HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro)
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Subject: Re: Help for Technical Report from CMU
Date: 5 Jan 1993 00:36:39 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: boom.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <58252@dime.cs.umass.edu> connolly@piglet.cs.umass.edu (Christopher Ian Connolly) writes:
>
>
>I have nothing against technical reports as a means of rapidly disseminating 
>information, but as you yourself point out, they're not peer-reviewed, and I
>maintain that they're not consistently accessible enough to cite.  Besides,
>the report in question was from 1986, and if it were of high enough quality,
>wouldn't it have been published elsewhere by now (see, e.g., Kevin Dowling's
>post)?
>

Does someone lose priority on a research idea presented in a technical
report, if it turns out they are unable or unwilling to publish in a
journal or conference? This isn't an idle question by any means, I
believe the original formulation of the backpropagation learning
algorithm, in Paul Werbos's Ph.D. thesis in 1974, never appeared
anywhere but in a TR-report thesis. This turn of events caused much
controversy when the algorithm was independently developed by several
different other groups in the late 1980's.
From: caprio@hardy.u.washington.edu (Robert Olsen)
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Subject: Ram with Micro-C on Miniboard?
Date: 11 Jan 1993 23:21:42 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: hardy.u.washington.edu
Keywords: RAM,Micro-C,Miniboard

I'm using the Miniboard with Micro-C.  It works great... except:
   How does one use any of the 68HC11's internal RAM from within
   a Micro-C routine?
Every variation I've tried results in variables allocated directly
with the program in EEPROM.
Should I give up and just use Assembly?

-Robert Olsen
From: raoul@eplunix.UUCP (Nico Garcia)
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Subject: Re: A gaggle of geese, a pride of lions, a pack of wolves...
Date: 10 Jan 93 13:27:44 GMT
Organization: Eaton-Peabody Lab, Boston, MA

In article <1993Jan8.194122.4639@e2big.mko.dec.com>,
wood@drift.dec.com (John F. Wood) writes:
> 
> 
> How about a Robbie (sp?) of Robots?
> 

Nah. Try an Asimov of Robots....
-- 
			Nico Garcia
			CIRL/MEEI
			eddie.mit.edu!eplunix!raoul
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
From: jrichard@cs.ulowell.edu (John Richardson)
Subject: Re: 6.270 boards - any more out there?
Organization: /usr/ug/1993/jrichard/.organization
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:04:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.164717.14464@microsoft.com> jony@microsoft.com (Jonny Yeargers) writes:

   Is anyone considering another production run of these boards
   for non-MIT types? Did anyone buy one that they no longer want?
   I would love to get further into this project. 


I'm _consitering_ it.  However, it depends if 
	1) ULowell allows me to (from within the school)
	2) I have time
	3) it is within my ability.

I really want a 6.270 board, so that is tempering my consiterations.  I'm
still waiting for mail from the guy who did the last batch so I can see
how much work it is.


John Richardson                |  "the more we live, the more we learn, 
jrichard@cs.ulowell.edu        |   the more we know... for each of us the road
jrichard@dragon.ulowell.edu    |   is clear, and life has just begun" -- Yes
                                  


Newsgroups: comp.robotics
From: epperson@adobe.com (Mark Epperson)
Subject: Re: A gaggle of geese, a pride of lions, a pack of wolves...
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:47:00 GMT

In article <1340@eplunix.UUCP> raoul@eplunix.UUCP (Nico Garcia) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.194122.4639@e2big.mko.dec.com>,
>wood@drift.dec.com (John F. Wood) writes:
>> 
>> 
>> How about a Robbie (sp?) of Robots?
>> 

 A Socity of Robots
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Subject: Re: A gaggle of geese, a pride of lions, a pack of wolves...
From: heffron@falstaff.css.beckman.com (Matt Heffron)
Date: 11 Jan 93 22:19:01 GMT
Reply-To: heffron@falstaff.css.beckman.com
Organization: Scientific Services, Beckman Instruments, Inc.

