Talk:Robotics/Archive 1

Time line

I added a time line to the article, but information was difficult to find for several time periods. The time line could serve as a point for expansion, or with some editing, be made into a separate article. I realized after posting it, that it could just as easily be a timeline of robots, so it could be made more specific if someone was willing to take the time. Kivaan 15:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Bold textI'm against a merge. Similar to below. Its the same as the difference between programming a game and playing it. HD BORDZAl-Jazari is credited with creating the earliest forms of a programmable humanoid robot in 1206. Al-Jazari's automaton was originally a boat with four automatic musicians that floated on a lake to entertain guests at royal drinking parties. His mechanism had a programmable drum machine with pegs (cams) that bump into little levers that operated the percussion. The drummer could be made to play different rhythms and different drum patterns if the pegs were moved around I am against merging this article with robot. Robotics and robot are two different things in the same way that fine cuisine and ovens are different. The science of robotics has a lot of potential for its own article and should absolutely not be merged. 67.68.4.208User:Beltz

I agree (Janpersson (talk) 06:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC))

Against merging the article, due to the distinction mentioned above. The page could use a little cleaning and reflection on the current state of robotics, but the science of robotics is very different than the cultural and mechanical icon that is the word robot itself.

I am against merging this article with robot. for the resons mentioned above. --maayan 20:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I too, am against merging these categories. Robots are entities, robotics is the study of them and how to improve them. However, it is interesting to note that this artical attempts (poorly) to differentiate between "mobile robots" or "autonomous robots", it only refers to "robotics" that are not fully autonomous and "robots" that are mobile. Food for thought. pes

Should robotics be a category that links from robots as it is the study of how to use and program robots? I believe that all kinds of robots could be discussed under robots, with web crawlers hived off with disambiguation. Robot wars type robots are not really robots at all but radio controlled vehicles with attachments most of which cannot even be described as arms. These *could* be included or 'disambiguated' off. Mobile robots to be called robots should be autonomous IMO. If 'telerobotics' is to be included as in nuclear engineering or bomb disposal etc. then a distinction could be made? Just thinking aloud.

BTW I made two edits to the external links and forgot to log in first - with the 217 IP address which is one of BT (British Telecom)'s numbers, the other starts with 81. Robotics1 12:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

This sounds very good, but what does "all kinds of robots" really mean? This discussion is getting very close to what I believe to be the right solution, but a careful definition of "robot" should be made. My suggestion: A robot is an autonomous mobile entity. It has a specific but perhaps someday may have several functions.

A more controversial addition to this concept is that a robot may also have something akin to a personality as expressed by its behaviors, lights, and sounds. I would further state that industrial robots (manipulators) and automatic guided vehicles are not robots but incorporate robotic elements. pes BRUCEY!!!!!!!

I see this merge idea has come up again. The section called 'structure' is really about robots and not robotics per se. Duplication does not really matter in itself but the section is just not about robotics the science. Perhaps a cross reference is called for with robot. But ultimately a real good look at the definitions of robot and robotics. Robotics1 11:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I see the tag for the merge has been removed by Disavian who says both editors agree no merge is possible. However I think the original person who suggested a merge had a good point. Robotics is the 'science' of robots and includes robots, industrial robots, mobile robots, robot software etc. Therefore it could easily assimilate all the other articles, merged into it. The task is to cleanly refer to specific issues by linking to them. The section on 'structure' is not really about robotics but is about the design considerations for robots. You will find a section in robot called 'Robotics' and the content is almost the same as the content of this section. Therefore a link to 'robot' from robotics might be worth considering. OR - remove the Robotics section in robot to the robotics article.

What follows is even worse: Common Uses of Robotics is not common uses of robotics at all but is common uses of robots - moreover common uses of Industrial Robots. The content of all these last sections could easily be distributed between robot and Industrial Robot.

The article on robot is excellent but the article on robotics is weak and for a very good reason. There is, as yet no really good definition of the term 'robotics'. ALLAN LAMBERTE- it's a difficult subject to tackle.

