Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!news.duke.edu!convex!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!hobbes!earth.armory.com!rstevew
From: rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Subject: Re: The Split
Organization: The Armory
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 13:49:39 GMT
Message-ID: <CwA12s.MK1@armory.com>
References: <354gf8$920@news.iastate.edu>
Sender: news@armory.com (Usenet News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: deepthought.armory.com
Lines: 72

In article <354gf8$920@news.iastate.edu>,
Chris Clover <clov@iastate.edu> wrote:
>Just a few opinions:
>
>I'm a grad student trying to finish up my Ph.D. research which
>concerns robots,controls,vr,etc.  I have subscribed to this group
>for a while.  I was just about to stop subscribing to it when
>the split idea came to life.
>
>The topics of interest to me and a lot of researchers, but that are 
>rarely if ever here, are things like: 
>
>	deriving dynamic equations of motion for a robot
>	kinematics
>	parameter determination (masses,inertias, D-H parameters, etc.)
>	inverse kinematics
>	manipulator mechanism design
>	trajectory planning
>	linearization of e.o.m.
>	adaptive control
>	force control
>	conferences relating to the above
>	and on and on and on.........
>
>I realize I'm not the first to spell out research topics that would
>be better off in a comp.robotics.research or whatever its called but
>I WOULD like to repeat what so many others have said and that is that
>in its current state, c.r. just doesn't cut it for people like me.
>
>Not that the "homebrew" stuff isn't valuable or worthwhile, but it just 
>isn't worth my time to wade through it.  I have attempted posts relating to
>the above topics in the past with no luck.  These are the reasons I
>will leave the group without a split BUT will become very active in it with
>a split.  I guess I'm one of the "if you build it" people because I
>WILL come.
>
>The argument (which many people have used against the split) that
>research and practice should be closely related is quite correct.
>HOWEVER, in most cases, the research community has a budget that 
>allows them to buy what they need whithout making it.  The "practice" 
>comes (for me anymway) in using the machine and trying to make it better, not
>in trying to build something from scratch on a shoestring.  This is why
>most of us (research types) aren't that interested in the "homebrew" stuff.
>
>To summarize all this hot air...I vote for a split and I think the research
>group would grow very quickly.
>Chris Clover (clov@iastate.edu)
>Iowa Center for Emerging Manufacturing Technology
>Iowa State University
>Ames, IA 50011
------------------------------------------------
Let's see then. Why haven't you published some of this neat stuff to see
what the response might be? You might be surprised. There are a pile of
physicists on here. We are NOT untutored in kinematics, last time I looked
at my upper division coursework!

Could it be that YOU don't know enough to feel comfortable publishing this
stuff, or that you want this group to become a place to pull down articles
and papers for your reading, whereas there are already ftp and email lists
for those. Could it be that even if the c.r.research group were to begin,
that you would lurk in the wings just as you have so far not contributing
at the level YOU want to see?? If you want it, write it the fucking hell
yourself!!! That's what these imaginary "experts" you want to see will have
to do. And if you don't think there will be a LOT of people from c.r.
asking questions YOU don't know the answer to yet, YOU'RE WRONG!!

I am sick and tired of non-participatory whiners of dubious potential
trying to "split" a group because it's not EXACTLY what they want! Let's
see YOUR stuff, so WE can decide whether what YOU have to say might
instigate US to split from YOU!!!
-Steve Walz   rstevew@armory.com

