Slashdot Mirror

First, an aside: "self-introspection" is redundant. What's the alternative? Introspection of another? That makes no sense. Also, introspection is a component of consciousness. There is no way to determine another person is conscious (as opposed to a completely stimulus-response programmed "zombie"), much less a robot. Without consciousness, the appropriate term is "feedback mechanism".

That said, the device in TFA is not novel, nor is it as simple as previous designs. Far simpler microbots have been built with no programming, simply feedback of voltage fluctuations in sensors on the legs, built with 12 to 20 transistor driving motors with quasi-periodic oscillators. They not only learned to walk on their own, but some learned multiple gaits, and some "species" developed similarities in behavior. The ones I've seen were developed at Los Alamos by Brosl Hasslacher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brosl_Hasslacher) and shown at Santa Fe Institute in 1999. This article is not about Hasslacher, but is someone from Los Alamos who developed similar devices in the same time frame: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9804/30/t_t/robots / Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Tilden

I believe this device holds the record for minimal design in a robot that learns to walk on its own with no prior programming; four transistors driving Tilden's BEAM design: http://www.seattlerobotics.org/encoder/200205/anco b.htm

All these devices depend on feedback of voltage from the leg drivers as it changes due to reduced resistance from increasingly successful attempts at locomotion. There is no "introspection" involved.

Kids really enjoy problem solving for things that move. This creates a great learning environment.

Even plain old bump-and-turn robots have some very interesting control problems, like getting trapped. THis really helps people extend their problem solving skills.

I also work in real-world robotics (big multi-ton mothers).Sure we use simulations for developing control ideas, but those are pretty limited. You can test out various theories, but simulation only takes you so far. You need the real thing to get the dynamcs correct. For some real fun you want to see a huge robot go out of control.

Some of the most interesting research in robotics is being done at the hobbiest level. Lejos http://lejos.sourceforge.net/ has some very interesting abstractions and models for defining and controlling behaviour. Then there's also http://www.seattlerobotics.org/

Just use a toaster oven.

Who needs flux for SMT? Just use a toaster oven.

Dan East

Think Strogg.

The simple fact is that while we use senses in our bodies to do things, the similar versions for robots and autonomous vehicles are crude, expensive, and no-one is quite sure how to make them work the way we think they should. Computer vision is becoming a big thing, and despite the millions of people working with it or on it around the globe, there is still no standard way to immitate what a biological organism does with one eye, let alone two.Then there is that inner-ear thing, and this tells us many things: if we are vertical, falling, rising, moving forward or sideways... Our eyes do way more than a movie camera does. People are only now beginning to understand how many ways that we analyze the visual data presented to us through our eyes.

Fortunately the problems of autonomous underwater vehicles similar to planes and they are not as bad as the problems faced by ground-based vehicles. On the surface, there is so much to run into, get stuck on, fall off of etc. Just writing some code to keep a toy robot from getting stuck under the kitchen table is a huge task without boatloads of sensory data and processing power.

The tasks these vehicles are trying to accomplish ARE that difficult, well, using animal brains might help.

There are two groups you can try if you are interested in finding out more about hobbyists that are working on these problems http://www.dprg.org/ and http://www.seattlerobotics.org/index.php. There are many others, of course, but these two are fairly active groups.

The first thing to realise there are plenty of technology related hobbyists around the world, although most are not high profile and some may be different very different demographics than yourself.

Some (hobby) groups to consider looking towards for ideas and help include: woodworkers, metalworkers (hobbyists using micromills and mini-lathes from TaigTools and Sherline, etc.), model railroads, model aircrafts (static and RC), robotics, amateur radio (ham), 2600, LUGs, and Artist Run Centres/Communities