Robotics1 23:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC) The Robotics section seems to be in disarray. However I have seen demonstrated a new controls and propulsive means that seems to have been passed by in the past and yet was and is ahead of the Segway in it's abilities.Here are some links to some detailed designs (1 meter Diameter) for a device that was constructed by an eccentric inventor some years ago and achieved speeds in excess of 500 mph with a relatively small electric motor on the salt lake in Utah.This inventor refuses interviews from the press,due to soME inacuracies in some technical details, however did publish some papers on the subject and was reviewed by the NSF.His device does have the ability for all terrain use and is very aerodynamic. Perhaps most astounding is it's abilities to climb the exterior of walls and even stop and hold in place just using some interplay between interior Gyroscopes and the sphere's outer surface`.While perhaps this belongs in the control area of Robotics, due to current questions I did not feel proper to edit it in there as there are other categories it could fit in as well, but hate to see something so advanced being overlooked after seeing it demonstrated.Perhaps someone would care to review this device and give it a proper addition once robotics is in order. Here are some links to some designs.I am at a public terminal right now so will not use my password.This is just a lead for suplimental information for someone in this category, my plate is full in other areas. TL. [1][2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.188.254 (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This is turning into a History of Robots

Hi guys, looking at the robotics page, it's made up almost entirely of the history of robots. I think most of this material should be moved to one of the history pages. The page should be about "...the science and technology of robots, their design, manufacture, and application.", as it says at the top of the page. Anyone agree? Rocketmagnet 12:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I got bored of waiting, and I just went ahead and moved all of the history stuff to History of robots. I hope nobody's too upset. Rocketmagnet 00:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Should not we provide a link to History of robots at least? I'm if you moved a bunch of stuff I would be decent to have link on the "main" article. I'm fairly new so I didn't make the add since I'm not sure what's the protocol... Negotiator83 (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You should also make a link to the article "the future of robotics" as this is related to this article --Euge246 (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Chemical engineering and robotics

hello,could anyone tell me if robotics and chemical engg are in anyway related? --Curieous 12:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The article currently states, "Before the coining of the term, however, there was interest in ideas similar to robotics (namely automata and androids) dating as far back as 400 BC, with the work of Archytas of Tarentum and his mechanical Pigeon."[3] Before this time, Greek stories said Hephaestus made handmaidens out of gold. I'll add this as soon as I can find a good source. Wakedream (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

First use in print

According to OED, robotics as a word appeared in print in May 1941, in Liar!, published even before Runaround was written (Oct 1941)). But this fact is continually reverted to refer to Runaround short story, published in March 1942, almost a year after Liar!. Tavilis (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just looking at the OED online and there doesn't seem to be a story title listed - just the date (May 1941). Does the print version list the title of the story? fluoronaut (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed the story title is not mentioned. Only the date (May 1941), the page (53), and the science fiction magazine Astounding Science Fiction where it was published are listed. But looking at [4] the only Asimov's story from the May 1941 issue is "Liar!" (pages 43 to 56). Tavilis (talk) 07:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me! fluoronaut (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've stuck in a ref to Asimov, Isaac (1983). "4 The Word I Invented". Counting the Eons. Doubleday. Robotics has become a sufficiently well developed technology to warrant articles and books on its history and I have watched this in amazement, and in some disbelief, because I invented … the word

The above is a quote from the opening paragraph, and I don't think it's in doubt. The doubt concerns whether the story was Liar! or Runaround; the article concerned doesn't conclusively settle the issue. It is divided into sections; in section 4 he states

But you say you invented the term robotics. Is that right? Yes. John Campbell, as best I can remember, did not use the word in connection with the Three Laws. I did, however, in 'Runaround', and I believe that was its first appearance in print.

— Isaac Asimov, The Word I Invented (essay)

note the weasel phrases "as best I can remember", and "I believe". It could still have been Liar!, therefore. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

External links moved to end

There was a change within the last year in WP:Layout concerning end sections, but all the other relevant guidelines (including WP:EL and WP:MOS) say External links should be the last section (if it exists). Any objections? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 01:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

External link review

Most of the External links are very good. The Polish language site had very little English, and the English it had was promotional. HowStuffWorks is a neat site, but pages that sell toys aren't suitable for external links. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The future of robotics

This article should also have a section on the future of robotics. The article is mainly made up of the history and many people will appreciate content on the future. Euge246 (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that we need to add some more information for forecasting future development in Robotics. I found this information and i think that some of it very interesting and can be added to the article.

