HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: How to Explore Mars
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 18:11:35 GMT

       The Mt. Erebus operation was very impressive.  But it saddens me to 
see so much of America's best robot expertise wasted on one-of-a-kind 
projects for NASA.  We're not going to catch up with Japan that way.

       When we have lots of mobile robots working reliably on Earth, modifying
one for planetary exploration will be a straightforward job.  But why
waste the research resources working on a low-volume low-payoff application
like Mars exploration?

       Let's face it; Mars isn't that interesting a place.  It's lifeless,
cold, airless, and looks like Arizona.  The effort to find that out was
worthwhile, but further ground-level exploration doesn't seem cost-effective
given current launch costs.  

       It will be interesting to see if the Clinton Administration's
"civilian DARPA" redirects funding in more productive directions.

					John Nagle
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Subject: Re: How to Explore Mars
From: frank@evax2.engr.arizona.edu (Frank Manning)
Date: 11 Jan 93 14:02:35 MST
Reply-To: frank@evax2.engr.arizona.edu
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona, College of Engineering and Mines, Tucson

In article <1993Jan9.181135.21304@netcom.com> nagle@netcom.com (John
Nagle) writes:

>Let's face it; Mars isn't that interesting a place. It's lifeless, cold,
>airless, and looks like Arizona.

If you ask me, that would make it a first-class tourist destination. It
works for us :)

-- Frank Manning                                   --
-- College of Engineering and Mines                --
-- Civil Engineering 100, University of Arizona    --
-- Tucson, AZ  85721  frank@evax2.engr.arizona.edu --
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
From: gratclif@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Gregory W Ratcliff)
Subject: Miniboards IN stock
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:00:05 GMT

I have agreed to keep miniboards in stock as per my December posting.
email or see the miniboard docs on cher.media.mit.edu pub/miniboard/docs.


Greg Ratcliff

-- 
Gregory W. Ratcliff  Ratcliff.8@osu.edu  on the internet   
Columbus, Ohio     ICBM
nz8r@w8cqk 	 on the air
N1697X     	 in the air
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
From: piggy@hilbert.cc.utas.edu.au (La Monte Yarroll)
Subject: Re: A gaggle of geese, a pride of lions, a pack of wolves...
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 01:00:34 GMT

jgm@cs.brown.edu (Jonathan Monsarrat) writes:

>A bevy of 'bots?

>A flock of robots? A herd? A bunch? A school?

>Enquiring minds want to know.

The (polish?) word "robotnik" meant "serf", so how about "village of
robots"?  :-)
--
La Monte H. Yarroll	Home:		piggy@baqaqi.chi.il.us
   Work:		piggy@hilbert.maths.utas.edu.au
   AKA:			piggy@gargoyle.uchicago.edu
   Once upon a time:	postmaster@clout.chi.il.us
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
From: abrown@hpcvcec.cv.hp.com (Allen Brown)
Subject: Re: How to Explore Mars
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Distribution: comp
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:18:33 GMT

> I wonder about 'blending' the two philosiphies... Imagine that you had
> one large, agile, and reasonably intelligent robot, and say, six or so
> smaller less sophisticated ones all linked together via some sort of
> network (on a radio link maybe?).

It costs roughly twice as much to develop and deploy two robot designs
as one.  Can we afford this?  What other project do we have to cut?
--
  Allen C. Brown  abrown@cv.hp.com or hplabs!hpcvca!abrown or "Hey you!"
      Not representing my employer.
    Member of League for Programming Freedom.  Write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
From: mjuric@aisun2.ai.uga.edu (Mark Juric [MSAI])
Subject: Preferences anyone?
Organization: AI Programs, University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 03:06:42 GMT

    I am investigating the availability of experimental robots for our AI 
department.  Could someone recommend a sourcebook of manufacturers or even
give their own personal preferences in different models - sort of a medium
budget wish-list? 
    We are looking for mobility and varied sensory inputs.  Since we will be
dealing with control and decision making issues, the greater its ability to
manipulate its environment, the better.  A grasping appendage is almost a
neccessity.  Any thoughts anyone?