In <1993Jan11.164735.16552@ee.ubc.ca> markm@ee.ubc.ca (mark milligan) writes:

>In article <1340@eplunix.UUCP>, raoul@eplunix.UUCP (Nico Garcia) writes:
>> 
>> Nah. Try an Asimov of Robots....
>I vote for this one! It is a great tribute to a great man.
>Lets here from anybody else who feels the same way.

My vote also.
But I also came up with a "Gort of robots" :)
--
Matt Heffron                      heffron@falstaff.css.beckman.com
Beckman Instruments, Inc.         voice: (714) 961-3128
2500 N. Harbor Blvd. MS X-11, Fullerton, CA 92634-3100
I don't speak for Beckman Instruments unless they say so.
From: connolly@pooh.cs.umass.edu (Christopher Ian Connolly)
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Subject: Re: How to send robots to Erebus, Mars ?
Summary: am I PONTIFICATING yet??
Keywords: Erebus, microrovers, Dante
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:42:28 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Two more cents: The debate over "microvers" (whatever they are) and
"not microvers" seems to miss the mark here, in my opinion.

In article <C0nwnE.1w2.1@cs.cmu.edu> lalit+@CS.CMU.EDU (Lalitesh Katragadda) writes:
>   The primary purpose of Dante was not to build a Robot but to fulfill
>   a mission that was till now not possible (see below).

If data collection on Erebus is the objective, then Dante's primary
purpose was not achieved, right?  The conclusion is "well, we learned
something", which is nothing to sneeze at, but it again begs the
question: why couldn't you do all this on a suitable environment in
Pittsburgh?

>   a) Proximity sensors ...
>   b) A unique polar laser range finder...
>   c) Teleoperation...
>   d) Software for robot simulation...
>   e) A science package...
>   f) A new kind of walking mechanism...

All are good goals, but none of this seems to require a trip to
Antarctica.  Only (e) appears to be directly *related* to the stated
objective.  Could some simpler scheme have been used to collect data?
Why wouldn't 1 or more tethered radiosonde balloons work?

I don't know very much about this project, aside from the press
releases, but it seems to me to be two separate projects (robot
development and Erebus data) inappropriately crammed into one.
Admittedly, I'm a naive spectator, but that's the way it looks on the
surface.
-- 
	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Christopher Ian Connolly			connolly@cs.umass.edu
Laboratory for Perceptual Robotics		wa2ifi
University of Massachusetts at Amherst		Amherst, MA 01003
From: connolly@piglet.cs.umass.edu (Christopher Ian Connolly)
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Subject: Re: Help for Technical Report from CMU
Date: 4 Jan 93 23:57:29 GMT
Reply-To: connolly@piglet.cs.umass.edu (Christopher Ian Connolly)
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Originator: connolly@piglet.cs.umass.edu



In article <C097xD.9y8.1@cs.cmu.edu>, dstewart+@cs.cmu.edu (David B Stewart) writes:
|> First of all, our university library has many technical reports from
|> other universities, as they are considered appropriate for citation.

Your library has tech reports *because* they are considered appropriate for 
citation?  More likely, faculty asked for and possibly paid for the library's 
collection.  That doesn't mean they're appropriate to cite.

|> Second, it is always possible to obtain a copy of a technical report
|> at no cost, simply by contacting the department and university directly.

This is not universally true.  Many universities charge money for technical 
reports.  Moreover, at some universities, the publication of tech. reports
is sporadic.  

I have nothing against technical reports as a means of rapidly disseminating 
information, but as you yourself point out, they're not peer-reviewed, and I
maintain that they're not consistently accessible enough to cite.  Besides,
the report in question was from 1986, and if it were of high enough quality,
wouldn't it have been published elsewhere by now (see, e.g., Kevin Dowling's
post)?

In any case, my complaint is that the reviewer told the author to cite the tech. 
report (which as it turns out is apparently obsolete).  I suppose I wouldn't have
a problem with an author citing tech. reports if the author were willing to send
the reviewers copies of the report.
-- 
	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Christopher Ian Connolly			connolly@cs.umass.edu
Laboratory for Perceptual Robotics		wa2ifi
University of Massachusetts at Amherst		Amherst, MA 01003
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
From: rg@msel.unh.edu (Roger Gonzalez)
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Subject: Re: sensorsystems for underwater
Date: 10 Jan 93 13:02:26
Organization: Denning Mobile Robotics
NNTP-Posting-Host: nymph.msel.unh.edu
In-reply-to: edorff@iw.uni-hannover.de's message of 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.


