Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Photos of the Day: U.S. Robots Enter Damaged Reactors, Prevent Human Losses
|
#2
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Photos of the Day: U.S. Robots Enter Damaged Reactors, PreventHuman Losses
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 |
#3
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Photos of the Day: U.S. Robots Enter Damaged Reactors, Prevent Human Losses
"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 |
#4
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Photos of the Day: U.S. Robots Enter Damaged Reactors, PreventHuman Losses
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. |
#5
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Photos of the Day: U.S. Robots Enter Damaged Reactors, PreventHuman Losses
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. |
#6
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Photos of the Day: U.S. Robots Enter Damaged Reactors, PreventHuman Losses
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 |
#7
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Photos of the Day: U.S. Robots Enter Damaged Reactors, PreventHuman Losses
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? |
#8
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Photos of the Day: U.S. Robots Enter Damaged Reactors, PreventHuman Losses
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 |
#9
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Photos of the Day: U.S. Robots Enter Damaged Reactors, Prevent Human Losses
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 |
#10
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Photos of the Day: U.S. Robots Enter Damaged Reactors, Prevent Human Losses
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 |
#11
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Photos of the Day: U.S. Robots Enter Damaged Reactors, Prevent Human Losses
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 |
#12
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Photos of the Day: U.S. Robots Enter Damaged Reactors, Prevent Human Losses
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 |
#13
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Photos of the Day: U.S. Robots Enter Damaged Reactors, PreventHuman Losses
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 |
#14
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Photos of the Day: U.S. Robots Enter Damaged Reactors, PreventHuman Losses
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 |
#15
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Photos of the Day: U.S. Robots Enter Damaged Reactors, Prevent Human Losses
"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 |
#16
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Photos of the Day: U.S. Robots Enter Damaged Reactors, Prevent Human Losses
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 |
#17
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Photos of the Day: U.S. Robots Enter Damaged Reactors, PreventHuman Losses
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 |
#18
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Photos of the Day: U.S. Robots Enter Damaged Reactors, PreventHuman Losses
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 |
#19
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Photos of the Day: U.S. Robots Enter Damaged Reactors, Prevent Human Losses
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 |
#20
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Photos of the Day: U.S. Robots Enter Damaged Reactors, Prevent Human Losses
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 |
#21
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Photos of the Day: U.S. Robots Enter Damaged Reactors, PreventHuman Losses
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 |
#22
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Photos of the Day: U.S. Robots Enter Damaged Reactors, Prevent Human Losses
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 |
#23
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Photos of the Day: U.S. Robots Enter Damaged Reactors, Prevent Human Losses
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 |
#24
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Photos of the Day: U.S. Robots Enter Damaged Reactors, PreventHuman Losses
What he is saying is that it's not a MOVIE robot...
|
#25
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Photos of the Day: U.S. Robots Enter Damaged Reactors, PreventHuman Losses
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Houses built by robots are in the works. | Home Repair | |||
robots | Woodworking | |||
FS: 1985 era Cinncinati Robots | Metalworking | |||
Nuclear reactors | Metalworking | |||
Japanese robots | Home Ownership |