#robotics Logs

Jul 28 2015

12:46 veverak Am I only one
12:46 veverak that sometimes got rage with parts designed for reprap
12:46 veverak and makes it's own version
12:47 veverak because original is pointlessly designed too weak/pain to work with it?
12:47 veverak I mean... this is getting more frequent and more frequent
12:47 Tom_itx yup, you're the only one
12:48 veverak also, I sort of got tired of designs using zip ties
12:52 deshipu paperclips are so much better
19:44 JEntrep philosophical question ... but I am just looking for your guys opinions:
19:44 JEntrep has the robot revolution happened? is currently here? or has yet to come?
19:45 JEntrep *robotics revolution
19:45 JEntrep (not a terminator movie plot, lol)
19:46 SpeedEvil That really depends how you define it.
19:46 JEntrep so give me your definition
19:46 JEntrep I am just looking for discussions, nothing objective
19:47 SpeedEvil For example, a reasonable test might be 'have robotics replaced enough low-skilled jobs that there is a huge employment gap for unskilled workers'
19:47 SpeedEvil And that is - probably - not quite yet.
19:47 JEntrep I agree.
19:48 JEntrep So, the robotics that is used productively today is from what era?
19:48 JEntrep 80s?
19:48 SpeedEvil For example, in the near-term - 10 years or so - I would expect self-driving cars to be on the market in a small way - warehouse picking staff being vastly reduced, as well as food service.
19:48 SpeedEvil Largely.
19:48 SpeedEvil The issue is not really the robot.
19:48 SpeedEvil The robots have not particularly advanced over the state of the art.
19:48 SpeedEvil It's the computing running them.
19:49 JEntrep what is the gap between state of the art robotics and robots that are used in industry?
19:49 JEntrep I didn't know there was much of one.
19:49 JEntrep can you link an example of what you would consider state of the art?
19:49 SpeedEvil https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za2dsB0qrMg
19:49 JEntrep as an example of state of the art?
19:49 SpeedEvil Lamb deboning
19:50 SpeedEvil None of the actual robotics there are advanced beyond what you'd see in the 80s.
19:50 JEntrep oh
19:50 JEntrep so NOT state of the art
19:50 JEntrep lol
19:50 SpeedEvil The raw vision systems are not advanced over what you'd see in the 90s.
19:50 adam789654123 If you think about how it, it doesnt actually make sense to automate things to supply billions of people in a system that does not need those people
19:50 SpeedEvil The difference is the computer power, and someones put the effot in to reduce labour.
19:51 adam789654123 You would just kill the demand
19:51 SpeedEvil yes - the problem is that there is no centralised planned economy.
19:51 adam789654123 hence you would kill the need for the equipment that supplies that demand
19:51 adam789654123 its self defeating
19:52 JEntrep hmmm, that seems to be a politico-economic topic
19:52 JEntrep I was trying to stick to purely a techonological discussion. :p
19:52 adam789654123 np
19:52 SpeedEvil And hence your local fast-food restaurant purchasing a machine for 100K that eliminates half their staff may be a good thing from that perspective.
19:53 SpeedEvil The short answer is - it's machine vision processing becoming cheap and easy and computational costs crashing generally, as well as the internet that is enabling much of this.
19:53 rue_house the only way it works is if PEOPLE, not companies own the robots
19:53 JEntrep so could we consider all of robotics from the 80s sufficient for the future of robotics?
19:53 JEntrep so more precision from computing power, and faster real-time response?
19:53 rue_house the 80s were cool, I'd go with that
19:53 SpeedEvil Broadly - yes.
19:53 adam789654123 I would also agree
19:53 SpeedEvil But the massive implementation of tied-together networks.
19:53 JEntrep so the world was practically fully automated in the 80s?
19:53 adam789654123 the reason i agree is because much of the work was so foundational
19:54 JEntrep and now the rest is just implementation??
