complicated than using rcx (even few of them)

One of my design goals when making robots is to not use the RCX unless it is
needed.

I program computers and debug hardware all day at work, so I can write NQC
programs in my sleep.

For me it is much more of a challenge (and therefore more interesting) to make
complex autonomous robots without using the RCX.

Sure I could have made Can and FastForward (
http://www.kclague.net/FastForward/index.htm
using an RCX, plus sensors, plus motors), but why do that when a differential
will do.  Sure its simple to wheel up an RCX and graft it in but often it is not
necessary to wheel in a computer when a clever drive train or pneumatic circuit
(that some people thought could not be done :^) will do just fine.

Maybe its just me....


let's take a small obstacle into consideration

when bot set the foot on the surface which is higher than expected
bot has to accomodate this obstacle
and decide if the original "program" of setting this foot (and next feet)
will continued unchanged or some changes have to be made
(it will cause the bot's body will slope or not)

solving this problem using pneumatics is VERY complicated
with rcx and even just touch sensors it looks (for me) much more simple

I like to achieve simplicity in different ways than you do.  I'd rather use 20
or 30 pneumatic gates than 100 electronic gates (plus motors and sensors).

I have enough pistons and switches to make a highly articulated octopod.  I only
have 3 RCXs.


of course you can leave this problem and bot can go just like that
but i think it was not an issue

what do you think

I think I need to watch the movie before I try to make the octopod that behaves
like the one in WWW :^)


pixel

Kevin



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: an idea, can someone tell me if this is possible/been done before/etc?
 
(...) A man after my own heart ;) It seems to be the way nature works too, start simple only add complexity when a energy capture issue arises and forces an adaptive response. Most adaptions are neutral, despite the dribble they teach all the way up (...) (21 years ago, 2-Dec-03, to lugnet.robotics)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: an idea, can someone tell me if this is possible/been done before/etc?
 
"Kevin L. Clague" <kevin_clague@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Hp8uqD.8yM@lugnet.com... (...) but pneumatics gives you just automation you dont have "adaptation" i can imagine sensor-like pneumatic valve configuration but it would be much more (...) (21 years ago, 2-Dec-03, to lugnet.robotics)

60 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR