Are humanoids made from a blind man?
Are humanoids made from a blind man?
·
I take a peculiar interest in humanoids, and I do my best to engage in videos with them, as well as read information about them, but over and over again I am disappointed.
·
Every time I look at a new humanoid I see the same robot and the same mistakes. Each one is made with the same idea: stick some rods on a servo and make it walk. What sort of ingenuity does it take to make such a creature?
·
Many people say we just don’t have the technology yet, that we need more technology to make them work. Others just think it needs more programming for it to work just right. But over and over the same results happen, and a robot with little walking capability and balance is created. You really think a little more programming will do the trick? Well, go ahead, try it. But you will fail, because over and over you make the same mistakes. And this is what makes you blind.
·
On every humanoid I’ve seen, a gyro is used to give them balance. If humans don’t need gyros, than why should a humanoid? Because it is a short cut, it is a way to hide the inexplicable fact that we, roboticists, do not truly have the answer, and as a result we try to cover it up. Over and over I see it eco through all aspects of robotics. Each time a robot’s incapability is excused by the fact that it doesn’t have enough memory, or we just don’t have the ability to drive electronics that far, and it will take new technologies before we can make such robots truly capable for the tasks we dream of. But the truth is out there, robots can be capable of doing such tasks as running, walking, and even excel in decision making and logic. But over and over we pull ourselves down, looking at what others have done, and we base the capabilities of our own robots on what we see, preventing us from moving higher, farther, and making robotics something normal in society, something more than just nerd’s play. When will we truly see, to make robotics better than it is? This is a question I truly like to seek, and one I truly hope to find.
·
You may wonder why I would do such a thing as question what many experts believe. After all, I am only sixteen. I virtually have no experience compare to them. And what is my answer? I truly do not know. Robotics is just a dream, and an area I excel in. However, I do not have any firm background to my beliefs, it is just how I feel about the area I love, but I hold firm to it, and I hope you can understand it. And if at all possible, please share your thoughts and feelings.
·
Derrick Huestis
·
I take a peculiar interest in humanoids, and I do my best to engage in videos with them, as well as read information about them, but over and over again I am disappointed.
·
Every time I look at a new humanoid I see the same robot and the same mistakes. Each one is made with the same idea: stick some rods on a servo and make it walk. What sort of ingenuity does it take to make such a creature?
·
Many people say we just don’t have the technology yet, that we need more technology to make them work. Others just think it needs more programming for it to work just right. But over and over the same results happen, and a robot with little walking capability and balance is created. You really think a little more programming will do the trick? Well, go ahead, try it. But you will fail, because over and over you make the same mistakes. And this is what makes you blind.
·
On every humanoid I’ve seen, a gyro is used to give them balance. If humans don’t need gyros, than why should a humanoid? Because it is a short cut, it is a way to hide the inexplicable fact that we, roboticists, do not truly have the answer, and as a result we try to cover it up. Over and over I see it eco through all aspects of robotics. Each time a robot’s incapability is excused by the fact that it doesn’t have enough memory, or we just don’t have the ability to drive electronics that far, and it will take new technologies before we can make such robots truly capable for the tasks we dream of. But the truth is out there, robots can be capable of doing such tasks as running, walking, and even excel in decision making and logic. But over and over we pull ourselves down, looking at what others have done, and we base the capabilities of our own robots on what we see, preventing us from moving higher, farther, and making robotics something normal in society, something more than just nerd’s play. When will we truly see, to make robotics better than it is? This is a question I truly like to seek, and one I truly hope to find.
·
You may wonder why I would do such a thing as question what many experts believe. After all, I am only sixteen. I virtually have no experience compare to them. And what is my answer? I truly do not know. Robotics is just a dream, and an area I excel in. However, I do not have any firm background to my beliefs, it is just how I feel about the area I love, but I hold firm to it, and I hope you can understand it. And if at all possible, please share your thoughts and feelings.
·
Derrick Huestis
Comments
At sixteen, you're full of dreams of what can be done and should be done and this is right and proper. If you choose to learn more about what people have already discovered about robotics and the brain, you will be in a position to add something or lots of somethings to what we know and can do. The same thing can be said about physics or chemistry or biology in general or medicine to name just a few fields.