19:54 adam789654123 not just
19:54 rue_house there will always be demand for people who install cat(5e/6/7) cable
19:54 adam789654123 but for example
19:54 adam789654123 read Euclid's Elements
19:54 JEntrep rue_house, lol
19:54 adam789654123 that book is about two thousand years old
19:54 SpeedEvil For example - take that above lamb deboning robot. There is nothing particularly innovative in any particular aspect of it. It's simply how it's tied together and all of the things are coordinated with computers.
19:54 adam789654123 and it can still blow a modern persons mind
19:54 JEntrep yeah but Euclid didn't even get the half of geometry
19:54 SpeedEvil You could have sourced all of the robotics parts in 1980, without too much hastle.
19:55 rue_house I was wondering if it could process human meat
19:55 adam789654123 i think when you have great foundational ideas, they will recure over and over
19:55 rue_house tho its no good for eating, too many heavy metals
19:55 JEntrep SpeedEvil, but what about the time it takes to design and assemble that system?
19:55 SpeedEvil But today - there is no real reason you can't have a machine that goes from live lambs to actual delivered to customers door meat - with no human hands at all.
19:55 SpeedEvil JEntrep: Oh sure.
19:55 JEntrep don't you think that robotics could get so advanced that the design and building could get too costly?
19:55 adam789654123 you still have the economic problem
19:56 rue_house to design, assemble and implement that system will take 1
19:56 JEntrep so technically there could be a revolution there?
19:56 rue_house we just dont know the unit
19:56 adam789654123 if you dont need the people... you dont need the machines
19:56 SpeedEvil JEntrep: that's a large amount of cost. But the people doing the design are absolutely not the people being replaced.
19:56 orlock JEntrep: you also have to look at the blurring lines of what you mean by "robotics"
19:56 SpeedEvil Quite.
19:56 rue_house there is antoher way to kill the humans,
19:56 JEntrep orlock, what do you mean by that?
19:56 rue_house make robots they can mate with
19:56 JEntrep rue_house, world war 3?
19:56 JEntrep oh ...
19:56 adam789654123 rue_house: haha
19:56 adam789654123 thats a good one
19:57 rue_house almost any human would rather mate with a robot than have to deal with relations with another human
19:57 JEntrep lol
19:57 adam789654123 although... i think i still would want a real woman.. lol
19:57 orlock JEntrep: what one day may have been considered a robot, now is considered a human controlled tool with some "smarts"
19:57 JEntrep adam789654123, robot sex slaves for you and the wife
19:57 rue_house oh that picture is so broken
19:57 SpeedEvil JEntrep: that unit does perhaps 5 million carcasses a year peak. Call it $2 labour cost replaced - that's a lot of moneyh
19:58 SpeedEvil Similarly - in the next ten or 20 years - a _LOT_ of 'stoop' labour in the fields that remains is going away.
19:58 JEntrep orlock, true
19:58 orlock Auto-braking cars
19:58 orlock there are autonomous trucks
19:58 orlock warehouse robots
19:58 adam789654123 well.... if you were brought up into that culture... sure
19:58 adam789654123 i guess it would be hard to resist though
19:59 adam789654123 would take alot of discipline
19:59 rue_house wow, blackberries ALWAYS corrupt the media cards
19:59 SpeedEvil Can this be done without massive human impact - in principle.
19:59 orlock JEntrep: Where i work, we make robots, of a sort
19:59 SpeedEvil But this would require a planned economy.
19:59 JEntrep rue_house, why are you stuffing fruit into a media card?
19:59 adam789654123 pfffttt..... fact is.... im not planning for that kind of future... lol
19:59 rue_house I'm not, I'm stuffing a media card into a fruit
20:00 JEntrep SpeedEvil, but what about the design time for the robotic system?
20:00 JEntrep what would you project that as?
20:00 SpeedEvil JEntrep: it doesn't matter.
20:00 JEntrep no just for the sake of a topic
20:00 SpeedEvil JEntrep: because the design happens once, and then the design can be sold worldwide.
20:00 orlock Theres a cube farm of people here designing robots
20:00 orlock and thats what they do
20:00 JEntrep orlock, where?