-mark

===                                                                         ===
@  Mark Juric 		                     A.I. Department                  @
@  mjuric@ai.uga.edu                       University of Georgia              @
@                                          Athens, Georgia 30605              @
@                                                                             @
@	"It slipped my mind that I could use my brain"                        @
@                                                                             @
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
From: ac94691@dunix.drake.edu (The Dark Kitty)
Subject: Re: My robot project.
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Distribution: comp.robotics
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 06:48:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.191739.26583@n1gva> fcf@n1gva (F. C. Floberg) writes:
>Will the "brains" be attached to the robot, or will you be using some
>sort of remote control scheme? I ask because it'd seem to be pretty
>hard to debug the control program if you have to chase after the keyboard! :)
>
>I've toyed with the idea of robotic control in the past, and it always seemed
>that the best approach (if not the least expencive) would be to have a station-
>ary computer do the actual decision making, and have a smaller, sencory input
>and low level moter/steering control computer on board. You could the put the
>robot on a lift of some sort (or just CHAIN IT DOWN!) so it won't wheel off
>into the sunset while debugging the software.
>
>I'm into packet radio, so I know the gear for the communications link is abund-
>antly availible (though a bit pricey).
>

Ah!!!  I'm glad you asked because I forgot to mention it!  Yes, you
are absolutely correct.  The onboard computer will be a mother board
from an Apple compatible computer but the actual high level brains
will be a currently unused Mac 512.  The data link will be via modified
(you'll LOVE this) Mr Microphone equivalents that I acquired at close
out prices from Radio (Shack) Rip Off Store for $3.00 a piece!  The
modems will probably just be 300 baud modem chips from any major 
silicon distributor like Jameco etc.  This may ruin my dream of building
a no-cost robot but top price will be around $20 when I'm done if I
really go extravagant!  =-)

BTW, I actually got the plywood cut tonight and did some tests on one
of the radio transmitters.  I think it'll work ok though a 2 way link
will require two frequencies.  Oh well!  It's cheap...  ;-D

Anthony
From: misha@ai.mit.edu (Mike Bolotski)
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Subject: Re: Small vs. Large Rovers (was Re: How to Explore Mars)
Date: 9 Jan 93 17:58:00
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
Distribution: world
	<1993Jan8.230824.12476@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
	<GERRY.93Jan8231255@onion.cmu.edu>
	<YAMAUCHI.93Jan9021313@yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: espresso.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu's message of 9 Jan 93 10:13:13 GMT

>>> On 9 Jan 93 10:13:13 GMT, yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) said:


BY> I'm impressed with what the Ambler group has accomplished, and very
BY> impressed with what the Erebus group accomplished in a very short
BY> amount of time.  I think they deserve a great deal of credit, despite
BY> the unfortunate glitch that ended the test.

I'm sorry, I must have been napping during the Erebus accomplishment.
What did the trip to Erebus do that couldn't have been done on a 30
meter slag heap near Pittsburgh?  Teleoperation?  That could be done
with a programmable delay.

The truly impressive accomplishment is that the robot was built in one
year.  Everyone in the project deserves recognition for that.

But in my opinion, the choice of testing area and testing methodology
was incredibly poor, serving only as a media magnet.  Imagine a
biologist performing an experiment while juggling test tubes on a
trampoline.  If the experiment worked, it would be truly impressive.
Not because of the scientific results, but because the experimenter
overcame the completely unnecessary self-imposed barriers.





--
Mike Bolotski          MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
misha@ai.mit.edu       Cambridge, MA 02139     (617) 253-8170
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
From: jab@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Alan Barrow)
Subject: Re: My robot project.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 00:45:21 GMT
Distribution: comp.robotics
Organization: Hewlett-Packard NARC Atlanta

Regarding buffering and packet radio, the more advanced protocols
(TCP/IP) use an algorythm that optimizes the packet size.

It tries to avoid small packets if possible, but will send them if it is
obvious that more data is not coming. (Nagel "tinygram" algorythym?)

This is discussed in the Comer TCP/IP book.

