The future has arrived...
-
I kept waiting for it to get pissed off and hit the guy.
Yeah, seriously. It looked like the robot left pissed off...which is exactly how the Terminator is born...thanks hockey stick guy, you just doomed the world... :doh:
I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as my telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer figure out how to use my telephone - Bjarne Stroustrup The world is going to laugh at you anyway, might as well crack the 1st joke! My code has no bugs, it runs exactly as it was written.
-
I dunno about bi pedal, maybe 3 or 4 leg would be a good idea... although bi pedal use less space, smaller surface on the ground so it's not a complete waste.. But recovering from stumble is essential! What's the point of a robot which can't do anything because it can't reach its destination and break fragile stuff as it falls (all the time)?!
All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar DirectX for WinRT/C# since 2013! Taking over the world since 1371!
Recovering from a stumble is only essential if you have a robot that stumbles - which all bipedal robots do (see some of the hilarious footage from robot trials around the world!) My point was that the effort should be going into finding inherently stable configurations which don't stumble rather than slavishly adhering to the bipedal method just because it looks more human. This needn't take up much more space especially if the centre of gravity can be kept low.
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
-
Recovering from a stumble is only essential if you have a robot that stumbles - which all bipedal robots do (see some of the hilarious footage from robot trials around the world!) My point was that the effort should be going into finding inherently stable configurations which don't stumble rather than slavishly adhering to the bipedal method just because it looks more human. This needn't take up much more space especially if the centre of gravity can be kept low.
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
-
very impressive but I can't help feeling we'd be a lot further on if a little less effort was wasted on human-like characteristics (bipedal walking is a really stupid way of getting around, let's face it). All that work on recovering from stumbles that it really doesn't need to make could surely have been better spent?
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
Make Tachikomas instead?
-
Oooooh ... you're gonna make it angry!
-
I would guess the problem is the battery use. Because bipedals need several times less energy on the same distance than 4-legged creatures. At least, that's what I read about why humans are bipedals.
vtokar wrote:
bipedals need several times less energy on the same distance than 4-legged creatures
The study which suggested this compared only humans and chimps. It confirms that human beings walking on two legs are more energy efficient than chimps walking on four and also, for the most part and to a lesser degree, than chimps walking on two. But as chimps are already halfway between quadriped and biped, with their arms significantly far along the track towards becoming useless as legs, all the study really tells us is that humans are better at being humans than primates at a stage of evolution a few steps behind humans which .. you know ... duh! There are so many disadvantages to bipedal walking in terms of wear on joints, the need for additional supporting framework such as ligaments and tendons, pressure on the feet, balance and stability issues caused by raising the centre of gravity, and a dozen other consequences from having our vertebra in a shaky column rather than a nice self-supporting, suspended arch, that it's not easy to believe that a little energy efficiency gain is sufficient evolutionary advantage to explain it entirely if at all.
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
-
very impressive but I can't help feeling we'd be a lot further on if a little less effort was wasted on human-like characteristics (bipedal walking is a really stupid way of getting around, let's face it). All that work on recovering from stumbles that it really doesn't need to make could surely have been better spent?
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
A major reason to make it bipedal is because much of our surrounding is foundationally geared towards human habitation. If all we're going to do is make these things walk about in open space then I see your point. Ultimately the goal is to have these things be among people without having to make special provision for them (think stairs, aisles, doors etc.)
-
Oooooh ... you're gonna make it angry!
I wonder what it said as it went out the door... "I'll be back"? I may not last forever but the mess I leave behind certainly will.
-
vtokar wrote:
bipedals need several times less energy on the same distance than 4-legged creatures
The study which suggested this compared only humans and chimps. It confirms that human beings walking on two legs are more energy efficient than chimps walking on four and also, for the most part and to a lesser degree, than chimps walking on two. But as chimps are already halfway between quadriped and biped, with their arms significantly far along the track towards becoming useless as legs, all the study really tells us is that humans are better at being humans than primates at a stage of evolution a few steps behind humans which .. you know ... duh! There are so many disadvantages to bipedal walking in terms of wear on joints, the need for additional supporting framework such as ligaments and tendons, pressure on the feet, balance and stability issues caused by raising the centre of gravity, and a dozen other consequences from having our vertebra in a shaky column rather than a nice self-supporting, suspended arch, that it's not easy to believe that a little energy efficiency gain is sufficient evolutionary advantage to explain it entirely if at all.
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
Bipedal, not overweight.
-
I wonder what it said as it went out the door... "I'll be back"? I may not last forever but the mess I leave behind certainly will.
I figure it's thinking, "Where's that S.O.B.'s car?"