Are they really robots?

[Ether]

Originally Posted by RoboMaster

It certainly wouldn't be a robot if it was completely mechanical parts.

again, why?

if it has a power source, and sensors, and actuators, and a computer to process the signals from the sensors and send commands to the actuators, why is it not called a robot simply because it has no electrical or electronic parts ?

[PAR_WIG1350]

Originally Posted by RoboMaster

It certainly wouldn't be a robot if it was completely mechanical parts. That's a machine or tool. I'd think that would be too direct to be a robot.

Not neccessarily, if the mechanism is designed to react in response to stimuli (read as forces) in a way that could be considered interaction, that might be debateable. Remember, People have built mechanical computers before, not much needs to be done from there to get a robot.

EDIT: Autonomy is more direct than remote control. why then does a MORE direct system disqualify the device as a robot?

[Rick TYler]

A robot is any object that passes inspection.

[RoboMaster]

Ok, I see where you're getting at. You're right, I guess that would count, but that's like a really specific ambition project for no electronics, like what I mentioned before:

I know what can be done with just mechanics, but I'd be pretty impressed if you were able to make a full fledged "robot" like a hobby robot out of just mechanical parts.

But what I was talking about was more general, like my other example:

...if you scrapped all electronics on your FRC robot, had a really long hand crank with a universal joint that gives power to the wheels, and a similar hand crank for directly altering the steering. That's more of a very fancy mechanism.

PAR_WIG1350 said

if the mechanism is designed to react in response to stimuli (read as forces) in a way that could be considered interaction, that might be debateable.

I would take that to be a mechanism that has interaction (with forces), not something that interprets signals and "thinks" on some level.

He also said

Autonomy is more direct than remote control. why then does a MORE direct system disqualify the device as a robot?

That's confusing to me. Autonomy is more direct in that there's no "middleman," but it's more *complex* in that the robot really thinks and decides. When I say more direct, I mean less thinking/interpreting signals and just direct movement/action.

Hope that helps; does that portray my ideas?

[JamesCH95]

Originally Posted by RoboMaster

That's confusing to me. Autonomy is more direct in that there's no "middleman," but it's more *complex* in that the robot really thinks and decides. When I say more direct, I mean less thinking/interpreting signals and just direct movement/action.

Hope that helps; does that portray my ideas?

This is where you're getting tripped up I think. A program that makes a decision is executing a series of equations and performing an action based on the answer. There is no reason why a mechanism couldn't be designed to perform the exact same calculation and take the exact same action based on the answer. The reason that it's not done normally in real life is complexity, size, and efficiency.

Check out this very cool machine that uses several "binary mechanical computers." These computers are programmed by placing pins in different locations, but they are computers none the less. Their final machine will use sensors to synchronize the clock with the rising sun through the use of shape-memory alloy wire and a very unique lens.

[MrForbes]

Might be off topic a bit, but consider the carburetor, vs electronic fuel injection. The carburetor is a relatively simple mechanical device that uses some pretty basic principles to meter fuel quite accurately under many different operating conditions. EFI uses a computer, several sensors, several actuators, a sort of complicated program, and calibrated lookup tables to do the same job.

I doubt either is really a robot, but the analog mechanical device is my favorite if I'm the one paying for and maintaining the thing.

[Ether]

Originally Posted by squirrel

Might be off topic a bit, but consider the carburetor, vs electronic fuel injection. The carburetor is a relatively simple mechanical device that uses some pretty basic principles to meter fuel quite accurately under many different operating conditions. EFI uses a computer, several sensors, several actuators, a sort of complicated program, and calibrated lookup tables to do the same job.

Or consider a gas turbine engine fuel control. Up until about the early-70s, these were analog hydromechanical computers. They consisted of 3D sliding cams, spinning flyweights, EDM-contoured valves, servo valves, check valves, pistons, levers, pressurized metal bellows, helium-filled coils, etc etc.

[R2D2DOC]

Please navigate to:

http://www.robotics.utexas.edu/rrg/learn_more/history/

and you get:

According to the Robot Institute of America (1979) a robot is:
"A reprogrammable, multifunctional manipulator designed to move material, parts, tools, or specialized devices through various programmed motions for the performance of a variety of tasks".

With this debate, we will see what the community thinks when the BSA Robotics Merit Badge is published April 2011.

[Doc Wu]

I think a lot of people - laymen - think of a "Robot" simply as a mechanical man. A machine that mimics the shape and motion of a human.

From that perspective, many people would think our machines weren't robots, but some other kind of machine.

[Rich Kressly]

Originally Posted by dlavery

...
I dunno, perhaps "FVC"?

Hmmm ... that's a vaguely familiar acronym ... where have I heard that before?

[Garret]

I think they are robots.

Every time the operate moves the joystick, presses a button, or something else he is sending a signal (which acts the external stimuli) to the robot telling it to execute a piece of preprogrammed code in response.

In even more abstract sense you could think of the driver station as a big sensor array. The driver is creating the external stimuli that in turn makes the robot execute a preprogrammed response.

[davidthefat]

Originally Posted by Garret

I think they are robots.

Every time the operate moves the joystick, presses a button, or something else he is sending a signal (which acts the external stimuli) to the robot telling it to execute a piece of preprogrammed code in response.

In even more abstract sense you could think of the driver station as a big sensor array. The driver is creating the external stimuli that in turn makes the robot execute a preprogrammed response.

Then what makes that different from a gaming console? It does preprogrammed response on the screen, responds to external stimuli...

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

Then what makes that different from a gaming console? It does preprogrammed response on the screen, responds to external stimuli...

Gaming consoles are not machines; they're not largely mechanical. At most, they have vibration functions. Robots have mechanical emphasis.

[gblake]

Are they Robots?

I think the various messages in this thread have unequivocally established that the answer to this question is: "Of course they aren't robots; they are obviously and unambiguously robots."

[jamie_1930]

Any machine that is computerized is a robot.
-Isaac Asimov

I think that should about sum it up.