This allows both small packet (typically interactive) use as well as
large packets (file xfers, etc)

There will always be some latency, however. Even at 56k packet (which I
have connecting my unix machine at home to other ham's machines) it is
an issue, as the key up time for nearly all radios is much longer than a
typical packet. Thus any "non duplex" approach will suffer from this.

I can point you in the right directions for public domain code, etc.

Hope this helps!


 Alan Barrow  km4ba | I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack
 jab@atl.hp.com     | ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched
                    | C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
 ..!gatech!kd4nc!   | All those moments will be lost in time -
         km4ba!alan | like tears in rain. Time to die.          Roy Batty
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
From: hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (John Hagerman)
Subject: Reliability of Multiple Robot Systems
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
	<1993Jan8.230824.12476@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
	<GERRY.93Jan8231255@onion.cmu.edu> <1isqtmINNt53@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:00:44 GMT

Like I said in the original post, I don't want the "How to Explore
Mars" thread to be about reliability; I have therefore started a new
thread to continue the discussion about reliability.

[I don't speak for the Erebus project; the following are my opinions.]
The Erebus project was not intended to explore reliability, so few
conclusions about reliability should be drawn from it.  That Dante
failed at a single point of failure should not be surprising, given
that a fault-tolerant design was not a goal.  Goals must be limited in
every experimental situation.  The main goal of the Erebus was to test
robotic technologies in a real environment; reliability was not a big
concern since people would be there, and so reliability did not need
to be included as a major goal of the project.

gat@forsight2.jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
>
>That using multiple small robots increases realiability is not a "naive
>assumption", it is a theoretically and empirically verifiable fact.  It
>does not matter whether failure modes are independent.  Unless there is
>100% correlation among failures in multiple units (which is never the case)
>having more units will increase the overall system reliability.

This is a simplistic statement, which would lead to a hot debate if
made in comp.risks (where it would be phrased "Four engine airplanes
are obviously safer than two engine airplanes, so why aren't there
more of them?").  Two factors this statement ignores are complexity,
and how to maximize reliability while minimizing cost.  Redundancy is
a very important technique for creating reliable systems, but "mere
redundancy" is *not* enough; it is a lot harder than that.  Food for
thought: multiple robot systems already have the very hard problem of
constructive interaction; might this complicate reliability even more?

[begin personal discussion]

gat@forsight2.jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) also writes:
>...
>You know Jerry, I'm really happy when you shoot your mouth off like this
>because it makes me look diplomatic by comparison.
>...
>There you have it, folks: Jerry Roston cannot think of a solution to
>the telemetry problem, ergo it is impossible to solve.

Why are you being so nasty?  If you have a bone to pick with someone,
do it by email; the rest of us are not interested.

[end personal discussion]

- John
--
hagerman@ece.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
From: gkulosa@world.std.com (Greg A Kulosa)
Subject: Re: Greg Kulosa RSVP
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:56:53 GMT

cb1p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Chris Beasley) writes:

>Greg, are you getting my Email?
>RSVP!

Yes, and I replied to it.

>cb1p@andrew.cmu.edu
>redzone!beez@sunpitt.east.sun.com
-- 
Greg A. Kulosa		|  "If we are to be damned, let's be damned for what
Systems Administrator	|   we really are"    - Jean-Luc Picard
Oberon Software		|___________________________________________________
gkulosa@oberon.com	 One Memorial Drive, Cambridge, MA 02142
From: jmv@minerva.inesc.pt (Jose Velez)
Subject: Re: How to Explore Mars
Organization: INESC - Inst. Eng. Sistemas e Computadores, LISBOA. PORTUGAL.
Distribution: comp
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 10:30:27 GMT

I'm really sorry not to add nothing meaningfull to this discussion but
I don't know what went wrong with the experiment.

   Could anyone sumarize it in a few words, please?

