Meet Remi

[gamefreak]

lol, i know, but in my definition its not a robot unless it has some degree of "thinking" power, also in battlebots and those other shows they have radio receivers, which have brains in them to decode the radio signal and blah blah blah.

Now tecnically you made a "remote" controlled car, still cool, but not quite a robot because it cant think or interact with the environment when something happens(and dont say when you push the switch it moves, that doesnt count )

Also your "robot" has no ICs at all, which as far as i can tell, which means it has no brain, and no brain=no robot
beware the logic of the monkey, for it shall be your downfall


now going off the pictures you posted, the cable that connects the switches to the "robot" is just a wire, so technically all you have is a circuit, no robot


now none of this is supposed to rain on your parade and i congratulate you on your first mechatronic creation, its still not a robot, But hey im planning on posting a non-robot(but it has a brain ) creation of mine here shortly.

they should make a show that actually pits "real" robots against each other without human interaction, like the robocup, maybe make some sort of AiBo soccer show

[Sam_Charette]

Encoding and decoding something is not intelligence.  It is simply an algorithm.  It is an automatic process that happens when a user provides an input, so that the input may be sent to the receiver.  What I built is no different than the battlebots, and so by common definition it is a robot.  You may agree, or disagree, but ultimately it doesn't matter.  People can discuss it up and down, from here until forever.  The fact remains, however, that many dictionaries, and many more people consider what I made to be a robot.

What I would like to point out, however, is that by pushing your personal definition of a robot you are, in fact, discouraging those of us who are just starting out.  You have to start somewhere, and a project like this is a very good one.  To say it isn't a robot is akin to telling the person that what they have done is unworthy of recognition in this community.  If that is all that the person is aspiring to, then I would agree with you.  If, however, they use it as a stepping stone to greater ends, then why split hairs?  Why focus on the negative, instead of encouraging them to take on such a project to get familiar with the skills that they will eventually apply to a fully autonomous robot?

In short, what does saying "that's not a robot" accomplish for anyone?  Though I don't mean to be presumptuous concerning your motives, I must honestly say that the only thing I can think of that this discussion may accomplish is for someone to feel superior to someone else.

Though I will certainly agree that more shows with autonomous robotic competitions would be very cool.

[gamefreak]

lol, i got yellled at, yes you are right, it is a good stepppng stone, and the prpject im planning on posting is a door

i think the only motive i have is that it went against my definition, and i'm a very argumentative person

[Sam_Charette]

the prpject im planning on posting is a door

That door better at least be remote controlled!

i think the only motive i have is that it went against my definition, and i'm a very argumentative person

As am I, but I learned long ago that some things just aren't worth arguing, as they benefit no one in the end.  Well, that's not true...  I didn't learn it LONG ago

[Hal9000]

No, this thing is a robot.

A car crushing robot is a robot. But it has a human behind it.

Thus Sam's robot is a robot. Lots of people talk about robots.........Sam builds them......encounters a few problems along the way............but has actually made one.

[sotu]

A remote controlled car sure is an robot. Not many robots think, even the big robots used to make other robots, cars or whatever has been "Told" to say it like that, what to do. No robot know what to do unless u make it know it..!:P

[Somchaya]

A remote controlled car sure is an robot. Not many robots think, even the big robots used to make other robots, cars or whatever has been "Told" to say it like that, what to do. No robot know what to do unless u make it know it..!:P

[philosophical rant]
This is actually pretty true. How would we draw the line between "smart" robots and robots that are merely following code? Sure, when robots achieve sentience and kill all of us, that's probly pretty smart, but before then, it's very possible to argue that there is little difference between a robot following code that you write and run on a microcontroller, vs "commands" that you give it via a remote control.
[/philosophical rant]

So, I think that what Sam did is considered a robot. The definition of a robot itself is pretty vague and no one knows what the real definition of robots are, so it's really up to an individual to decide where to draw a line between robots and simple machines.

And regardless of whether it's a real robot or not, it's definitely a great way to indulge in robotics and learn a lot of stuff from!

[JonHylands]

I prefer to think of autonomous robots as a separate subclass of robot.

Autonomy has nothing to do with whether or not the robot thinks. The important part is where decisions are made with respect to sensor input. If the decisions are made in software, then the robot is autonomous. If the decisions are made by a person, the robot is remotely controlled.

Of course, some robots fall into both categories - they can make certain decisions autonomously, and other decisions require the input of a human operator. The Mars rovers are good examples of that kind of hybrid.

- Jon

[dunk]

i'm with Jon here.
i like to think anything i would make and call "robot" is autonomous in some way.

unfortunately my most successful bot was basically a remote controlled vehicle with a webcam attached, controlled via a web page on my work's intranet.
i went to great pains to describe it as a "telebot". ie, a teleoperated vehicle.
but everyone who logged in to drive around the office thought of it as a robot.
"hey dunk, love the robot!" emails came flooding in.
flattery of course is a great dissolver of moral principals.
so the name "robot" stuck.
the name "telebot" sucked any way.
next time i'll have to think of something more catchy. maybe "superfunhappybotwithfreekinlasers".

the moral of my story: it's only a name. you can use it however you want. i like to use it to describe autonomous devices but i can still work out what you are talking about if you use it to describe your RC truck with a spiny saw glued to the front.
a lot of the challenges faced will be the same whatever we build.
either way, it will be far more robot like if you find an excuse to put some lasers on there....

dunk.
(with frikin lasers...)

[gamefreak]

[rant]
there is no code in remi

lol, my definition of a robot is something that can run for a period of time without human interaction, car bots go off a code, yes i know they have to be monitored by a technician, but they arent ever physically run by a person
[end rant]


Still this is a good starting point to learn the basics

[Sam_Charette]

[rant]
Did you bother to read the fact that at least one dictionary completely disagrees with you?  How about the fact that your negative attitude helps no one and produces nothing but bad blood?

Seriously, dude, your crusade is really starting to get on my nerves.  I really don't care what YOUR definition is.  The definition from at least one dictionary, along with many more people than you, is that it is a robot.  Feel free to be self-righteous all you want, but I don't think this is the place for it.
[/rant]

[Sam_Charette]

As an addendum, code is irrelevent.  My very first robot, waaaaaaaaay back in grade six, was a photovore.  There was no code, and no processor in it, but it could still follow light on it's own.  It was autonomous, and it was less complex than Remi.

Or how about Stiquito, the little robot that uses muscle wire to walk.  It's autonomous, but has no code.

What about all of the little insect things that people make that just move?  No code, but autonomous.

How about those solar powerd drag racers that you often see competitions for at robot events?  No real brains at all.  They're autonomous, though.

Autonomy doesn't require code, and code certainly does not grant autonomy (or else your word processor would write your essays for you).

Get your definitions straight before coming here and declaring how much better it is from the rest of the world's

[gamefreak]

Im not saying anything is better, it is a great little robot, infact i havent even started on my first non-kit robot(a job for the summer) and im failry clueless when it comes to robots, i just thought that robots requires little interaction, i see that i was wrong and im sorry for my rant