http://www.pddnet.com/news-photos-of...sses-041811%2f

Peeve: calling those things "robots". They're remote controlled
vehicles. If I was a real robot, I'd be ****ed by the pretentiousness
of those RC's.

Bob

"Bob Engelhardt" wrote in message
...
Peeve: calling those things "robots". They're remote controlled vehicles.
If I was a real robot, I'd be ****ed by the pretentiousness of those RC's.

Bob

It's the same company that makes the Roomba. They ought to send in a swarm
of those little suckers and just vacuum the whole place up. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Apr 18, 1:37*pm, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
Peeve: calling those things "robots". *They're remote controlled
vehicles. *If I was a real robot, I'd be ****ed by the pretentiousness
of those RC's.

Bob

Don't get me started on that. I just gave that lecture to a
"technology" teacher at a high-end private elementary school a couple
of days ago.

On Apr 18, 12:37*pm, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
Peeve: calling those things "robots". *They're remote controlled
vehicles. *If I was a real robot, I'd be ****ed by the pretentiousness
of those RC's.

Bob

A good robot would never think that way -- at least the ones with
properly functioning positronic brains.

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Bob Engelhardt" wrote in message
...
Peeve: calling those things "robots". They're remote controlled vehicles.
If I was a real robot, I'd be ****ed by the pretentiousness of those RC's.

Bob

It's the same company that makes the Roomba. They ought to send in a swarm
of those little suckers and just vacuum the whole place up. d8-)



They would last only a minute or so...

--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~capri26

Peeve: calling those things "robots". They're remote controlled
vehicles. If I was a real robot, I'd be ****ed by the pretentiousness of
those RC's.

Bob

What is your definition of robot? Sort of with arms and legs etc? Think
for itself?

Jordan wrote:

What is your definition of robot? Sort of with arms and legs etc? Think
for itself?


Autonomy. Even if it's simple-minded. E.g., "Go down the hall".

Bob

Bob Engelhardt wrote:

Peeve: calling those things "robots". They're remote controlled
vehicles. If I was a real robot, I'd be ****ed by the pretentiousness
of those RC's.

Bob

I have maintained, programmed and troubleshot real robots for a couple decades. The
yellow ones made by Fanuc previously by GMFanuc. While there is fancy electronics,
wonderful mechanical engineering, they can't do much more than do the same thing time
after time. Our current 710i does have vision, it can orient a part so we can insert it
into a lathe chuck.

What they need at the reactor site is robot technology in the form of being able to
articulate and manipulate end effectors while guided by a human via a video link.

Btw, Roomba builds EOD robots, they are not a joke.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 07:44:08 +1000, Jordan wrote:


Peeve: calling those things "robots". They're remote controlled
vehicles. If I was a real robot, I'd be ****ed by the pretentiousness of
those RC's.


What is your definition of robot? Sort of with arms and legs etc? Think
for itself?

Yeah, Bicentennial Man.

--
If only he'd wash his neck, I'd wring it.
-- John Sparrow

Wes wrote:
Bob Engelhardt wrote:

Peeve: calling those things "robots". They're remote controlled
vehicles. If I was a real robot, I'd be ****ed by the pretentiousness
of those RC's.

I have maintained, programmed and troubleshot real robots for a couple
decades. The
yellow ones made by Fanuc previously by GMFanuc. While there is fancy
electronics, wonderful mechanical engineering, they can't do much more
than do the same thing time
after time. Our current 710i does have vision, it can orient a part so we
can insert it into a lathe chuck.

What they need at the reactor site is robot technology in the form of
being able to articulate and manipulate end effectors while guided by a
human via a video link.

If it has a human driver, it simply is NOT a robot. It's a servo.

If it were a robot, you'd simply tell it what the task is, and it would
figure out how to get it done without human intervention, except, of course,
for the guy who tells it what the task is.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

Rich Grise wrote:

If it has a human driver, it simply is NOT a robot. It's a servo.

If it were a robot, you'd simply tell it what the task is, and it would
figure out how to get it done without human intervention, except, of course,
for the guy who tells it what the task is.

au·tom·a·ton
noun \o?-?tä-m?-t?n, -m?-?tän\
plural au·tom·atons or au·tom·a·ta\-m?-t?, -m?-?tä\
Definition of AUTOMATON

1: a mechanism that is relatively self-operating; especially : robot
2: a machine or control mechanism designed to follow automatically a predetermined
sequence of operations or respond to encoded instructions
3: an individual who acts in a mechanical fashion

Which definition do you like, it seems like robot is a bit of a open term. Fanuc, ABB,
Kawasaki, et all would argue for the second definition and I've worked for #3 w/o any joy.