“It is projected that by 2020 autonomous robots will reach the simulated intelligence of a monkey. That may not seem that smart, but it’s smart enough to do most labor intensive jobs when coupled with detailed routine programming. When robots are capable of mining their own resources and manufacturing their own parts the labor for their production will be free. When robots can ship and sell themselves their distribution will be free. The only charge required for their production would be the price of raw materials and the rent of the factory in which they were produced. From a capitalist prospective there is an enormous profit margin for business owners in an industry run this way, but it displaces countless workers.

When robots are capable of fulfilling all menial labor the divide between business owners and laborers will become outrageous. With business owners making total profit off every good produced by cutting out the cost of labor their wealth will sky-rocket while all of their former human laborers plummet into destitution as they find themselves unemployed. Yet the working class is also the consuming class, so if the working class looses its income the business owners loose their consumer market and the economy will collapse.

In order for a Capitalist nation to survive the robot revolution two things need to happen. First, social and economic measures need to be taken immediately in preparation for autonomous robotic industrialization. Some form of compensation needs to be planned for workers displaced by robots to keep them from falling into total disparity and, conversely, steps need to be taken to insure that big businesses don’t have total control over the robotics industry. Robots aren’t simply an advanced form of computer, nor are they simply an evolution of the common machine. The significance of robots is of the same grandeur as nuclear energy.

The second thing a Capitalist nation needs to do to survive autonomous robots is develop them first. It is of the utmost importance that Capitalist nations develop autonomous robots before a Communist country does because if a Communist country implements a fully autonomous workforce before Capitalism is ready for it, the Capitalist economy will be flooded with goods manufactured for free by the Communist nation. This surplus of extremely cheap goods will wash away the Capitalist financial system making its economy crumble to the ground. A Capitalist human labor force is no match for Communist robots.”*[5]Westsomething (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have added text to Talk:Robot, the last four paragraphs of which are absolutely identical to the last four above. It's not a good idea to start multiple discussions on the same topic, since not all editors will see both discussions.

I was also going to mention WP:CRYSTAL but I see that User:Shenme has already done so. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

External links

The external links have degraded; the ones not already at Robot aren't very good. We don't really have enough eyeballs on robotics-related pages, and these pages are some of the most likely ones to get external links inserted that aren't top quality. The external links at Robot are now excellent, and are patrolled vigorously; I propose that we just send people over there for external links, and I made the edit. The links here were:

• Robot news and Robotics information

already at Robot

• Small robot drive train howto

already at Robot

• A review of robotics software platforms Linux Devices

site accepts advertising

• UNSW Computational Mechanics and Robotics Group

Not helpful to list just one group at one school

• JPL's Robotic website

NASA's main site is better suited for Wikipedia readers

• News and videos about robotics – News and videos about robotics

"News" items with no date stamps or attribution

• The Basics of Robotics

Much of the material is from and links are to Wikipedia, with a copyright notice on each page.

• Robotics Research Papers – DMOZ Directory

Already at Robot

• Industrial Robots in Operation

It's a category of videos on YouTube rather than a single video, so not acceptable per WP:EL (that is, there's no way to know which videos we're linking to).

- Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes

I moved material on the structure of robots out of the lead (so now I have to write a lead). Per WP:LEAD, the lead is supposed to state the subject and summarize the main points of the article. I changed Etymology to Origins. For me, tech articles fall into roughly 3 classes: completely technical articles that don't need much context, articles that are focused on the tech but that need some context for the typical reader to understand what the point is, and articles targeted to a general audience. Robot is in the last class, and I think this article is in the second class; we can reasonably expect readers who are not students or specialists to want to understand something about the science and technology of robotics, so some kind of introductory section such as Origins is called for, I think, but we can keep it short. I largely borrowed from Robot, because that makes it less of a maintenance headache, but other approaches would be fine with me. I picked the table of history to import because I'm guessing the tabular format will appeal to the readers of this article. Also, naming the first section Origins gives me the opportunity to put "Main articles: See also: History of robots and Robot" in the hatnote, which answers the question a lot of readers are going to ask: why isn't there more about actual robots in this article? It's because they're somewhere else, but we can't say "they're somewhere else" in the text per WP:SELFREF, that information needs to be in hatnotes. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I added various different types of robot actuators, since there is a lot of interest these days for alternative types of robot actuators besides servo motors. I added some references, in case readers want to get more details. Shervinemami (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I also added many more types of rolling robots such as 2-wheeled, 1-wheeled, spherical and 6-wheeled robots, since it seemed like a very limited description. Shervinemami (talk) 07:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Material moved from Robot