Random list of some I use or know of:
  Make magazine http://www.makezine.com/
  Instructables http://www.instructables.com/
  ARRL http://www.arrl.org/
  http://www.sparkfun.com/ (check out their tutorials)
  http://www.fpga4fun.com/ / http://www.knjn.com/
  QRP-L http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/qrp-l/>
  GQRP http://www.gqrp.com/
  http://www.pololu.com/ (cheap stencils laser cut, e.g. 3x4 for $32)
  http://www.diyaudio.com/
  http://www.digikey.com/ (if you're still buying electronics from Radio Shack, get these 3 catalogs now!)
  http://www.mouser.com/
  http://www.jameco.com/
  the ton of various surplus/NOS dealers online
  http://www.frontpanelexpress.com/
  http://www.seattlerobotics.org/
  http://www.chibots.org/index.php
  DorkBot
  http://eyebeam.org/production/production.php?page= tools
  MIT CBA FAB http://fab.cba.mit.edu/
  http://www.leevalley.com/
  http://www.smallparts.com/
  http://www.danssmallpartsandkits.net/
  http://www.wmberg.com/
  http://www.acklandsgrainger.com/
  http://www.grainger.com/
  http://www.onlinemetals.com/
  http://www.amqrp.com/
  http://www.princessauto.com/
  http://www.sherline.com/
  http://www.taigtools.com/

A toaster oven is not special equipment.

SOIC chips and 1206 parts are easy to deal with, while SSOP and 0805 take a little dexterity. If you can make the jump to SMD, you'll find a new world of tinkering opens up to you. Best of all, no more drilling!

Just don't sneeze, a $100 of parts could disappear.

YES, this task is THAT hard. If the military could simply throw money at the problem and get the solution, there would be no DARPA Grand Challenge competition at all.

The simple fact is that while we use senses in our bodies to do things, the similar versions for robots and autonomous vehicles are crude, expensive, and no-one is quite sure how to make them work the way we think they should. Computer vision is becoming a big thing, and despite the millions of people working with it or on it around the globe, there is still no standard way to immitate what the human does with one eye, let alone two. Humans have that inner-ear thing, and this tells us many things: if we are vertical, falling, rising, moving forward or sideways... Our eyes do way more than a movie camera does. People are only now beginning to understand how many ways that we analyze the visual data presented to us through our eyes.

The problems of autonomous ground vehicles are greater than that of planes because there is so much to run into, get stuck on, fall off of etc. Just writing some code to keep a toy robot from getting stuck under the kitchen table is a huge task without boatloads of sensory data and processing power.

The tasks the DARPA GC vehicles are trying to accomplish ARE that difficult.

There are two groups you can try if you are interested in finding out more about hobbyists that are working on these problems http://www.dprg.org/ and http://www.seattlerobotics.org/index.php . There are many others, of course, but these two are fairly active groups.

"most of our clients are now asking questions that require approximate or probabilistic answers.'"

Fuzzy Logic

Doesn't the story go that the Feigenbaum constant was discovered because he moved away from computers, not onto them? Or was that Lotfi Zadeh and fuzzy logic?

• 8 bucks each, from any number of suppliers
• Single-chip solution - the only external components are an 8 MHz crystal and 2x 22pf capacitors
• DIP package - fits into Radio Shack solderless breadboards nicely
• It's fast - a whopping 2 MHz
• 256 bytes of RAM, and a 2K EEPROM for program storage
• 16 lines of digital I/O, 8 ADCs, input compare and output compare timer lines, 2 serial ports, and a few other nicities

brain ?? what have you been smoking lattely ? Bugs are simple and stupid :
http://www.seattlerobotics.org/encoder/200205/anco b.htm
http://www.seattlerobotics.org/encoder/200205/abio nin.htm

brain ?? what have you been smoking lattely ? Bugs are simple and stupid :
http://www.seattlerobotics.org/encoder/200205/anco b.htm
http://www.seattlerobotics.org/encoder/200205/abio nin.htm

With a toaster oven of course.

--

like Artificial Nervous COntrolled Beetle

Does your laptop have a parallel port? Here, here, and here are good places to look for schematics/project ideas. You can scavenge stepper motors out of dead hard drives and floppy drives. Here's a nice project that demonstrates building DC drive controller w/proportional speed control. Neat! I haven't built any such animals since my C64 and TI-994/a were new and shiny.