Then there is this:

Definition of ROBOT
1: a machine that looks like a human being and performs various complex acts (as walking
or talking) of a human being; also : a similar but fictional machine whose lack of
capacity for human emotions is often emphasized b : an efficient insensitive person who
functions automatically

2: a device that automatically performs complicated often repetitive tasks

3: a mechanism guided by automatic controls

Current widespread techology is a not an autonomous machine

Wes

Wes wrote:
...
Then there is this:

Definition of ROBOT
1: a machine that looks like a human being ...

Looks are not relevant to me, but probably are to some people.

2: a device that automatically performs complicated often repetitive tasks

3: a mechanism guided by automatic controls

Ah, "industrial robots". Often seen on auto assembly lines. Moving,
placing, welding. But mainly these are really CNC machines. If they
are without feedback, they really are no different than a CNC machining
center. But if part of the task is finding an object, say, then they're
borderline robotic.

Current widespread techology is a not an autonomous machine

This is semantics, of course. My main problem with calling CNC machines
"robots" is then what do you call an autonomous machine?

Bob

Bob Engelhardt wrote:
Wes wrote:

This is semantics, of course. My main problem with calling CNC machines
"robots" is then what do you call an autonomous machine?

Bob


The Japanese use the word robot for any semi-intelligent machine.

It doesn't have to walk around, drink cervesa and smoke cigars like Bender.

The word robot is from the Czech word robota, implying slave labor.



--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~capri26

"CaveLamb" wrote in message
m...
Bob Engelhardt wrote:
Wes wrote:

This is semantics, of course. My main problem with calling CNC machines
"robots" is then what do you call an autonomous machine?

Bob


The Japanese use the word robot for any semi-intelligent machine.

It doesn't have to walk around, drink cervesa and smoke cigars like
Bender.

The word robot is from the Czech word robota, implying slave labor.

Back in the late '70s, when the world was ga-ga over the enormous number of
"robots" the Japanese claimed to be using in industry (the number, IIRC, was
55,000), we became the "emporer has no clothes" voice at _American
Machinist_ by pointing out that the vast majority of them were
pick-and-place loaders that, basically, went in and out. g

They have a loose definition of the word. But, in industry, autonomous
robots hardly exist. Many of the loaders were cam-operated. Most today are
multi-axis programmable, but not autonomous.

--
Ed Huntress




--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~capri26

CaveLamb wrote:
Bob Engelhardt wrote:
Wes wrote:

This is semantics, of course. My main problem with calling CNC machines
"robots" is then what do you call an autonomous machine?

The Japanese use the word robot for any semi-intelligent machine.

It doesn't have to walk around, drink cervesa and smoke cigars like
Bender.

The word robot is from the Czech word robota, implying slave labor.

http://jerz.setonhill.edu/resources/RUR/

Cheers!
Rich

Rich Grise wrote:
CaveLamb wrote:
Bob Engelhardt wrote:
Wes wrote:
This is semantics, of course. My main problem with calling CNC machines
"robots" is then what do you call an autonomous machine?
The Japanese use the word robot for any semi-intelligent machine.

It doesn't have to walk around, drink cervesa and smoke cigars like
Bender.

The word robot is from the Czech word robota, implying slave labor.

http://jerz.setonhill.edu/resources/RUR/

Cheers!
Rich



You have to give me a teaser to get me to wonder into no-man's land, Rich.


--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~capri26

Ed Huntress wrote:
"CaveLamb" wrote in message
m...
Bob Engelhardt wrote:
Wes wrote:
This is semantics, of course. My main problem with calling CNC machines
"robots" is then what do you call an autonomous machine?

Bob

The Japanese use the word robot for any semi-intelligent machine.

It doesn't have to walk around, drink cervesa and smoke cigars like
Bender.

The word robot is from the Czech word robota, implying slave labor.

Back in the late '70s, when the world was ga-ga over the enormous number of
"robots" the Japanese claimed to be using in industry (the number, IIRC, was
55,000), we became the "emporer has no clothes" voice at _American
Machinist_ by pointing out that the vast majority of them were
pick-and-place loaders that, basically, went in and out. g

They have a loose definition of the word. But, in industry, autonomous
robots hardly exist. Many of the loaders were cam-operated. Most today are
multi-axis programmable, but not autonomous.



Exactly!
But by the Czech standard, even cam operated machines could techically
be called robots... Machine slave labor.

The only "real" robots (by Rich's definition) are lab curiosities.


--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~capri26

CaveLamb wrote:

http://jerz.setonhill.edu/resources/RUR/

Cheers!
Rich



You have to give me a teaser to get me to wonder into no-man's land, Rich.