This stuff is about a certain design process for robots, not about new robots, so it's probably appropriate somewhere on this page:

• Evolutionary Robots: is a methodology that uses evolutionary computation to help design robots, especially the body form, or motion and behavior controllers. In a similar way to natural evolution, a large population of robots is allowed to compete in some way, or their ability to perform a task is measured using a fitness function. Those that perform worst are removed from the population, and replaced by a new set, which have new behaviors based on those of the winners. Over time the population improves, and eventually a satisfactory robot may appear. This happens without any direct programming of the robots by the researchers. Researchers use this method both to create better robots, and to explore the nature of evolution. Because the process often requires many generations of robots to be simulated, this technique may be run entirely or mostly in simulation, then tested on real robots once the evolved algorithms are good enough.

Education in iran

In the iran , shahrood university of technology and hamedan university of technology offers a Bachelor of Science in Robotics Engineering. Others offer degrees in Mechatronics .Universities that have graduate degrees focused on Mechatronics include sharif university of technology , amirkabir university of technology, khajeh nasiroddin tusi university of technology , tabriz university , semnan university —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roboticsengineering (talk • contribs) 08:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Method of locomotion and added skills

Following skills and a alternative method of locomotion (on 4 legs) may also be used with robots and can be added to article:

I suggest making a page called open source robot (see robot article; talk page), where extra ideas and a list of current open source robots can be added (these may possibly interconnect). Idea is focused on a DIY (self-producable) bot of 25000$ or less (see aiko project, and Hanson robots which are even as low as 300$)

The DIY-robot (eg distributed in kit-form) and perhaps include following jobs: - metalworks (precise metal sheets and pipe-bending, sheet/pipe cutting) - translator for many languages (including the main languages as Mandarin, Arabic, Spanish, Portugese, ...) - calorie-counter for the robot-owner; counting the calories of fooditems the owner eats and preventing him from eating more that day when he reaches 2000kcal. The robot thus acts as a simple dietition with constant monitoring. As the BRAINS-software of the Aiko project already recognises food; this may be done easily; dough probably a huge amount of foods (and their nutritional value) needs to be inserted - communication device (gynoid can have a WiFi/WiMax-waveguide antenna, 4G-broadband or satellite internet acces receiver fitted). Storage possibility (for personal items) and a mobile computer are also a possibility - personal protection (having the machine operate as personal bodyguard). I believe this to be a popular function as there are already many civilian enthusiasts building 'attack' robots; an example are the "Robot Wars" (see link below)

In addition, perhaps the gynoid may also be equipped with the skill of building electronic circuitry (PCB-boards). Perhaps this is possible as many commercial companies already have (line-)robots perform these jobs. By open-sourcing, perhaps the companies can create or supply software for performing this job. Finally, as 25000 is -dough cheaper- still a considerable sum, perhaps the gynoid can perform as a personal transportation device aswell (riding on back; as on a horse). To this idea, I have another suggestion of building the robot and making it to move:rather than having it to walk upstraight as humans, perhaps you can have it to run on hands and legs (like monkeys do; actually a better way of moving due to having 4 "legs" and hereby not "falling forward" as described in the previous mail; and allowing faster moving speeds and reduced energy requirements while moving; this way of moving is -evolutionary seen- actually superior than ours). I would like to refer to a movie you should see for reference called iRobot; observe the robot's moving). This will also allow personal transport; the owner may ride along on the back of the robot; serving as securing platform; user can be strapped on to prevent falling and orientated back-on-back; the robot can steer itself using gps-coordination. This approach may also allow funding as many military institutions are also examining robots eg to get them out of a dangerous combat zone (see the Bigdog-project as example). I envision the android on this topic in a more social context; eg as providing personal protection for vip's (eg celebrities, statesmen, ...) people that travel allot in dangerous countries (eg. development workers).

