Subject:
|
Re: Bump switches and "aggression"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Wed, 3 Dec 2003 18:08:54 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Gordon Elliott <gelliott@SPAMLESScsisc.cc>
|
Viewed:
|
1958 times
|
| |
|
|
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Choate" <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
> > Now direclty on bump sensor vs. other senses: If moving in a particular
> > direction, and robot had _directioal_ bump sensors,
>
> There's the fundamental difference there is -no- reason to have
> directional bump sensors. If you are moving along a path and a bump sensor • was
> hit that is all you need to know to change your path. You don't need to
> know in which direction. An Ameoba would be a good example.
## The original request was to catalog opinions on bump sensors, a "state of
the art".
Remember the original question was:
** ... and I'm curious if anyone will share their views on
how they view bump switches and 'behavior'. I'm not interested in a
debate but rather a 'collection'. I'm interested in hearing how people think
about it. Think of it as a survey of the current state of the art. I'm not
looking for private replies to this, please. This means please send your
responce to the list you recieved it from. Thanks.**
and then:
**The current approach I'm looking for is to model the 'fight or flight'
behavior and this seems like a prime candidate. I also see it as being
very compatible with subsumption architecture and nervous network
approaches, which I think is critical.**
If one is going to implement a 'fight or flight' model, one might want a
minimum number of sensors to make the distinction necessary, but no more.
Steve replied with some interesting variants that distinguished simple bump
by its own motion, and other stimulus. But that model required a _different_
type of sensor. My response is one of simple, but multiple, bump
sensors--limited strictly to bump sensors and not other types of
sensors--but trying to make the same sort of distinction that Steve
suggested. It's just a different approach, and might depend on the ease of
implementation and usefulness of the sensors for other purposes, etc.
Then:
**I have redefined zero terms.
Put up or shut up.**
Yep, you've got it. Future requests for information are going in null bin.
I'm not going to "put up" with this, so I'll "shut up". Jim said: "I'm not
interested in a DEBATE but rather a 'collection'. I'm interested in hearing
how people think about it." This was an interesting topic, but I've learned
my lesson.
Thanks
Gordon
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Bump switches and "aggression"
|
| "Gordon Elliott" <lego-robotics@crynwr.com> wrote in message news:0f7901c3b9c8$84...gateway... (...) i can see jim's doing good job !!! he's humiliating almost everyone here keep doing jim!!! maybe you will achieve that your posts will go to null (...) (21 years ago, 4-Dec-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Bump switches and "aggression"
|
| (...) You should watch my three dogs hunt. If all you've ever seen is a single dog hunt then you know nothing of how dogs actually hunt. They're pack animals, a single dog can't survive in the wild more than a few weeks. Yet three sub-200lb dogs can (...) (21 years ago, 3-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
|
|
|
|