     Thanks 


     Jos'e Velez


Newsgroups: comp.robotics
From: roy@engin.umich.edu (Roy William Feague)
Subject: Re: Mini Board traffic
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 18:12:51 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

I'd just like to lend my support to Fred and other MiniBoard supporters
out there.  The key point is that without MiniBoard traffic, there would
be next to NO traffic on this newgroup, and the number of new people who
are being brought into the circle of robotics experimentation has been
notably increased by the MiniBoard.  While the start-up information swapping
may be irritating to those not involved, the higher-level issues that will
be discussed once these things are built later on will make up for that.
-Roy
From: jack@rml.UUCP (jack hagerty)
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Subject: Re: Walking Machine in Volcano ?
Date: 4 Jan 93 19:08:13 GMT
Reply-To: jack@rml.UUCP (jack hagerty)
Organization: Robotic Midwives, Ltd.

In article <1993Jan4.085327.10164@fzi.de> hesse@fzi.de writes:
>
>I have heard one week ago, that a 8-legged walking machine goes in a volcano  
>crater to investigate the lava sea.
>Have someone further informations or references about this walking machine ?
>All comments are welcomed

It's a shame that your news feed must be incomplete because Ron Baalke
of JPL (sorry if I mangled your name, Ron) has been keeping us entertained
with some wonderful full-length dispatches on Dante (the robot) on this
very newsgroup. Maybe theres an archive you can access for them.

- Jack

=============================================================================
||Jack Hagerty, Robotic Midwives, Ltd.                 jack@rml.com        ||
||Livermore, CA		           NOTE! New, improved address! ^^^        ||
||(510) 455-1143	            (old ones will still work)             ||
||-------------------------------------------------------------------------||
||          " 'Tis a coward I am, but I'll hold your coat"                 ||
||                  - Barry Fitzgerald, _How Green Was My Valley_          ||
=============================================================================
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
From: edorff@iw.uni-hannover.de (Thilo Erdmannsdorff)
Subject: sensorsystems for underwater
Reply-To: edorff@iw.uni-hannover.de
Organization: Institut fuer Werkstoffkunde, Uni Hannover
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 11:24:36 GMT


In connection with a study about "Remotely Operated Underwater Vehicles" 
and "Autonomous Underwater Vehicles" we are searching for information about 
sensorsystems ( sonar etc. ) for such vehicles. We would be very grateful
about literary references, references about manufactures or other information
concerning this subject.

Thanks in advance
		 Thilo



Newsgroups: comp.robotics
From: jgm@cs.brown.edu (Jonathan Monsarrat)
Subject: A gaggle of geese, a pride of lions, a pack of wolves...
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Brown University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 04:28:43 GMT


A bevy of 'bots?

A flock of robots? A herd? A bunch? A school?

Enquiring minds want to know.

-Jon
%! Jon Monsarrat   jgm@cs.brown.edu   Brown University %! Obfuscated PostScript
0 0 moveto 15 setlinewidth(qlllll-??LHHL??llH?hH7t,7olCAHH@)1 setlinejoin{dup
10 mul rotate 80 lt{50 0 rlineto}{50 0 rmoveto}ifelse}forall stroke showpage
From: bleck@aztec.ai.mit.edu (Olaf Bleck)
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Subject: Re: Cheap color sensor
Date: 10 Jan 1993 02:25:16 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
Distribution: world
Reply-To: bleck@ai.mit.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: aztec.ai.mit.edu

In article <1993Jan8.194916.8558@black.clarku.edu>, kbasye@black.clarku.edu (Ken Basye) writes:
|> 
|> I've been wondering lately about how one might build a very simple and
|> cheap color sensor. 

|> My first thought was to use three photoresistors with R, G and B
|> filters (just cellophane, perhaps).  Or perhaps there are tuned
|> versions that would give the same effect.  Better yet, a single
|> tunable photoresistor could be used with 3 consecutive readings.  
|> Are there cheap ways to measure dominant frequency directly?  Etc...


Check out a company called Hamamatsu.  They make a sensor just like this.

It's a rectangular photoresistor about 3x8mm or so in size, with a red,
green, and blue field on it.  The sensor has two differential signals coming
out, and one we had around here seemed to work pretty well.  Don't know the
price, but I don't think it would be out of this world.

BTW,they make a bunch of other high quality sensors dealing mostly with
optoelectronics.