Also, perhaps add the

A robust android design

A robust android design

and the extra info (in the file's remarks-field).

Thanks, 81.245.167.105 (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Power source

Perhaps a section on the power source can be added: at present; mostly (lead-acid?) batteries are used, but potential powersources could be: - compressed air canisters (see air car) - flywheel energy storage - organic garbage (trough anaerobic digestion - feces (human, animal); may be intresting in a military context; as feces of small combat groups may be reused for the energy requirements of the robot assistant (see DEKA's project Slingshot stirling engine on how the system would operate) - still untested energy sources (eg Joe Cell, ...) - radioactive source (such as with the proposed Ford car of the '50); too proposed in movies as Red Planet

the word is interesting, not intresting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odellus (talk • contribs) 07:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC) How mach the power of the humanoid robot with — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardy-guo (talk • contribs) 13:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Locomotion

I suggest adding the line:

hybrids too have been proposed in movies as iRobot, walking on 2 legs and switching to 4 (arms+legs) when going to a sprint

also at Robotics#Human_interaction (facial expressions)

I suggest adding : Frubber robotic faces have been constructed by Hanson Robotics, allowing a great amount of facial expressions due to the elasticity of the rubber facial coating and imbedded subsurface motors (servos)to produce the facial expressions. The coating and servos are build untop of a metal skull.

add subtopic: artificial emotions. Artificial emotions can also be imbedded and are composed of a sequence of facial expressions and/or gestures. As can be seen from the movie Final_Fantasy:_The_Spirits_Within, the programming of these artificial emotions is quite complex and requires a great amount of human observation. To simplify this programming in the movie Final_Fantasy:_The_Spirits_Within, presets were created together with a special software program. This allowed the producers of decreasing the time required tremendously to make the film. These presets could possibly be transferred for use in real-life robots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.173.164 (talk) 08:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I also suggest adding Robotics#Environment interaction (new paragraph above human interaction)

Include info: Robots also require navigation hardware and software in order to anticipate on their environment. In particular unforeseen events (eg people and other obstacles that are not stationary) can cause problems or collisions. Some highly advanced robots as ASIMO, EveR-1, Meinü robot have particular good robot navigation hardware and software. Also, self-controlled car, Ernst Dickmanns' driverless car and the entries in the DARPA Grand Challenge are capable of sensing the environment well and make navigation decisions based on this information. Most of the robots include regular a GPS navigation device with waypoints, along with radar, sometimes combined with other sensor data such as LIDAR, video cameras, and inertial guidance systems for better navigation in between waypoints.

perhaps add the File:ElementBlack2.jpg picture next to this latter text

intresting is not a word

The word is interesting. I can't edit it though, so I just someone might be able to change it for me. You will find the error in the Power Sources Section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odellus (talk • contribs) 07:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC) ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardy-guo (talk • contribs) 13:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Typos in the text

There are serveral typos in the section power sources:

- T(h)rough anaerobic disgestion. - feces(human, animal); may be int(e)resting

I marked the missing characters with brackets. I don't have the right to edit the page directly...

Also in the point organic garbage a bracket is missing.

Robot computing unit

What kind of "brains" does a robot have exactly, and can this info be added in text ? Not sure whether a robot is based

• around a true computer (motherboard with CPU and operating system as Linux, autonomous system with Linux (eg microcontroller-based; eg Atmel168-based as Arduino)

• or whether its based around a microcontroller with a OS especially written for the robot

The first one would allow eg the use of a regular small computer (eg mini-itx, eeeBox, gPC) to be implemented and provide the brains of the robot. It would thus allow open-source development of robots, as the operating source may be used for any robot, rather than needing to be made specifically for one robot.