Those that are truly experts also are experts in knowing our limitations, not in what we can and can't do, but in how long it might take and how difficult it may be. Perhaps using a gyro in a humanoid may provide a shortcut that allows someone to develop other capabilities that would otherwise require the development of a balance sense organ like our own plus real-time visual analysis of an arbitrary environmental reference frame plus new micro-sensors for positional sensing of joints and forces developed by artificial muscles that we don't even have yet. Sometimes we need to nibble away at the edges of what we can almost do now, to push the boundaries back a little bit at a time, but with many different efforts at the same time.
When you get to college, make sure you take a course or two on the history of science. It's fascinating to look at something like robotics or computers from a historical perspective, to see how things that we take for granted now were built up layer by layer, sometimes with false starts, sometimes with almost miraculous jumps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww
It doesn't use servos either, although it probably does have a gyroscope.
Ahem, robots are in society all around us. We just constantly redefine what we mean by robots to be more advanced than what we have around us. At one time, a house that automatically detected intruders would be considered a dangerous robot, but now we just call it an alarm system and complain about the hassle. Take a look at embedded electronics, there's alot there.
And I daresay that the only reason 'we' base the capabilities of our own robots on what others have done is that we like to stand on the shoulders of giants. Designing new systems takes lots of time and expertise, and to rely on others is absolutely essential. Even something so mundane as an operating system can have millions of lines of code. All in all, a humanoid is a complex system that takes time, effort and energy to develop. Doing so with off the shelf components allows a hobbyist to spend less time researching and debugging and more time showing off. After all, it's a hobby, not a profession.
Post Edited (SRLM) : 3/28/2009 5:17:48 AM GMT
Flash to a few years ago when robots could not even walk. The ultimate roboticists dream was making a humanoid that could walk with human qualities. Thanks to some companies that invested millions of dollars over 20 years of research and work, walking robots are now possible. Thanks to RoboOne that literally invented the hobbyist walking robot at a relatively affordable price.
The things you want with humanoids are now being developed. We must take small steps before we can gain the momentum to quantum leap. I assure you, within your lifetime, humanoid robots will evolve into the most amazing and mind dazzling creatures.
Look in your visions and dreams - they work alongside us, they walk the streets unattended running errands, they make house deliveries, do assembly work, baby sit and become household members totally indispensable in families, work as secretaries and do janitorial work, become security guards, they enlist in the military, they play team soccer better than humans and win the world cup, they create other humanoids, they evolve into thinking machines, at some point they gain cognition and ask the meaning of life.
Laws are passed to protect humanoids with rights. The world is going to dramatically change. It will provide more leisure time for humans. The C3PO of Star Wars movie in the 1970s will become the walking data base and communications language translator of the 2050s. Already we are beginning to see a glimpse into this future. Japan has humanoids that look human, greet people, give speeches, walk and run, play soccer, do acrobats, Tai Chi, Kung Fu, Karate, connect to internet, play with children, teach, play piano, violin, drums, the trumpet, sing, and literally something is new every week.
While SETI is a program that searches the Universe for intelligent life, we firmly believe that you will get to see that discovery of new life, not from SETI, but from within the realm of our own humanioid creations.
Yes, young friend, have patience and do not become disappointed, for you are the lucky one who will see all of your dreams come true. I suggest taking up a Parallax robot like the penguin and make some new and innovative contributions that take us farther along on the path of this great and fantastic journey.
humanoido
For a boy, I had been doing extraordinary things, which caused much wonder. Before I could walk, I could play on the piano, with one finger, any tunes that I heard, then, gradually, with all fingers, even the complex melodies played by blind Mr. Maynard, who, to me, was the greatest man in all the world. Mr. Maynard lived in the dark but walked and talked with God in the Light. And what the soul of Creation told his Soul, he told me – and I walked and talked with God in those early days in His wonderlands of Peat Meadow and the huge oaks down in Bachelder’s wilds where nobody went but me, for no one else in all My World heard what I heard there – nor saw what I saw there – so it was mine alone, all that glory just mine alone.
Walter Russell
Post Edited (humanoido) : 3/28/2009 8:56:54 AM GMT
Most of a humanoids walking capability lies in the feet. However, this is the area most roboticists try to simplify. A good example would be to look at the feet of the robot in Humanoido's picture. They are just flat boards. Now what about our own feet? Far different, don't you think? But it is always simplified more than it should be, and this is why I like to·call their producers "blind".