Also, here is a list of other home-built robot projects on the web. They are interesting, however many of them are not as complex as this person's robot.

Some interesting projects include: OmniPede and TuteBot.

Also, here is a list of other home-built robot projects on the web. They are interesting, however many of them are not as complex as this person's robot.

Some interesting projects include: OmniPede and TuteBot.

The Seattle Robotics Society has sumo competitions.

I have seen a few of these competitions in my area (Denver/Boulder, CO). All of the ones i have seen seem to follow the rules that the Seattle Robotics Society created.

However, it seems that fuzzy logic can have slightly different meanings in different contexts. Seatle Robotics: A Fuzzy Introduction explains that fuzzy logic lets a machine arrive at a definite conclusion "based upon vague, ambiguous, imprecise, noisy, or missing input information".

The introduction then goes on to explain that:

"FL incorporates a simple, rule-based IF X AND Y THEN Z approach to a solving control problem..."

This completely condtradicts the Popular Science article, so either one is incorrect or the meaning of FL is kind of.... fuzzy....

Stop me if I'm wrong, stop me if I'm wrong

However, it seems that fuzzy logic can have slightly different meanings in different contexts.

A telescope or a radio, perhaps,

I can personally vouch for the radio. It is MUCH cheaper to buy a cheap little AM/FM radio than to build one. Try running down to Radio Shack and buying up all the parts you need to build a decent-sounding radio for under $10 (breadboard or circuit board, it really doesn't matter).

However, a good electronics technician has the ability to take an old broken stereo, yank all the good parts, and throw together a working model for a fraction of the cost of buying one. But then again, they generally end up looking something like this.

I wonder if a BGA part is amenable to the toaster oven solution? I have a temperature controlled toaster oven in the garage, I'll give it a try.

...just like all the TV shows, they're not robots, they're all remotely controlled. If you want to see a real robotics competition, go see the Trinity College Fire-Fighting Home Robot Contest in Hartford, CT in a couple weeks. There's also a few throughout the country sponsored by local clubs such as Seattle Robotics.

Don't get me wrong, FIRST is great. I wish it was available when I was in high school! And Dean Kamen is my hero...

• Skatebot - A Cheap Fun Development Platform
  Robert Jordan hacks up a toy to use as a robot base.
• "Build Your Own Robot!" (book), by Karl Lunt
  excellent book discusses mid-level robotics. Practical robots made from everyday components are featured in a realistic manner.
• FirstBot
  Good discussion, with in-depth instructions on building a few robots from simple materials.

If you really want to know how to build autonomous robots, there are several competitions with the same level of excitement as Battlebots et al, but with the added benefit that you can imagine it might eventually be a good thing to turn the resulting machines loose in the real world.

For instance, Robot Sumo is quite popular in Japan and the US. You can find the rules and links to competitions at Sine Robotics. Another big competition is the Trinity College Fire-Fighting Home Robot Contest, wherein robots navigate a known maze (a model house floorplan) to put out a fire (simulated by a lit candle).

Another nice thing about these competitions is they can be cheaper to get into than Battlebots (less heavy iron and welding). And there are lots of good people and organizations who can help you climb the learning curve. Just a few of my favorites are the Seattle Robotics Society, The Robotics Club of Yahoo, Raleigh Triangle Amateur Robotics Group, Portland Area Robotics Society, Robotics Society of Southern CA, and the San Francisco Robotics Society of America.

Finally, here's a few places you can find parts, books, plans, kits, and lots of links: Mondo-Tronics, Acroname, and Robot Books.com.

Others who are doing robotics can be found via searches, or by following the links on most robotics clubs pages. I'm directly involved with Twin Cities Robotics. There are a bunch of others around the country, Portland Area Robotics (PARTS), Seattle Robotics Society (SRS), Triangle Amateur Robotics, Dallas Personal Robotics Group, Central Illinois Robot Club, Home Brew Robotics, and San Francisco Robotics Society of America to name a few.