I was wondering after reading a docment on the RoMeLa DARwIn bot see http://www.me.vt.edu/romela/RoMeLa/RoMeLa.html This bot is reportedly by either a RS-485 transmitter or a RS-232 wires, hereby implying control from a regular computer (running LabView and IMAQ Vision)

Also see

http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/product_info.php?products_id=8489 http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS6964826548.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.163.43 (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a chatterbot (eg Elbot) can be used in the main control unit (computer) to enable interaction with people; this technology too is robot-independant. Speech can easy be added to the robot using text-to-speech software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.128.52 (talk) 06:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the controller hardware is part of the definition of a robot. Designers use whatever sort of controller suites their purposes. So sometime they will have a custom OS, and other times they will use general purpose computing hardware.75.82.133.73 (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Education

I added WPI & SDSMT to the list of schools with graduate degrees in robotics. I have not yet added external links to the specific programs which might be useful to individuals considering graduate programs. Jeff McGough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffMcGough (talk • contribs) 03:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Healthcare

The section on healthcare seems weird. It doesn't have any references and the level of detail doesn't seem consistent with the rest of the article. 75.82.133.73 (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

ESA Eurobot

I was thinking about adding eurobot as an example of a robot with more than 2 legs. However, it seems the eurobot is actually a remotely controlled device, and not autonomous. Parhaps and other version exist which is autonomous ? See http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMA6RNSP3F_index_0.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.164.113 (talk) 06:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

4 legged robot

Perhaps the WowWee Roboquad may be mentioned as a example of a 4-legged robot. See http://www.wowwee.com/en/products/toys/robots/robotics/robocreatures:roboquad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.168.152 (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Degrees in Robotics

As far as I can tell MIT and UCLA DO NOT have robotics programs, unlike what is stated in the article—Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.115.166.174 (talk) 02:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Human-Robot Interaction

The Human-Robot Interaction section has identical name to a current article Human-Robot Interaction. Suggest merging section information into Human-Robot Interaction article and linking to content. Jim May Jr. 22:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmayjr (talk • contribs)

I'm a bit confused as to why the "Human-robot Interaction" section mentions the film "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within", which is a computer-animated film, and has nothing to do with robotics. --99.31.75.94 (talk) 06:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

New section: Reasoning

Perhaps a new section can be added explaining the design of robot's software, required for the better interpretation and interaction with the environment, people and robots. The whole is known as cooperative robotics, and a project has been started by Dr. Harold Bekkering, Dr. Estela Bicho See http://www.aass.oru.se/Agora/EuronCoop/ http://www.mct.uminho.pt/erlhagen/Dynamics-group-Current%20Research%20projects.htm

As this is a entirely new and very important development in the creation of robots, this should certainly be mentioned in this article. KVDP (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Added entry

Added this entry: Fingers can for example be made of a chain with a metal wire run trough it. KVDP (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Skeleton

It seems to me that the skeleton of the robot featured in Nextworld: Future Home (visually similar to the Toyota Home Assistant Robot http://www.crunchgear.com/tag/home-assistant-robot/ , developed by a German company (might of been the Care-O-Bot 3 ?) is one of the best robotic skeletons as it moves along with any pressure applied to it. Perhaps look into it and mention in article. 87.64.33.11 (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This robot was "Justin" by DLR Institute of robotics and mechatronics

91.182.143.202 (talk) 11:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Theo Jansen's leg/energy storage system

Not sure, but perhaps that the leg system and energy storage system of Theo Jansen's "Strandbeests" could be useful for robots too; see http://www.strandbeest.com/beests_storage.php 91.182.168.67 (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

since they could in themselves be described as purely mechanical robots, this could be true but in regards to the energy storage system its use may be limited as "most" robots require energy in the form of electricity. Firebladed (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Robotics is a scientific field, To much speculation and science fiction in the article

Lets not forget that robotics is a scientific branch of study, this page should reflect that. There seems to be to much speculation and science fiction in the article and very little science. I propose the following changes are made:

1. History: Of robotics: Should represent the non-fictional and real technological milestones to the field of robotics rather than robots appearing in fiction etc. and designs that would not have actually worked. A brief sentence should be included at the top on the coining on the word but no more than a sentence. The previous time-line is useful for the etymology section with the the technological references removed.

2. Control: The control section seems to have gotten a bit off topic and cites no references! It should include a link to control systems at least.

3. A lot of content should unfortunately be deleted or moved to their own separate pages rather than an article in robotics. For example, Healthcare.

