Robot War in a new new level......
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,938
Likes: 0
From: limerick
Originally Posted by no_really,Apr 22 2006, 07:13 PM
why? Why not build a robot that isn't inherently unstable in the first place? Why not build something that uses wheels instead of trying to clomp around on little feet and legs? Tool for the job, man. I could buy any number of readily available kits to make a self-propelled remote controlled device that is far more stable, faster, more maneuverable, and cheaper. I could then use that as a platform to mount various pieces of hardware if I so chose. Building something that requires massive amounts of time and money to overcome inherent design flaws is a job for stupid people, IMHO. "Walker" robots like those in the video look cool in cartoons and movies, but they are just stupid for any practical use. Just watch the damn video to see how stupid they are IRL. What they are doing is like writing technical manuals in rhyming couplets. Sure, it can be done, but WHY?
If we master biped walking robots they could do far more than a lawnmower.
Banned
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,319
Likes: 0
From: City
Originally Posted by exceltoexcel,Apr 24 2006, 10:21 AM
Wheels don't work well on overly rough terrain.
Now, I would argue that living legs function far better than wheels in some cases, but trying to engineer the kind of sophisticated system of sensors and motivators present in a person is a tall order, and one could argue that it would take some proportion of the time for a person to perfect a bipedal walker as it took nature to build the current model. But wheeled and tracked vehicles have fewer problems with balance, and don't require a complex series of movements modified by sensor input to produce forward travel. Even multilegged walkers are smarter and easier to engineer.
I'm not suggesting that one couldn't develop a robust walking machine, as such things already exist.
I'm merely suggesting that devoting resources towards the engineering of a bipedal walking machine is a waste, as there are too many design flaws that need to be compensated for with expensive and time consuming hacks. Sure, it looks cool in comic books, movies, and cartoons, but those things are not real, and the reality is far less cool. With the same amount of effort required to build a stable, versatile bipedal walker, one could design and build tens or hundreds of stable, versatile multi-legged walkers, or thousands of stable, versatile wheeled or tracked vehicles. Yes, the things learned while working on an almost impossible task are useful, but so are the things learned from working on a successful project. Knowing where to devote one's energy is at least as responsible for success as individual skill, and one might argue such discrimination is a greater indicator of knowledge than the pursuit of hopeless projects. Failure is a fine teacher, but one has to recognize failure to learn from it.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,938
Likes: 0
From: limerick
Originally Posted by no_really,Apr 24 2006, 02:02 PM
really.
Now, I would argue that living legs function far better than wheels in some cases, but trying to engineer the kind of sophisticated system of sensors and motivators present in a person is a tall order, and one could argue that it would take some proportion of the time for a person to perfect a bipedal walker as it took nature to build the current model. But wheeled and tracked vehicles have fewer problems with balance, and don't require a complex series of movements modified by sensor input to produce forward travel. Even multilegged walkers are smarter and easier to engineer.
I'm not suggesting that one couldn't develop a robust walking machine, as such things already exist.
I'm merely suggesting that devoting resources towards the engineering of a bipedal walking machine is a waste, as there are too many design flaws that need to be compensated for with expensive and time consuming hacks. Sure, it looks cool in comic books, movies, and cartoons, but those things are not real, and the reality is far less cool. With the same amount of effort required to build a stable, versatile bipedal walker, one could design and build tens or hundreds of stable, versatile multi-legged walkers, or thousands of stable, versatile wheeled or tracked vehicles. Yes, the things learned while working on an almost impossible task are useful, but so are the things learned from working on a successful project. Knowing where to devote one's energy is at least as responsible for success as individual skill, and one might argue such discrimination is a greater indicator of knowledge than the pursuit of hopeless projects. Failure is a fine teacher, but one has to recognize failure to learn from it.
Now, I would argue that living legs function far better than wheels in some cases, but trying to engineer the kind of sophisticated system of sensors and motivators present in a person is a tall order, and one could argue that it would take some proportion of the time for a person to perfect a bipedal walker as it took nature to build the current model. But wheeled and tracked vehicles have fewer problems with balance, and don't require a complex series of movements modified by sensor input to produce forward travel. Even multilegged walkers are smarter and easier to engineer.
I'm not suggesting that one couldn't develop a robust walking machine, as such things already exist.
I'm merely suggesting that devoting resources towards the engineering of a bipedal walking machine is a waste, as there are too many design flaws that need to be compensated for with expensive and time consuming hacks. Sure, it looks cool in comic books, movies, and cartoons, but those things are not real, and the reality is far less cool. With the same amount of effort required to build a stable, versatile bipedal walker, one could design and build tens or hundreds of stable, versatile multi-legged walkers, or thousands of stable, versatile wheeled or tracked vehicles. Yes, the things learned while working on an almost impossible task are useful, but so are the things learned from working on a successful project. Knowing where to devote one's energy is at least as responsible for success as individual skill, and one might argue such discrimination is a greater indicator of knowledge than the pursuit of hopeless projects. Failure is a fine teacher, but one has to recognize failure to learn from it.
Try to have something that is 3*3 climb that!
A 3 foot tire alone isn't going to climb that!
Try to launch that thing to mars and see how practical that is!
Or rather lets see that thing climb your stairs! Somehow I don't think it'll fit!
The point is a human can climb a rock formation that is more than straight up, even at >90 degree verticals but a wheeled object really can't do that practically unless there is some sort of suction force and the weight of which would be prohibitive.
These robots are needed to develop the technology for these highly specialised situations.
Without it we'll never over come those hurdles.
Now as for rather or not a lawnmower could be made to kick this bipeds ass, well of course. I wouldn't want to take on a truck but I can travel places that a truck couldn't and I can travel to any place that a truck can.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,830
Likes: 0
From: Johnson City
Some might also call sending a spaceship around the moon back in the 60's a meaningless engineering exercise, and at first it really was just that... a pissing contest. Imagine all of the "spinoffs" that has benefited our society from the space program.. nylon, velcro, integrated circuits, i could go on for 100 pages.
While this robot thing is on a much smaller scale than the space program I could definately see how an exercise like this could definately have spinoff uses in other more "useful" applications. Just imagine what an exercise in controls this type of engineering contest requires and where that kind of innovation might have uses elsewhere like guidance systems for robotic manufacturing devices, pattern recognition for piloting unmanned craft, minuturization of controls for prosthetic limbs, etc, etc. etc. Also, just working on designs that are already "proven" hardly challenge the participants for innovation i.e. making an existing platform better I would imagine is less demanding than comming up with a novel design
While this robot thing is on a much smaller scale than the space program I could definately see how an exercise like this could definately have spinoff uses in other more "useful" applications. Just imagine what an exercise in controls this type of engineering contest requires and where that kind of innovation might have uses elsewhere like guidance systems for robotic manufacturing devices, pattern recognition for piloting unmanned craft, minuturization of controls for prosthetic limbs, etc, etc. etc. Also, just working on designs that are already "proven" hardly challenge the participants for innovation i.e. making an existing platform better I would imagine is less demanding than comming up with a novel design
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post