Rossum's Universal Robots

CaveLamb wrote:

The word robot is from the Czech word robota, implying slave labor.

Which is exactly what they are in an industrial setting. No breaks, lunch, time off,
holidays, or union.

Wes

On 04/18/2011 05:49 PM, Wes wrote:

What they need at the reactor site is robot technology in the form of being able to
articulate and manipulate end effectors while guided by a human via a video link.
Right. In the complete chaos of these wrecked plants, they don't need
any equipment that THINKS it knows what to do, they need something that
can be stopped instantly when it runs into something unexpected, then
let the guys who know the plant best figure out what they are seeing and
what to do about it. Real robots make a lot of sense on Mars or other
far-away places where communications have long delays or can be
interfered with. In this case, it will be take things very slow, first
just look around and video everything, then they may have to MAKE or at
least customize machines to deal with the mess before moving to the next
step.

If the radiation in some parts of the plants are not too bad, they can
send people in to work on stuff. Where the radiation IS bad, they can
figure out how to mitigate it, or they have to use "robots" for all the
work at those spots.

Jon

CaveLamb wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:
CaveLamb wrote:
Bob Engelhardt wrote:
Wes wrote:
This is semantics, of course. My main problem with calling CNC
machines "robots" is then what do you call an autonomous machine?
The Japanese use the word robot for any semi-intelligent machine.

It doesn't have to walk around, drink cervesa and smoke cigars like
Bender.

The word robot is from the Czech word robota, implying slave labor.

http://jerz.setonhill.edu/resources/RUR/

You have to give me a teaser to get me to wonder into no-man's land, Rich.

Rossum's Universal Robots, by Karel Capek, written in Czech in 1920,
translated to English in 1923, that defines "Robot" for the first time.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

responding to
http://www.rittercnc.com/metalworkin...ve-500423-.htm
DA wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:

If it has a human driver, it simply is NOT a robot. It's a servo.

Oh, c'mon - human language (reluctant to say English 'cause robot is not
an English word and, additionally, it's the same word in pretty much every
language) can accommodate for much more flexibility in terminology than
you give us, humans, credit for. We would understand from the context
which type of machine this is. More to the point, when you say "servo" in
this very forum, you'll make people think of a hefty black cylinder that
has a rotating shaft and a bunch of wires coming out of it. Some people
may also think of the controller that drives it. When you say "servo" in
an RC forum, you'll make people think of a small rectangle box with three
wires coming out. And so forth. Also, there are many "servos" in one
industrial "robot". Then what do you call an industrial robot, a "servo
array"? This is exactly a kind of accuracy in terminology that makes
understanding what you're talking about more difficult, not less.

It is generally understood and has been since early 1960s that a "robot"
is a machine (mechanical device) that's expected to do something useful
(hence the name) in place of a human. The exact type of control system and
the degree of human involvement hasn't really been a part of the word's
meaning. The only time you'd call a manipulator "a manipulator" is when
you actually see both the arm and the human driving it making the same
moves. The very same device activated by a program instead would be called
robot by most of us human beings despite the fact that all it's doing is
recalling positions it was driven to by a human earlier.


If it were a robot, you'd simply tell it what the task is, and it would
figure out how to get it done without human intervention, except, of
course, for the guy who tells it what the task is.

What you are describing is Artificial Intelligence and it does not yet
exist, at least not in a way that would be applicable to any work done in
a chaotic environment of a damaged nuclear station. At this point in time
the guy describing the task has to break it down to so many elemental
mini-tasks that if you looked at any of them individually, you'd see no
difference between a robot that moves "intelligently" (ASIMO?) and the
robot that just repeatedly picks up a part from a lathe.

So, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if we are to use the word
"robot", we have to allow inclusion of less intelligent machines in its
meaning because, frankly, less intelligent is all we have at this point.
Additionally, all human languages work towards word simplification over
time. I guarantee you, you cannot instill "remote manipulator" instead of
"robot" simply because it's harder to say.

And "servo" is not a good replacement either. Although etymologically both
words mean a similar thing (one in Romance languages, another in Slavic),
they both lived their lives differently, so to speak, and came to mean
different things.

So, I'm still for "U.S. *ROBOTS* Enter Damaged Reactors..."

--
DA in PA

What he is saying is that it's not a MOVIE robot...

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:19:18 -0500
CaveLamb wrote:

What he is saying is that it's not a MOVIE robot...

Here's an interesting article that can be added to the topic:

"Welcome to the future, where robots park your car"

http://www.mlive.com/business/west-m..._where_ro.html

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI/Zone 5b
Remove no.spam for email