20:00 SpeedEvil JEntrep: plus, that design requires minor tweaks to do goats, pigs, cows.
20:01 orlock JEntrep: one of the companies is called Invetech
20:01 adam789654123 I guess if you had cheap robot sex slaves they would be everywhere
20:01 SpeedEvil yes , the 'minor tweaks' may be significant.
20:01 JEntrep okay so BESIDES automating existing tasks
20:01 adam789654123 that would have a huge cultural impact
20:01 orlock SpeedEvil: We have engineers here who do QA with half-a-pig
20:01 JEntrep what about the fact that MUCH machinery built is also to assist humans accomplish things they could never do on their own anyways
20:01 orlock and buckets of blood
20:01 JEntrep everything from cranes to computers
20:01 adam789654123 but its not hard to imagine sex slaves becimming boring after awhile
20:01 SpeedEvil JEntrep: the point is the intelligence.
20:02 JEntrep SpeedEvil, what do you mean?
20:02 SpeedEvil JEntrep: all of those machines (to some degree) require an operator.
20:02 rue_house its 2015, my flying car is 15 years overdue
20:02 rue_house WHERE IS MY FLYING CAR
20:02 SpeedEvil It's getting to the point now with increased machine learning, computer vision, ... that many of them don't.
20:02 adam789654123 rue_house: what about strong AI?
20:02 JEntrep SpeedEvil, but we never needed computers or skyscrapers?
20:02 rue_house I'd like a robot that will vacuum my floor
20:02 JEntrep SpeedEvil, so why build those machines
20:02 JEntrep ?
20:02 adam789654123 rue_house: we are long over due if you ask me
20:03 rue_house I dont want AI, I want GI, I need a platform I can transfer my mind into
20:03 SpeedEvil JEntrep: building skyscrapers was a local societal choice.
20:03 JEntrep ah ....
20:03 JEntrep an artifical demand
20:03 SpeedEvil JEntrep: somneone thought it was a good idea.
20:03 JEntrep *artificial
20:03 SpeedEvil And in that particular case - high land prices and demand - it was a good idea.
20:03 JEntrep so what other things can be artificially demanded that robots would have to be invented for to accomplish?
20:03 rue_house well we obviously need to create another economy of robots against robots, that we can just tap the waste from
20:03 JEntrep that humans cannot do alone?
20:04 JEntrep SpeedEvil, very long term economics
20:04 JEntrep *that was
20:04 SpeedEvil JEntrep: very long term, strong AI is the crucial issue.
20:04 JEntrep why?
20:04 SpeedEvil How the fuck do you stop some robot evolving just enough intelligence to bootstrap and kill all the humans.
20:04 JEntrep a mulitude of dumber-than-human robots can do quite a bit
20:04 rue_house funny thing, now that I have a 3d printer that I could buy stuff online and print what I want, I dont want pay for it.
20:04 orlock they havent evolved ANY intelligence
20:05 JEntrep SpeedEvil, wot?
20:05 SpeedEvil Especially if they are all networked in ways you don't understand.
20:05 SpeedEvil And using algorithms - deep machine learning - that you don't understand.
20:05 adam789654123 rue_house: glad to hear you finished it
20:05 JEntrep I understand deep learning algorithms though?
20:05 orlock SpeedEvil: Even using standard non-machine learning systems, we STILL dont understand shit
20:05 SpeedEvil JEntrep: No, you don't.
20:05 SpeedEvil JEntrep: you understand what people say they do.
20:05 JEntrep what?
20:06 SpeedEvil JEntrep: those people don't understand how they work.
20:06 JEntrep you could effectively log every operation in those programs
20:06 JEntrep and know the exact mathematical function composition used at every moment in the program
20:06 JEntrep it really is not hard
20:06 JEntrep what you are suggesting --- a processor being able to utilize intelligence --- is mathematically impossible
20:07 SpeedEvil JEntrep: the problem is you can log the operation.
20:07 SpeedEvil And you can accurately simulate it.