I truly love robotics, so naturally I love to think about them, and that includes comparing their design to the natural world. With humanoids, this is easy. Every time I walk I can compare them to myself, and this is what I've noticed:
Humanoids lack toes. So what, toes are small. They shouldn't be able to do much, right? Wrong, and this is the reason many compare the walking of a humanoid to a baby. When you stand straight, you have large feet to support you, making it easy to stay balanced. However, when you're walking and your foot goes back, it is better if your foot is smaller to give it more rolling motion, making it a smoother transition. However, when your foot goes forward and your support is transitioned on it, it is better if your foot is larger, allowing you to keep your balance better. This is one of the reasons why we can take larger steps than humanoids, and why it is difficult for them to walk smoothly.
Pressure vs. Position- We, humans, use pressure·to control·our feet, not precise positioning like humanoids. In fact, our Achilles tendon will naturally have tension when we stand on it. This helps us keep our balance while we stand--without using muscle power. Humanoids Use position instead, so you will find they instead will bend their knees, moving their center of balance more to the middle of their feet. Big deal, right? Not necessarily. In humans, we constantly use pressure in our feet to counter balance the weight of our body. In humanoids, they are forced to shift the entire position of their body instead. This is where gyros come in place (the spinning kind, Sylvie). The problem with gyros, however, is it causes the robot to walk more rigidly, which prevents it from being able to walk on rough surfaces like we can, because it can not move it's upper body as well to change it's center of balance to do so.
There are many other reasons why humanoids aren't as capable as we are, however those are just the ones that stick out in my mind. If you want more, you'll just have to wait until I publish a book on it (not really).
Now that I have said all of this, I hope it answers all of your questions. If not, just bring it up again.
@Mike: I do choose to learn more about what other people have already discovered, and some of it echoes back·my own thoughts. One article I remember reading in a PopSci·magazine was a synthetic leg which increased the mobility of those who were missing one. It used a spring-powered toe on the front of the foot to make it more natural to walk in. Unfortunately, though, I feel most roboticists (mostly in the commercial market) are too blind to see such advancements and use them in area such as robotics, using them to do such things·as to·increase humanoid mobility.
@SRLM: the robot you are talking about falls under the "Pressure vs. Position" category.
@Humanoido: I think too many companies are wasting too much money on robotic research. If you want an example, look at Asimo. How much of him is really robotic excellence, and how much is just to "show off" their humanoid? Sometimes I feel that if they put the same amount of time into putting it on display as they do with debugging it, they would have a perfect humanoid by now. As for the future of robotics, I find most peoples fictitious visualizations of humanoids creepy, however I do see a potential future for humanoids in the military, and this is what I plan to attempt after completing college.
@Sylvie: Is what I said above good enough for you?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
PG
You might want to take a look at Mark Elling Rosheim's Leonardo's Lost Robots. He expressed many of the frustrations you do and his doing a lot of interesting work to address those concerns.
His company's website Ross-Hime Designs has some interesting info and video·too.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Whit+
"We keep moving forward, opening new doors, and doing new things, because we're curious and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths." - Walt Disney
Post Edited (Whit) : 3/29/2009 12:51:13 AM GMT
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
- Stephen
Here's a similar problem that nature has solved creatively: have you ever noticed that when you're jogging, despite the fact that your head is bouncing up and down like mad, you can still read billboards in front of you? Imagine trying to make a robot whose vision was capable of that kind of feat while being jolted around like that. It turns out that the input from those semicircular canals is connected fairly directly to the three pairs of ocularmotor muscles that control the pointing of our eyeballs to give them the information they need to remain pointing steadily forward despite the often dramatic movements of our heads.
http://www.iworx.com/LabExercises/lockedexercises/LockedEOG-LS2.pdf
http://www.citeulike.org/user/tyrell_turing/article/3108310
Post Edited (sylvie369) : 3/29/2009 2:56:49 AM GMT
@Franklin: I disagree. Although humanoids are inefficient in energy use compare to wheeled robots, there are future promises for the technology to improve. I recently read an article about an exoskeleton being made for soldiers to wear in the military. Although much of the technology is still out of reach, I did take note of something said which could help the technology for humanoids. What was mentioned in the article was the idea that instead of using motors to directly move the feet forward, they would instead make it function much more like human muscles and use the greatest power to start off a swinging motion, then use just use a small amount of power to keep the foot swinging forward. This concept goes back to "Position vs. Pressure", and can possibly increase the efficiency of humanoids.
