Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Path: brunix!uunet!microsoft!wingnut!petesk
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: "That's not robotics; that's toy building"
Message-ID: <1993Aug22.015645.1726@microsoft.com>
Date: 22 Aug 93 01:56:45 GMT
Organization: Microsoft, Redmond, WA
References: <GERRY.93Aug18123157@onion.cmu.edu> <CBHzGn.DI6@cs.uiuc.edu> <1993Aug12.190036.24847@phx.mcd.mot.com><CBq6n8.IvL@cs.uiuc.edu> <CBtBHI.38B@cs.uiuc.edu><24nhn9$7sn@scratchy.reed.edu>
Lines: 51

In article <GERRY.93Aug18123157@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu wrote:
> In article <24nhn9$7sn@scratchy.reed.edu> reeder@reed.edu (P. Douglas Reeder) writes:

> 
> I am currently doing two things: The first is working on my
> dissertation, the topic of which will be robot design. This is
> robotics research/science. I am also designing and having built a six-
> legged walking robot. This is engineering, a task that any good
> engineer could carry out. Designing and building this robot will make
> absolutely zero contribution to the field, however, the CONCEPTS that
> were used to develop this particular configuration and the software
> system that are under development will make a major impact on the
> community. Of course, the thing has to be built to prove the concepts
> and the software.
> 
> See the difference?
> 

The topic of your dissertation is robot design?  Isn't that the same
as robot engineering, as you imply in the sentences following?
Or are you studying the psychology or design practices of of designing
robots?  That is not robot design, but psychology and base engineering
research.

I have also been involved in both research and engineering in robotics,
and I found the research tasks revolved around writing papers and proposals
to get research money/degrees/conference positions/etc.

I would also say that on the engineering side, there is a very important
contribution to the science.  Mainly, engineering determins what is interesting
and useful to study, and it also determines the value of the information
discovered by science.  Engineering is merely applied science.

For example, in the field of computers, I would postulate that had it not been
for engineering and user needs, the personal computer would not have been
developed, as with embedded computers, etc.  Computers would tend to remain
huge machines in research laboratories.  This would, btw, make most mobile robotics
research impossable, as high density integration would not have been a goal
of science driven computer evolution, and you couldn't find a computer that would
fit on a small robot.

I'd also like to point out that there are creative and intellegent people on both
sides of the research/non-research fence, and contributions to the "science" and 
"applied science" of robotics are made by both groups.  Just because someone may
understand potential based adaptive path planning doesn't mean that they will also
realize that there may be other, simpler solutions to similar problems in robotics.

If your only tool is a hammer then all your problems look like nails.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