My old lab at UNH does nothing except work in this area.  Basically, for
references, read just about anything in the Journal of Ocean Engineering.

UNH, MIT, Florida Atlantic, University of Washington and others all do
underwater robotics.

-Roger




--
ARTIFICIAL FLOWERS:  Pieces of plastic and metal, crudely fashioned to
  bear a limited, superficial resemblance to real flowers, but with no
  credible attempt to match their internal complexity in terms of form,
  function, or behavior.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: Really smart computers.

Roger Gonzalez - rg@msel.unh.edu     (508) 658-7800 (fax -2492)
Denning Mobile Robotics, 21 Concord Street, Wilmington MA 01887
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
From: schuch@phx.mcd.mot.com (John Schuch)
Subject: Re: A price quote F.Y.I.
Organization: Motorola Computer Group, Tempe, Az.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:11:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.022851.25813@news2.cis.umn.edu> rogers@staff.tc.umn.edu () writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.160700.28746@phx.mcd.mot.com> schuch@phx.mcd.mot.com (John Schuch) writes:
>>I got the following quotes for mechanical parts from 4 of the bigger
>>suppliers. I thought the net might be interested.
>
>
>I won't dispute any of your figures, but in the older BERG catalogs they 
>listed prices for everything and I picked a component line based on price.
>(and everything in the book was strong enough for my needs)
>

My BERG catalog is brand new. When I called for the quote, I asked them
for a price list and was told that they are not made available. Not offering
price lists to go along with catalogs is a MAJOR pet peeve of mine.

I'm also kind of impressed with McMaster's no minimum order.

My current project requires moving a 48 Lb. load so I figured using steel
drive components was a prudent decision. Next time I need lighter duty
drive elements, I plan on doing a simular price comparison. I'd also
be interested in hearing anyone elses results.

John


-- 
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| John R. Schuch  -  Motorola Computer Group  -  Manufacturing Engineering |
| N7XVS - schuch@phx.mcd.mot.com - (602) 438-3008 - CompuServe: 70733.3330 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
From: wpns@miki.pictel.com (Willie Smith)
Subject: Re: How to Explore Mars
Organization: PictureTel Corporation
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:07:35 GMT

In article <GERRY.93Jan8231255@onion.cmu.edu> 
	gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>system reliability.  This is not true because one can not assume a
>priori that the failure modes are independent.  That is, if the robots
>are identical, and one of them fails in a particulr manner, this
>implies that the others will also be prone to that particular failure
>mode.

Unless the 'failure modes' are on the order of "I've fallen and I
can't get up!".  This also assumes all of the small machines are
identical and will haev the same failure mechanisms.  Multiple,
co-operative machines are more likely to be able to help each other
out of tight spots.  Unfortunately, multiple machines also seems to
imply smaller ones.

>From a technical viewpoint, the major drawback to small robots in
>telemetry.

This one is trivial to solve, the mother ship that lands the smaller
robots has the large antennas, high power amplifiers, and even a lot
of the 'brains' of the multiple smaller rovers in it's vicinity.

>These micro rovers would be incapable of meaningful scientific
>exploration. 

I think everyone is setting up straw robots for the other side's
viewpoint.  Possible rover sizes range from the CMU Ambler and the
Army's (future?) teleoperated bulldozers all the way down to the MIT
microbots and Drexler's nanomachines.  My own feeling is that a small
number (say 3 to 6) of medium sized (say 3-4 feet on a side) vehicles
can be very useful, but then that's the size vehicle I built for my
Simulated Lunar Teloperations projects, and the _major_ size
constraint on that was that it had to fit in the back of a VW Golf!