You also mentioned the fact that wheeled robots can carry heavier loads and travel faster. I understand this, but you have forgotten the mobility factor. Wheeled robots are normally restricted by objects the size of their wheel radius. Some times they can climb higher if they have four-wheel drive and a powerful engine, however, they still can not climb objects higher than the length of their body. Now what about crevasses? If the robot's center of gravity goes over the edge, you might as well say good bye.
Now how about humanoids? Although humanoids aren't quite there yet, let's visualize them as being somewhat like ourselves. Now what can we do? Lets see..we can climb trees, cliffs, jump over crevasses, handle rough, rocky terrain, swim, et cettera. Once humanoids reach their true potential, they will truly be more capable than wheeled robots, as well has have fewer limitations. Now, being the person I am--somebody who loves the idea of robots in the military--humanoids sound like the perfect choice. Although I like the concept of humanoids being capable enough to do such tasks, I still think much of the research for them is a waste of time and money. This may sound like I am contradicting myself, but truly, I am not. I am merely sticking to my morals. A good way to take a look at what I dislike is by watching what the Japanese have done. Much of their humanoid research has been poured into the visual appeal of their creations, as well as they do their absolute best to try and cover up every humanoid problem I mentioned above using software. If you watch videos of their robots, many of them move very smoothly and gracefully. The only problem is, their robots still have the same problems, and are still very incapable. Would you call this research? Hardly! It's only purpose is to show off what we are currently capable of, and none of it even tries to solve the problems, making their newer, smoother robots as worthless as their last one! And to cover up the truth that their humanoid is not very capable, they call it "research" and talk about making the next one better! How can it be better when they don't even bother to increase it's functionality from the last one they made? I have no clue, but this is why I consider much of what is being done in the field of humanoids as a "waste of money".
@Mike: Yes, some of what is being done can be beneficial, however I still feel much of it is just a waist, and it saddens me to see so little being done to improve them from what they are now, rather than just taking what little we have and attempting to make it appear better than it is, stalling us from being able to move forward and advance humanoid technology.
@Sylvie: It's quite interesting to hear that you are psychology teacher on top of loving electronics. In my mind, any psychology teacher who has a passion for electronics just has to be a good one! I guess this would explain how Mike can be such a great help on these forums, wouldn't it, Mike?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
PG
Post Edited (Pi Guy) : 3/29/2009 5:31:32 AM GMT
I think you're being overly critical of the work being done that appears to be mostly for appearance, but is quite serious and much more important than you might think. You feel that the Japanese robots are not very capable and they seem to spend much too much time and effort on appearance and smooth and graceful movement. While a lot of the publicity tends to focus on very superficial things, the actual work underneath is very sophisticated. Smooth and graceful movement is very difficult to accomplish and is important for things like efficient ambulation let alone utiiity (like picking up and carrying objects).
By the way, the word is "waste", not "waist".
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
PG
On the contrary, it's the software that makes up for the hardware. A humanoid robot will (at least in the near future) almost certainly require precision machining to build a perfect structure. That's fine for something in a lab, but what about commercial? Then, you want to use the cheapest parts possible (with as poor of a machinist as you can get). That's where software comes in: run a calibration routine to take care of any errors in hardware, and once complete all robots will operate identically when fed identical input, regardless of any hardware quality issues. There was a IEEE article last fall about a swarm mapping project that used many identical (rolling, granted) robots that used this technique. The fact of the matter is that it's easier and cheaper to get a high precision with software than with hardware.
I'll mention that as a CS major I may be a little biased in this subject ... [noparse]:)[/noparse]
@Mike, you say I am being too critical of what they do, but I personally believe it must be done at some time or another or no advancements will ever occur. Yes, the Japanese--as well as some Americans and others--have worked hard to create better, more capable robots. And I congratulate them on spending many hours converting all the linear movement of their motors to exponential; however this is just not enough to cut it fore me. I would like to see some "true" advancements in humanoids that don't just lie in the way the processors control the motors, but how the motors function themselves. You treat technology advancements like they should always take a great deal of time, and the effects of them to always be small. What I've been trying to say all along is it doesn't have to be. If you place a spring-loaded bar on the front of a humanoid foot, it can act like a toe. If you connect springs to the motor output shafts of a humanoid's limbs, you can now control it with pressure, rather than position.