-Olaf
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
From: fcf@n1gva (F. C. Floberg)
Subject: Re: My robot project.
Organization: Evil Weather Machines LTD
Distribution: comp.robotics
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 11:23:11 GMT

tbruseha@hollywood.ems.cdc.com (Tom Brusehaver) writes:
: In article <C0HsFB.BvG@jabba.ess.harris.com> dwilliam@pizza.ess.harris.com (Dave Williams) writes:
: >
: >   Packet radio?  Hummm.  Here's one experience I've had with it:
: ...
: >the packet TNC transmitting into a pair of simple walkie-talkies.  The main
: ...
: >used a remote TV screen to observe the robot's position.
: >
: 
: >   The stumbling block for this system was the radio link.  The packet radio
: >worked very well, except for the fact that it tended to have an extrememly 
: >long latency time.  As a result, commands coming from the control system 
: >
: Most TNC's that I have delt with allow changing packet sizes, and
: transmit character.  Usually the packet size is rather large, and the
: transmit character is return (or linefeed).  When this character is
: recieved by the TNC, the TNC transmitts the current packet in the
: buffer.  
: 
It would seem that the random number generator used to 'decide' when to
transmit a packet in the TNC would render it useless for realtime ops.

You may have to resort to getting the ROM source code from TAPR, modify
it to disable the 'Slottime' (?) randomness and burn new roms. I don't
know about the legallity of this 'mode' on Amateur frequencies, but I'm
sure it'd be impolite to other stations on freq.

My original idea of using a TNC for this kind of work involved using
either NON-amateur freqs, (are the liscence free RC freqs for type accepted
equiptment only?) or the experimental subbands (on 6 and 2 meters?) recog-
nized by the ARRL band plan.

However, before doing ANY of this, I'd check with the ARRL or FCC on the
legallity of such experimental operation. 

: 
: >   Since you're familiar with packet controllers, I'll ask you:  do most 
: >TNC's have a way to specify transmit latency?  If we could get the TNC to

Check your manual on how to set the 'slottime'. It has very much to do with
the random number generator in the TNC.
: 
: Tommy B.

Fred
P.S. Sorry I hacked this article up so much. I must have missed the original.

-- 
Fred Floberg - N1GVA at Evil Weather Machines LTD.
email: ...!uunet!hsi!a3bee2!n1gva!fcf
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
From: hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (John Hagerman)
Subject: How Not to Explore Mars
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
Distribution: comp
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 06:02:05 GMT

Goodness, I didn't want to start a fight.  I was hoping that the
experiment might have sparked some useful thoughts in the minds of
robotics enthusiasts.  I guess I was wrong.

- John
--
hagerman@ece.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
From: fcf@n1gva (F. C. Floberg)
Subject: Re: My robot project.
Organization: Evil Weather Machines LTD
Distribution: comp.robotics
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 19:17:39 GMT

ac94691@dunix.drake.edu (The Dark Kitty) writes:
: I just thought I'd share my current project with anyone interested.
: 
: Currently I am constructing a robot:
: 
A childhood dream! Go for it!

: The brains to control the on/off forward/reverse motor control are
: coming from a Franklin Ace 1200.  The motor control circuitry is out
: of one of the Ciarcia's Circuit Cellar volumes.
: 
Will the "brains" be attached to the robot, or will you be using some
sort of remote control scheme? I ask because it'd seem to be pretty
hard to debug the control program if you have to chase after the keyboard! :)

I've toyed with the idea of robotic control in the past, and it always seemed
that the best approach (if not the least expencive) would be to have a station-
ary computer do the actual decision making, and have a smaller, sencory input
and low level moter/steering control computer on board. You could the put the
robot on a lift of some sort (or just CHAIN IT DOWN!) so it won't wheel off
into the sunset while debugging the software.

I'm into packet radio, so I know the gear for the communications link is abund-
antly availible (though a bit pricey).

: I know it sounds like junk, but it has one virtue:  it's costing me
: nothing.  =-)  And it should be sufficient for chasing the cat or
: frightening small children.  ;-D
: 
I dunno. I'd say that your ideas have merit.

: Just thought I'd let you all know.
: 
: Anthony Clifton
:
Fred Floberg - N1GVA
email: ...!uunet!hsi!a3bee2!n1gva!fcf