Willie Smith
wpns@pictel.com
-- 
Willie Smith     wpns@pictel.com     N1JBJ@amsat.org
"That's the wonderful thing about crayons, they can take
you to more places than a starship."  Guinan - STNG
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
From: markm@ee.ubc.ca (mark milligan)
Subject: Re: A gaggle of geese, a pride of lions, a pack of wolves...
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:47:35 GMT

In article <1340@eplunix.UUCP>, raoul@eplunix.UUCP (Nico Garcia) writes:
> In article <1993Jan8.194122.4639@e2big.mko.dec.com>,
> wood@drift.dec.com (John F. Wood) writes:
> > 
> > 
> > How about a Robbie (sp?) of Robots?
> > 
> 
> Nah. Try an Asimov of Robots....
> -- 
> 			Nico Garcia
> 			CIRL/MEEI
> 			eddie.mit.edu!eplunix!raoul

I vote for this one! It is a great tribute to a great man.

Lets here from anybody else who feels the same way.


markm@ee.ubc.ca
From: collins@emperor.gatech.edu (Tom Collins)
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Subject: Re: GET A LIFE!
Date: 4 Jan 93 22:57:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Dec31.185903.15219@mixcom.com> Clint.Laskowski@mixcom.mixcom.com (Clint.Laskowski) writes:
|>In <C04q71.n24.2@cs.cmu.edu> fitz@frc.ri.cmu.edu (Kerien Fitzpatrick) writes:
|>
|>>I don't know about others, but if all this group is going to be is a
|>>pissing match about miniboard kits then let's get another group going
|>>or send these guys off to a miniboard group.
|>
|>>This is COMP.ROBOTICS ----- not comp.miniboards.where's.my.order.
|>
|>[ more drivel deleted ]
|>
 [ Clint's drivel deleted ]
|>
|>So why don't you just ignore the posts if you don't like 'em?
|>
|>How do others feel?
|>
|>- Clint

Why bother asking how others feel?  You certainly don't give much
consideration to K. Fitzpatrick's opinions, which were right on
target.  See also D. Stewart's opinions, with which I also agree.

There's no reason the miniboard can't be mentioned, but it has long
ago grown tiresome.  Use private email to coordinate your orders, or
set up a new group.  A great deal of patience has been shown so far,
mainly because it was frequently pointed out that no one was making
much money (or that they were in fact losing money). But IBM's not
making much money now, either, and we don't allow them to post sales
pitches or coordinate their shipping on the net.  Financial transactions
are just not appropriate, nor are complaints from customers, etc.

-- 
Tom Collins                               tom.collins@ee.gatech.edu
Georgia Institute of Technology           (404) 894-2509
400 Tenth St. NW, CRB 384
Atlanta, GA  30332-0540
From: sharkey@robots.ox.ac.uk (Paul Sharkey)
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Subject: NIST email addr sought
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:01:27 GMT
Organization: Robotics Research Group, Engineering Science Dept, Oxford, UK.
Originator: sharkey@oberon.robots


I am looking for email address for National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.

More specifically: Robotics Systems Division

Even more specifically: John Fiala, Ronald Lumia, Karen Roberts or
                        Albert Wavering

Can anyone out there supply me with clues!

Thanks.

Paul.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul M Sharkey                      Office:  +44 (0)865 273 150   
Reactive Vision Laboratory          Lab:     +44 (0)865 273 168
Robotics Research Group             Fax:     +44 (0)865 273 908
Dept Engineering Science  
Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PJ          Email:   sharkey@uk.ac.oxford.robots
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
From: bsmall@iat.holonet.net (Brad Smallridge)
Subject: PICs
Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:13:45 GMT

PIC UPDATE 

Last month I wrote an article on PICs, Programmable Integrated
Circuits, and placed the article in several robot newsletters 
and also on USENET, an electronic news service. The response, 
especially from USENET, has been useful.  

First of all, we can forget about the Motorola 68L705. I
was told that after the current supply of parts is depleted, 
the 68L705 will no longer be available.  On the other hand, 
Microchip is strengthening its PIC line with an advancement 
over the PIC16C5x series called the PIC16C71 including these 
new additions:

 * Four 8-bit A/D Inputs 
 * Four Interrupt Sources 
 * Eight Level Hardware Stack 
 * Programmable On-board Pull-up Resistors 

The addition of Analog to Digital Converter Inputs makes 
the chip much more attractive. I can imagine several more 
applications using the analog capabilities. Too bad there is 
no Digital to Analog Converter. The external Interrupt 
allows an outside occurrence to trigger an action by the PIC 
as well as an internal timer Interrupt capability. The stack 
is eight deep getting rid of an annoying limitation on the 
16C5x series that are only two deep. And the programmable 
Pull-up simplyallows you to use fewer components in your
design -- a nice touch.  