All I am trying to say is it should at least be attempted, since such technologies have been proven to work in other areas such as the creation of artificial limbs. The problem is that those with the ability are not attempting it, even though it has been proven to work. And this is why I call such people "blind".
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
PG
·
Pi Guy:
While I agree with a great deal of what you say, I do think your wrong on a few points.
Your "position vs pressure" debate is kind of based on an incorrect concept.
You cannot apply pressure without establishing what position the object applying force
must be in.
For example, you use a linear actuator to press a foot down on a surface... you must
know exactly the position of the foot in space, the position of the leg the actuator
is mounted to and what position the rod of the actuator must go to in order to apply
the needed amount of pressure.
All this requires sensors... some of them could be gyros. Don't be so down on gyros
as they are actually a step in the direction you are wanting to go.
A gyro is a kind of "catch-all" sensor. Instead of tracking the exact position of
each servo in a humaniod to detect its angle and position, you can use a gyro to catch
any unacceptable movement or positions.
In other words, instead of detecting the position of each limb, a gyro detects the
results of applying pressure to each limb.
What I believe is the problem with all modern robotics is the lack of sensors.
Think about it, as humans we have billions of sensors on our skin as well as the other
four senses. For a robot to come anywhere near our level of function, it will need far
more advanced sensors.
If you want to apply pressure to maintain a balance, you'll need a way of detecting that
pressure. The same with gripping, or pushing or any task a robot will need to do.
There needs to be more advances in synthetic "skin" for robots. There needs to be a way
for a robot to detect pressure, heat, cold and movement against its shell in order for
it to do anything like what a human is capable of.
Whit:
That joint is amazing... I just wish they had more movies of the robots moving the "Wrist"
on its own instead of just some guy moving it around.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprioception
There are thousands of sensors for that information spread throughout our bodies. This information is distinct from the various pressure senses that measure how hard a part of the body is pushing against some external object.
The first three of those ("position of the foot...position of the leg...position the rod of the actuator...") are proprioceptive information, which is then combined with simple touch (pressure) information and vestibular (balance) and visual information (which, taken together, tell us if we're at the amount of pressure that is needed, by telling us if we're standing up still or falling over).
·
You must remember, Ugha and Sylvie, sensors are hardware. I am excited to see sensors being well used, as well as a variety being used. In the DARPA grand challenge, only one robot had a camera mounted on it. All the rest depended solely on the use of GPS and laser range finders. As it turned out, the robot with the camera (Princeton University) was able to avoid obstacles better than anyone else (no obstacle collisions), as well as they won the race.
Ugha, you talk about position being used for pressure. Yes, sometimes it is, but not necessarily. Something I didn't mention in the above post but the idea I take the most liking to is using pneumatics. Most of pneumatics is solely dependant on pressure, and some of it is dependant on surface area. Sure, you could use a servo-controlled regulator, however, if you set up the connection of pistons a certain way, you can control your ratio of pressure/speed any way you wish by letting air in and out of different pistons.
I really do not wish to argue about all the different ways position controls pressure, but I'll let you know the main point I'm trying to get at is the output of the limbs need to be in units of pressure, not just being controlled by a motor attempting to drive it to a specific position.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
PG
I hope to soon be able to buy some plans for a steam engine I can use to generate free power from fallen tree branches, trash, and old fence posts (we have plenty of them). However, the main idea of doing so would be to get me familiar with pistons and high pressure before I attempt to use such methods to control a humanoid.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
PG
I find it interesting that you seem to define the term humanoid, as it applies to robots, only to bipedal walking robots. I have always thought the the term humanoid or human-like had a much broader scope.
A robot with two arms, two legs, an articulated head with eyes, ears and a mouth could be considered humanoid based on it's appearance. And if it walks, then it's humanoid in its form of locomotion. But what if I built a robot that was humanoid in appearance that could ride what appeared to be a unicycle? How difficult would it be for you to determine if the unicycle was a balancing wheeled robot with the humanoid robot "doll" attached to give the appearance that it was controling the unicycle just by watching a demonstration? The humamoid portion of this contraption would look very much like it was walking as its feet and legs moved with the wheel.
Likewise, a Seguey with a couple of levers attached to the wheels and a fabric "skirt" would give the appearance of walking when moving. The human mind doesn't have to see legs in order to imagine legs under the skirt if it sees what appear to be "knees" moving the skirt in the same way that real legs and real knees would.
