Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Path: brunix!news.Brown.EDU!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ennews!mcdphx!schuch
From: schuch@phx.mcd.mot.com (John Schuch)
Subject: Re: "That's not robotics; that's toy building"
Message-ID: <1993Aug12.190036.24847@phx.mcd.mot.com>
Sender: news@phx.mcd.mot.com
Nntp-Posting-Host: bopper2.phx.mcd.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Computer Group, Tempe, Az.
References: <CBHzGn.DI6@cs.uiuc.edu> <247cg1$9e4@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au> <GERRY.93Aug10100832@onion.cmu.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 19:00:36 GMT
Lines: 90

In article <GERRY.93Aug10100832@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>As a practioner in the field of robots, let me make the following
>comments/observations:
>
>
>Now personally, I feel that most hobbiest who claim to be building
>robots aren't. They are making toys, clever toys, expensive toys, but
>toys none-the-less. I guess that the reason I feel this way is that a
>crucial element of a robot is the need for it to have a purpose. The
>robot we are currently building is an Earth analog for a robot that
>could explore the lunar surface for at least one complete lunar day.
>This is a defining purpose. To simply build a mechanical device that
>wanders around a room without hitting the walls, well maybe several
>years ago that was a robot, the the field has moved past that point.
>


OK, now I have to speak up. I have never built a robot, but I work
daily with several large ones in our factory. I'd like to make a
few observations.

First. Gerry, I presume it was not your intent but your comments come
across as pompous, arrogant, and insulting to the vast majority of
hobbiests working in the robotics field. The word "toy" in this
context is taken as a slur, indicating you feel the devices in
question are of little value or merit. You may indeed feel this way
but it is not true. I would argue that most of the hobbiests robots
have more REAL PRACTICAL VALUE than your lunar explorer. They seem
to have a wider exposure to the general public and thus may induce
more young people to study and enter the field professionaly. They
provide a comfortable introduction to robots to Joe and Jane Citizen,
the people who, after all, pay for YOUR toys. I'll have to look up
the quote, but it has been said the the product of passion is always
of greater value than the product of vocation.

Second. You state that a 'defining purpose' is required for something to be
called a robot. OK. I would guess that the defining purpose of most
amateur robots could be stated as follows: To autonomously navigate
in a defined space, using sensors and other inputs to determine relative
position.  To carry out a desired course of action within the space,
such as finding the flag, pushing another robot out of the space, etc.
Sounds like a robot to me. It also sounds like YOUR robot. There is
of course a big difference. The amateur robot was designed to navigate
a residential home and it does. Yours is designed to navigate the moon
and it likely never will.

Third. Many of the people working with amateur robotics are students
who will eventually be working at your level. Many are parents who
may instill an interest in their children. It is in the best interest
of the robotics field to promote, encourage, praise, and do everything
in your power to advance the field at every level. More practical
innovations have been made in basements and garages that in over-funded
college labs. Look at computers, aviation, digital communication, 
alternative energy, etc, etc, etc. While you diminish the value of people
at the fringe of the field, people like Mato Hattori, who is distributing
the Japan Sumo video at no cost, are fostering wide spread interest.
Many would do better to follow his outstanding example.

Forth, and finally. The machines built by hobbiests ARE robots. The only
real difference between theirs and yours is the scale of the mission, and
the scale of the budget. I have machines in this factory which anyone
in the industry would call a robot, yet they are less complicated (and
less innovative) than many of the hobbiest efforts I have seen. Robots
are really quite simple. Here's the recipe: a power source, motors and
motion control hardware, sensing hardware, and a control system to
coordinate the motion based on pre-programed logic and sensor input.
Just because it was built sans budget, staff, lab, reports and oversight
makes it no less a robot.




The invention of the personal computer has had greater societal impact
than all of the CRAY's put together. The development of a decent $100.00
telescope is of greater societal value than Hubble. A robot which can
navigate other planets is great, but one that can navigate a livingroom
sucking up "dust-bunnys" from under the sofa will be viewed as a greater
value, and have a larger impact on the vast majority of the people on
this planet. I don't wish to diminish the value of your work, I just wish
people would stop slighting the work of others with less generous benefactors.


John


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| John R. Schuch  -  Motorola Computer Group  -  Manufacturing Engineering |
| N7XVS - schuch@phx.mcd.mot.com - (602) 438-3008 - CompuServe: 70733.3330 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+

