Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!hookup!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!nic.scruz.net!earth.armory.com!rstevew
From: rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Subject: Re: Biped robot designs & ideas (Question)
Organization: The Armory
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 15:31:08 GMT
Message-ID: <D3A0Fy.CMz@armory.com>
References: <3evm76$84n@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <3g6ehl$j7j@hpuerci.atl.hp.com> <D31ML8.AuE@armory.com> <nagleD34pMu.CzD@netcom.com>
Sender: news@armory.com (Usenet News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: deepthought.armory.com
Lines: 26

In article <nagleD34pMu.CzD@netcom.com>, John Nagle <nagle@netcom.com> wrote:
>rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>>working biped that can climb a slope or rough terrain. I know the human
>>form is simplicity itself, and compelling, but it takes tremendous
>>computing power connected to sensors of all sorts and very versatile leg
>>motions to achieve. We're at the level of insects in our processing and
>>sensing power, so we'll probably have to do that a while.
>
>>But keep plugging away if that's your bag, and for gosh sakes if you figure
>>out something wonderful, don't forget to tell me, ok?!!:)
>
>     Actually, balance is hard, but not that computionally intensive.
>See Raibert's book.  
>
>     I've recently figured out how to extend automatic balance control
>to slippery surfaces and hills.  The patent is pending.  The paper will
>appear in IEEE Computer Animation '95.  Again, it's subtle, but not
>that compute-intensive.  
>					John Nagle
------------------------------
Many congratulations then, John, but is it feasible for the hobbyist level
roboticist? And can you tell us if you used rule based or fuzzy sets? And
would you tell us if you are going to put the paper on the net and where,
if you would? Thanks, and kudos to your innovation!
-Steve Walz   rstevew@armory.com

