Newsgroups: comp.robotics
From: Joe@stellar.demon.co.uk (Joseph Michael)
Path: brunix!sgiblab!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk!pipex!uknet!demon!stellar.demon.co.uk!Joe
Subject: Re: Shape Changing Robotics
References: <770291894snz@stellar.demon.co.uk> <nagleCqMMoF.KBt@netcom.com> <770339452snz@stellar.demon.co.uk> <2sefvu$n6t@Times.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stellar Drive
Reply-To: Joe@stellar.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.27
Lines: 68
Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 07:54:57 +0000
Message-ID: <770370897snz@stellar.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk

In article <2sefvu$n6t@Times.Stanford.EDU>
           mark@killdeer.Stanford.EDU "Mark Hosang Yim" writes:

>>>     See Mark Yim's new cellular shape-changing robots developed
>>>at Stanford and described in the proceeding of the recent IEEE Robotics
>>>and Automation conference in San Diego.  The conference video shows
>>>these machines in action.  They're little deformable cubes, about 2" cubed,
>>>that attach together to form larger machines.
>>>
>>>                                        John Nagle
>>
>>Hmm.. I've looked at deformable cubes but their mechanical construction and
>>locomotion are particularly useless. I use fixed cubes with simple
>>self aligning mechanisms for interlocks. When cubes are moved, they
>>don't have electrical contacts that wear down nor do they have batteries
>>to run down on long trips, nor do they rub harshly. These are all dreadfully
>>important considerations for ultra reliable industrial applications.
>>
>>--
>>Joseph Michael
>
>Polypod has two types of modules, one is a fixed cube and the other 
>is a two degree of freedom mechanism (with some stretch of the 
>imagination it can be considered a deformable cube...). 
>
>Have you seen the video?  It is in the IEEE International Conference 
>on Robotics and Automation 1994 Video Proceedings.  There is a 
>companion paper in the paper proceedings as well.  In case you are 
>not aware, ICRA is probably the largest annual conference on robotics
>research in the world.  
>
>The video won the "Best Video Award" along with a group at JPL.
>Please take a look and then judge as to how reliable you think it may
>be, or how particularly useless you think it may be.

Humble appologies here is due I believe. I was not criticising the
ingenious methods used to create the Polypod but merely pointing at
some of the many difficulties in making each type of cell.
For example, my patent application covers four designs of the cell
of which only one I believe is of any true value although all will work.

>I believe that it may be possible to do the things you claim with
>Polypod, however, there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed.
>Considering the amount of repeated non-information you continue to
>post, I would love to hear something more concrete about how you plan
>to do any of what you claim, otherwise some people may consider it a
>waste of net bandwidth.
>
>Mark Yim
>mark@flamingo.stanford.edu

I have been improving to the best of my abilities the information with each
post as I learn what is already known. Unfortunately, the UK patent office
has set the publishing date as 4th September 1995 which is over a year
away for the patent application UK 94004227.2. There are three or four
ways around it.

a) Come to the exhibition and see for real the words matching mock models.
   I have already mounted one very successfull exhibition.
b) Sign a confidentiality agreement or belong to an organisation that
   inherently treats all matters confidentially. (A number have done so
   already.)
c) Continue to hint as each specific question is raised.
d) Possibly come to the US at an exhibition if someone would sponsor it
   or when I can afford it (a small 2 sq metre stand is all I need).

-- 
Joseph Michael