20:07 JEntrep it can only use its physical architecture to process bits
20:07 SpeedEvil But - this does not give you any fundamental understanding.
20:07 JEntrep SpeedEvil, why is that a problem?
20:07 JEntrep what?
20:07 SpeedEvil there is no algorithm written by a human that it is executing.
20:07 JEntrep of course it does
20:08 SpeedEvil The human does not write the algorithm. They write the algorithm that writes the algorithm that writes the algorithm that is trained by data.
20:08 rue_house so far I'v determined that to make an unhindered mind operate on a computer, you need 4T of ram
20:08 JEntrep SpeedEvil, believe me: that can ALL be explained mathematically
20:08 JEntrep and by explained I mean completely understood
20:08 rue_house but it can operate at less
20:08 JEntrep all that data is just more bits
20:09 SpeedEvil JEntrep: Right. Now, you're given a list of what neurones in a human mind are firing at any one time.
20:09 SpeedEvil What is that brain thinking?
20:09 JEntrep SpeedEvil, that can NOT be explained mathematically
20:09 JEntrep there is a fundamental difference
20:09 JEntrep we UNDERSTAND math, and ANYthing that can be modeled with it
20:09 JEntrep UP TO the mathematical model
20:09 JEntrep we currently cannot do that in neuroscience
20:09 JEntrep that is the difference
20:09 SpeedEvil JEntrep: We can accurately model the human brain in principle.
20:10 SpeedEvil It's just computationally intractable.
20:10 rue_house everyone is looking at the brain with a microscope too close to know whats going on
20:10 JEntrep SpeedEvil, no ... we have no mathematical models of anything in the human brain
20:10 JEntrep except maybe some for the biochemistry occuring
20:10 rue_house if you want to know how a computer works, you dont need to know what direction electrons come into a transistor from
20:10 orlock Is P=NP and the Haltime Problem the same thing.
20:10 orlock Halting problem, even
20:11 rue_house I'v got a brain I'm reverse engineering from the inside out
20:11 rue_house and I'm making progress
20:11 adam789654123 rue_house: everyone's smarter than a computer... except computer programers
20:11 SpeedEvil JEntrep: right - and unless you're a religion major, you should understand that the brain can in principle be fully simulated accurately in principle.
20:11 SpeedEvil Simulating something does not mean you understand it.
20:11 rue_house its one of the most evil propretory platforms there could be
20:11 adam789654123 SpeedEvil: Unless you are a religion major?
20:12 rue_house but solving it is worth a lot to me
20:12 SpeedEvil Can anyone link to the 'deep learning' persistantly misclassifying pictures with high level of confidence?
20:12 adam789654123 Thats a hell of a dicotomy
20:12 JEntrep fully simulated in the sense that you can simulate the biochemistry of the entire brain .... sure.
20:12 JEntrep I still don't know what this is supposed to mean.
20:12 JEntrep Are you trying to say that the simulator is thus capable of intelligence?
20:12 SpeedEvil JEntrep: yes
20:12 adam789654123 We can simulate something to the extent we can model it
20:13 JEntrep eh, possibly.
20:13 JEntrep but also possibly not
20:13 adam789654123 it doesnt mean that a three dimensional simulation, for example, IS three dimensions
20:13 SpeedEvil JEntrep: And you can't - purely by the act of being able to simulate that brain - tell what it's thinking
20:13 JEntrep a simulation of intelligence may not be equivalent to actual intelligence
20:13 JEntrep but I cannot say because no one can define intelligence
20:13 adam789654123 or better examples actually would involve natural sciences
20:14 adam789654123 because you simulate a brain, doesnt mean its a brain
20:14 SpeedEvil You're assuming that the self is real, and something special that exists, and that selfhood is real, and not illusory.
20:14 rue_house the brain is just a hardware platform
20:14 adam789654123 nope
20:14 adam789654123 im not assuming that
20:14 JEntrep I never said anything about self.
20:14 JEntrep unless you were talking to adam
20:14 rue_house you can run the firmware on anything
20:14 rue_house transfering it, thats another matter
20:14 JEntrep I have no idea what 'self' is even supposed to mean.