Microchip also expanded the internal instruction word from 
12 bits to 14 bits. This cleaned up the instruction set. For
example, the Jump instruction can go anywhere in the 1K 
program memory without regard to what page it's on. Also the 
registers are all addressable without selecting register 
banks. These improvements create cleaner and faster code.

The new PIC requires a programmer upgrade from Parallax 
which cost $99 and is available now. My costs now are up to 
about $350 total. There are no Parallax ICE or emulators 
available yet. The PIC16C71 chips themselves are hard to get 
and right now and are only available on a sample basis. I 
suggest you call Microchip and get information on the office 
nearest you. 

Microchip Technology (602)963-7373 
Microchip (Sunnyvalle Office)(408)436-7950 
Trinity Technologies (Sunnyvalle) (408)733-9000 
Parallax,Inc (916)721-8217 

Brad Smallridge 
Phone (415)550-0588 
FAX (415)550-0411 
BBS (415)648-6427
EMAIL bsmall@holonet.net
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Xref: sparky comp.robotics:2828 sci.space:19061
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: comp.robotics,sci.space
Subject: Small vs. Large Rovers (was Re: How to Explore Mars)
Date: 9 Jan 93 02:13:13
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world
	<1993Jan8.230824.12476@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
	<GERRY.93Jan8231255@onion.cmu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu
In-reply-to: gerry@cmu.edu's message of 9 Jan 93 04:12:55 GMT

In article <GERRY.93Jan8231255@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>The
>question of using small robots versus large ones is almost a religious
>question.  The greatest failing of those proposing small robots is the
>naive assumption that using multiple, small robots increases overall
>system reliability.  This is not true because one can not assume a
>priori that the failure modes are independent.  That is, if the robots
>are identical, and one of them fails in a particulr manner, this
>implies that the others will also be prone to that particular failure
>mode.

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

That having been said, I'll have to come down on the "small rover"
side of the debate.  (I'll admit to being biased, since I spent a
summer working with the JPL microrover group.)

The failure modes may not be independent, but at least the failure
occurrences are.  Suppose there is a 10% chance that a certain failure
will render a robot immobile sometime during its lifetime.  If you
have a single large rover, you have a 10% chance of losing the rover.
If you have ten microrovers, you will probably lose one, but you only
have a 1% chance of losing all ten of them.

The other advantage of multiple rovers is the ability to obtain data
from several sites at different locations on the surface of Mars.

>From a technical viewpoint, the major drawback to small robots in
>telemetry.  To transmit a signal from Mars, you need a moderately
>large antenna and a bunch of power, if you want reasonable data rates.

How about putting a satellite in Mars orbit and using it as a relay
between the rovers and Earth?  Would that solve this problem?

It seems to me that the primary disadvantage with small rovers is
their inability to carry large scientific payloads.  My opinion is
that this disadvantage is outweighed by the advantages above, but I
suppose it depends upon one's particular interests in research and
exploration.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________
From: drs@col.hp.com (Don Simmons)
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Subject: Re: How to send robots to Erebus, Mars ?
Date: 12 Jan 1993 14:24:41 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpctdkg.col.hp.com

      I wonder - if you sent a 'mother' which was an orbiter (two for 
     redundancy ) and then made the 'rovers' less complex but more
    able to move and do fewer tasks -  couldn't you fit more of 'em
    on board and increase the chances of success and continued 
    viability of the experiment?

     The 'mother' which was an orbiter would avoid the problems of the antenna 
    placement and power ( you could use a nuke reactor cheap from the 
     Soviet space program right now as hard up as they are for cash)
    and if you were to go for an economy orbit to get it there (2 years 
      or so isn't it?) you might really allow for a lot more 
     money going into more rovers.
                                        Don

Newsgroups: comp.robotics