To go one step further (sorry, I couldn't help myself), take the case of the famous HAL 9000 computer from the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. I think most people would characterize it as humanoid or human-like based on its ability to communicate, reason, lie, formulate a murder plan and finally to become paranoid even though it was not humanoid in appearance.
Another familiar example would be Rosie the robot maid from the Jetsons television series. Human-like in every way except that "she" was a wheeled balancing robot.
It's interesting that you make reference to the blind in your subject and several of your posts. How do you think a·sight impaired·person would interpret the term humanoid as it applies to a robot? Do you think that the sight impaired might be more interested in human-like interaction and assistance rather than whether it could walk? I think the field of robotics would benefit from a much broader view when it comes to what defines humanoid rather than the very narrow scope which you've tried to apply here. Would a bipedal walking robot be the best choice as a companion/assistant for a person confined to a wheelchair?
Something else to consider; Maybe humans and therefore humanoid robots are not the best model for bipedal locomotion. It typically takes a human child more than a year to learn to walk upright with any great success while bird chicks are walking on two legs within hours of hatching. Maybe robotics would move along at a pace more to your liking if roboticists concentrated on building avinoid (is that a word?)·or bird-like robots rather than humanoid robots.
For the most part, this has been a very interesting thread and I look forward to additional views on the questions posed here.
Duffer
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
PG
· By the way, if we're correcting spelling, it's "echo" not "eco".
-phar
·
·
By the way, if you now want to move into punctuation then you should underline “Robots that Dynamically Balance” since it is the title of a book.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
PG
http://www.robo-prize.com/
Sure, the Humanoid might get itself torn to peaces, but who wouldn't at least try for $5,000,000?
@Mike: You're right about being·full of dreams, but who wouldn't if given the idea of winning so much money?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
PG
Post Edited (Pi Guy) : 3/29/2009 11:26:53 PM GMT
If your goal is to build an entry for the robo-prize contest, I'm really looking forward to seeing your progress. I think it will be very instructive as we see how you turn your·dreams·into·a real-world construct·and you have the chance to spend more time in the "traction interface". As a wise man once told me: "Learn from the mistakes of others. You can't possibly live long enough to make them all yourself."
Duffer
That robo-prize site makes me skeptical. If they're offering $5M, why can't they move past the HTML? The site is terrible! They don't even use online forms, it's an HTML layout with lines where you're supposed to print it out and write it in. For five million bucks?!?
Next, a steam engine will not be able to power your humanoid (in any reasonable fashion). It's too heavy, it takes too much fuel, and it's very inefficient. That said, it is a good way to learn about all sorts of stuff. I've studied them extensively over the years and even built a sawmill with them superficially powering the system. Unfortunately, model size steam engines (3/8" bore maybe) aren't very strong, especially when you run them on compressed air. Where are you getting your engine? I've got two from PM research and one from Graham industries, and they all work beautifully.
@pharseid
Yep, take a look at the link I posted in my first post.
@ Pi Guy
Princeton never won the Grand or Urban challenge. The Grand was won by Stanford, the Urban by Carnegie. I'd like to point out that although the camera was an integral part of Stanford's design in the second Grand Challenge, it wasn't the solution. They fused the camera data with GPS and laser (most notably) to create an internal model of the world. So, while cameras certainly are important, don't knock the other designs. Take a look at the Urban Challenge: many (most?) of the teams used lasers, GPS, and sonar primarily, with cameras not a critical factor.
@SRLM: It started as 2001 as $1 million, and I guess whoever the rich guy is who is doing it got bored of no results, so he increased the amount to $5 million.
As for the steam engine part, I think I confused you.·Here is a repeat of what·I said:
"I hope to soon be able to buy some plans for a steam engine I can use to generate free power from fallen tree branches, trash, and old fence posts (I have plenty of them). However, the main idea of doing so would be to get me familiar with pistons and high pressure before I attempt to use such methods to control a humanoid."
-what I mean by "such methods" is pneumatics driving pistons in the humanoid, not steam. Clarify it?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
PG
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
PG
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
PG
Correcting spelling or typesetting should (in my opinion) be done with care and definitely not in retaliation. Likewise, I've found that good discussions develop when each 'side' is willing to concede a point in the interests of the greater party. Personal offense is not intended, and doesn't need to be interpreted as such.
Anyway, I'm enjoying the discussion very much.