20:14 SpeedEvil Why is a precisely simulated brain not exactly the same as a brain?
20:15 rue_house it is
20:15 JEntrep a simulation is physically different from a real-time system.
20:15 orlock Is the universe a simulation
20:15 SpeedEvil Given that exactly the same arguments for a simulated brain not being real can be made about french people not actually being human.
20:15 JEntrep meaning the physicality of the system giving rise to "intelligence" is not actually present.
20:15 adam789654123 im saying there exists a dicotomy between models of phenomena and the phemonema that is FAR MORE SOLID than the dicomomy between those who accept this hypothesis and being a religious major
20:15 JEntrep which may hinder the simulation from gaining all the parameters of the original system.
20:15 SpeedEvil JEntrep: I am assuming you're simulating a virtual human or other creature, not a 'bare' brain
20:16 JEntrep say, we were to simulate the biochemistry of an entire human
20:16 JEntrep and run it on some futuristic quantum computer farm or whatever
20:16 SpeedEvil However, the amount you need to simulate to some degree is limited. A paralysed person in a white room with no feeling below the neck and just access to a screen and input device is still a person
20:17 JEntrep the physical system that the human exists within is the computer farm, and thus could have intelligence UP TO its physical world
20:17 SpeedEvil The amount of fidelity you need for the whole body is quite limited. For an already existing scanned consciousness.
20:17 JEntrep the same way we know nothing outside of our physical universe
20:17 JEntrep that would be my hypothesis anyways
20:18 JEntrep so intelligent?
20:18 JEntrep sure
20:18 SpeedEvil The above problem is exactly the same one you run into with machine AI.
20:18 JEntrep but possible restricted
20:18 JEntrep *possibly
20:18 SpeedEvil There is no human designer, and hence you can't prove it's not intelligent if it has the raw processing and interconnected capacity unless it explicitly does things that indicate beyond doubt it's intelligent.
20:18 adam789654123 We thought back in the eighteen hundreds we had it all figured out
20:18 SpeedEvil Like, for example, wiping out humanity.
20:18 adam789654123 we just had to calculate how the pellets moved
20:19 adam789654123 but... suprise
20:19 adam789654123 and history does have a way of repeating this tale OVER and OVER
20:19 JEntrep SpeedEvil, but we can't actually define 'intelligence'
20:19 JEntrep it will be a while before neuroscience is confident in saying precisely what that is
20:20 SpeedEvil JEntrep: Defining it exactly is pointless. Something like 'appears to have goals which it seeks and can learn'.
20:20 orlock "I'll know it when i see it"
20:20 JEntrep as neurological intelligence is the only example we have
20:20 adam789654123 suprise... Neutonian mechanics was a FICTION!
20:20 sherlock neuroscience is rarely confident on anything
20:20 adam789654123 a very useful.... FICTION
20:20 JEntrep SpeedEvil, too vague
20:20 orlock "Those robots wiping out humanity are not intelligent, its just a software bug!"
20:20 rue_house heh, artificial intelligence vs genuine intelligence
20:20 orlock artificial stupidity
20:20 SpeedEvil If, for example, a robot is banging around trying to find its way out of a warehouse, it's difficult to argue on that fact alone that it's intelligent.
20:20 JEntrep but a mouse would do the same
20:21 JEntrep and it could be said to have intelligence
20:21 SpeedEvil If it's designing machines to kill humanities best efforts at defense after wiping out half the population, then I think it's fair to call it intelligent
20:21 JEntrep unless it was simply programmed to do that
20:21 JEntrep ;P
20:22 adam789654123 I can write a program that i think has a level of intelligence
20:22 JEntrep does it say hello to the world?
20:22 SpeedEvil Worst case, we don't have any warning.
20:22 SpeedEvil Determining how to avoid that worst case is _hard_
20:22 adam789654123 it would not be able to detect sarcasm
20:22 JEntrep SpeedEvil, I see literally no problem here ...
20:23 JEntrep What most futurists fail to realize is that humans are themselves a superior machine intelligence in the universe
20:23 JEntrep and we are much more likely to be able to reach a singularity before any of our creations do
20:23 JEntrep but I avoid such topics
20:24 adam789654123 I think in time there would be a biological machine integration
20:24 SpeedEvil Humans are significantly limited to one hardware platform, and have at least some interest in general in the perpetuation of humans as a species.
20:24 adam789654123 after a LONG time
20:24 JEntrep adam789654123, exactly
20:24 adam789654123 Im talking hundreds to a thousand years or something
20:24 adam789654123 i dont think its gonna happen as fast as we tend to imagine
20:24 SpeedEvil Very few people desire everyone to die simply to be able to make a perfect cube of osmium 200km a side.
20:25 SpeedEvil (or some other unhuman arbitrary goal)
20:25 adam789654123 But I think the idea of simulating a brain on a computer to be a brain seem silly to me
20:25 JEntrep SpeedEvil, the human "hardware platform" is the most advanced platform in the known universe
20:26 JEntrep the study of biology, once completed, will become the new robotics
20:26 SpeedEvil Sure.
20:26 SpeedEvil Now.
20:26 adam789654123 Except that it would be interesting to simulate a brain on a computer
20:26 JEntrep biological enhancements are a much more promising singularity
20:26 rue_house adam789654123, would it seem silly if tommorow you were told you had brain cancer?
20:26 adam789654123 its purpose is not to act as a brain
20:26 JEntrep synthetic biology was basically just born (as an idea) over the past few decades
20:26 adam789654123 if its for troubleshooting and experimenting on
20:27 adam789654123 my point is one of motivation
20:27 rue_house sure, we will use your brain for that
20:27 adam789654123 i dont think it makes sense to try to replace a biological brain with a computer running a biological brain
20:27 rue_house cause I'm not gonna do experimentation on my brain even if it is just a simulation
20:27 SpeedEvil adam789654123: no, that is a hideously inefficient way to do it.
20:27 SpeedEvil adam789654123: however.
20:28 JEntrep it is actually interesting to think about how the natural sciences are finite, and at some point in the future ALL progress will be purely engineering
20:28 rue_house "Its only 3mm big, but if I zoom WAY in I still want to shamfer the corners"
20:28 SpeedEvil adam789654123: The brain has lots of mostly identical neurones - all of which share common features to a large degree. There is an _enormous_ amount of speedup you can do simply by skipping 'unimportant' details.
20:28 adam789654123 JEntrep: i dont think that will be the case
20:28 JEntrep adam789654123, maybe not ...
20:28 JEntrep but its possible
20:28 JEntrep *it's
20:29 SpeedEvil A human brain remains functional even though you dramatically alter the properties of the neurones with - say - alcohol, ketamine, ...
20:29 rue_house I'll tell you this because your unattentive and wont really listen or remember it
20:29 rue_house the brain dosn't have to be emulated perfectly to be abel to recreate intelligence, the intelligence is packed into a resiliant self-stabalizing form
20:29 SpeedEvil http://brainsciencepodcast.com/ - I strongly recommend.
20:30 adam789654123 SpeedEvil: I think we should be VERY careful not to jump to conclusions about what is unimportant
20:30 rue_house as the brain physically changes, the intelligence resiliance keeps it intact
20:30 SpeedEvil adam789654123: Quite - however the notion that you need to - for example - simulate every single carbon atom - is clearly wrong
20:30 rue_house I wont talk more about it cause the 3rd thing I say about whatever I was talking about will make it all stick
20:31 eedEvil ponders cheap wheelmot
20:31 rue_house my bracket is finished! TO THE PRINTER!
20:31 am789654123 goes to bury some com
20:32 SpeedEvil brushless RC - underrun -> belt -> chain
20:32 wolfmanjm ok so I have my second 3-5amp UBEC this one a turnigy I bought from the US. driving 18 9G servos less than 3amps, after about 1 minute the thing just drops to 2v output. Battery voltage is still good.. what the Hell is going on? this is the second one, the first one drops to 2v immediately under load. Any ideas anyone? are these UBECs just pretty much useless?
20:33 SpeedEvil wolfmanjm: ignore anything packaged that does not come with proper specs
20:33 SpeedEvil find something with proper specs
20:33 SpeedEvil obvious question would be - does aything overheat
20:33 wolfmanjm this one was 5 times the price of the first, but is still pretty much useless as far as I can see. voltage starts out at 5.99v then it gets warm and shuts off, probably a thermal fuse, but still I'm running it under spec
20:33 SpeedEvil Other question would be - is your battery voltage dropping low enough to trigger some sort of protection
20:34 wolfmanjm battery voltage is 8v 2S lipo, inout voltage seems fine
20:34 SpeedEvil many of these assume airflow. Have you tried a fan?
20:34 wolfmanjm really? I don;t have voltage of room for a fan, these are meant to run on a R/C helicopter no?
20:35 SpeedEvil I am perhaps biased. I would tend towards wanting an actual DC-DC converter with a documented chip that I can understand.
20:35 wolfmanjm this one had specs, and was full price unlike the first one I got which looks identical but was from china
20:35 SpeedEvil By specs, I mean full circuit diagram, so I can debug any issues
20:36 wolfmanjm Yea I may go that way, I thought UBECs would be better as they are supposed to be designed for this kind of thing and load
20:36 wolfmanjm ahh
20:36 rue_house hmmmm circuit diagram of the brain...
20:36 wolfmanjm yea it is a turnigy, they don;t provide schematics
20:36 rue_house thats worth a browse
20:37 rue_house oh, and most of your motion control is done in your spine via macros that your cortex organizes
20:37 SpeedEvil Actually, I lie.
20:37 rue_house :P
20:38 SpeedEvil http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/271863755380?_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
20:38 SpeedEvil I'd use about 4 of these, vastly overspecced
20:38 wolfmanjm So this is my first time using UBECs so far I an unimpressed
20:38 SpeedEvil As I have a ba
20:38 SpeedEvil g
20:38 SpeedEvil rue_house: Oooh
20:40 wolfmanjm can you run 2 in parallel, or actually I could run one to half the motors... and one to the other half... good idea
20:40 SpeedEvil https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgaEE27nsQw
20:40 SpeedEvil Flexible Muscle-Based Locomotion for Bipedal Creatures
20:40 SpeedEvil That paper is really quite interesting - it goes into spinal control algorithms
20:40 SpeedEvil wolfmanjm: yes - that's what I meant
20:40 SpeedEvil wolfmanjm: paralleling has problems
20:40 wolfmanjm yea
20:41 wolfmanjm ok I may go that route
20:41 rue_house interesting
20:41 wolfmanjm I hate wasting money though
20:41 adam789654123 im heading off
20:41 wolfmanjm May try to get a refund on this as it obviously does not run to spec
20:41 SpeedEvil rue_house: I love the parallel optimisation of muscle attach points, and control scheme
20:42 JEntrep SpeedEvil, link to paper?
20:43 JEntrep nm
20:43 JEntrep lol
20:43 SpeedEvil JEntrep: the above video title IIRC will find it
20:43 JEntrep yep
20:50 SpeedEvil https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEPf0QHVuMM - swashplateless helicopter controls pitch/yaw/... with one motor
20:50 SpeedEvil (and harmonic torque ripple)
20:57 Hyratel1 SpeedEvil, I saw that when it was on HAD
20:57 Hyratel1 doesn't it use two motors, for torque yaw control?
20:57 Hyratel1 coaxial rotors
20:58 Hyratel1 with the upper having the swashplate torque ripple
21:00 SpeedEvil The bottom is just at constant speed
21:01 SpeedEvil And in principle could be replace with a couple of aerofoils to counter the torque
21:02 Hyratel1 yeah but you'd lose active yaw, i'd think
21:03 Hyratel1 as is, it only has a single "actuator"