This post is not finished - I will be returning to add much more. Please discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rallister (talk • contribs) 18:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

1 Robotics may well be a branch of scientific study but that branch does not cover all robotics topics which include science fiction and the history of robotics cannot be dismissed merely because someone wishes it so. All sub topics such as end effectors, types of robot and mechanical controls are most probably covered by other pages - in particualr the Robot pages. Robotics covers the parts which make up the whole and the whole is covered by robot topics.

2 Please feel free to add some

3 No it should not - that is your opinion and consensus for those changes MUST be found before any such deletions or moves are made. Healthcare and the use of robotics in health care is summarised here. This is how wikipedia pages work. First page A is expanded until a section X becomes very large at which point a synopsis of X is left on page A and a new page is created for X.

Your enthusiasm is appreciated but do not forget that this is a general page. Robotics has many sub-topics which may be where your proposed content should be placed

Chaosdruid (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's fine and proper for the nonfiction to be the main focus and the majority of the content. However, it is impossible to ignore or dismiss the science fiction entirely and still have a circumspect understanding. Here's what I mean. As with many other fields of engineering, what humans want to achieve in the field—what they dream about and make predictions about—is a leading indicator (with a lot of false starts and evolutionary dead ends, true, but nevertheless a leading indicator) of what they'll eventually deal with in reality. For example, the engineering work of Leonardo da Vinci was 95% "science fiction" during his era, but it would be a serious loss to our wisdom if we ignored it just because he lacked the technology during his lifetime to implement it. I feel that the same is true of Isaac Asimov and others with regard to robotics. I guess what I'm saying is, it's OK to keep the mentions here brief, with links leading to spun-off material (WP:SUMMARY, WP:SPINOFF), but deleting content is to be avoided. WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPINOFF deal with the topic that Chaosdruid mentioned ("First page A is expanded [...] a new page is created for X."). Oh, and I forgot one other thing I was going to say—remember that engineering involves both science and art. — ¾-10 22:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for getting involved with the discussion topic. You make a very good point about the significance of the arts on the field and that the topic covers Robotics in general but as a Robotics Engineer I still feel there is a lot of actual science missing and science fiction in its place. Would it not be best to organise the article into Robotics science and Robotics in culture and media? It's really not clear what the technological advancements have been and the challenges that still lie ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.207.229 (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're right overall. As I think about it at the moment, I don't know whether it makes sense to try to divide the nonfiction and fiction into separate sections—it may make more sense to just bring in a mention of fiction wherever apropos, but then get back to the main nonfiction content. The big thing is your main point, which is that the nonfiction content is still largely missing. I think if people can fill that in better, it will solve most of the imbalance. I'm hoping some more people who actually work in the field will find interest in adding stuff over time. Regards, — ¾-10 22:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree on any splitting off as to me the article is fine as it is. It shows the history of robotics, not robots, each is an example of a machine constructed by a person or the terminology, as it is also important and to show where the terms Robot and Robotic came from and is not merely a side issue but one extremely relevant to the article.

The history section is a very small synopsis of the entries in the History of Robotics and the Robot articles.

I do not think that an "In media" section would be warranted as these would mostly be repeats of the Robot articles. Cna you give any examples of media where those examples would not be warranted being moved to the Robot article? To avoid moving something oout would mean that they were specifically, and singularly, only able to be applied to robotics and not robots. If anything it would introduce repetitions from Robot and increase the amount of off-topic material in this article. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge future of robotics into article

The Future of robotics article has little information on the actual future of robotics to merit its own article. Most of the article consists of speculative press releases from government agencies, such as the DoD will have "completely autonomous robot soldiers in operation by 2035", and other lists of "facts". Redbeanpaste (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose It may be true that the article has little information but if it is true that speculative remarks are not worthy, surely merging it with Robotics would make the Robotics article worse? Discuss improvements, but merging with Robotics is a big no-no at this stage.

The article should be about how people are currently developing ideas and research towards targets in the future. It is not possible to say now whether these goals will be achieved or changed or not. That these goals exist should be backed up by sources and WP:CRYSTAL does not apply in this case. If the article said "There will be robots driving your car by the year 2040" and it was unnsourcd, then fine, remove that. If it says "There may be robots driving your car by 2040" and then gives a ref which discusses the planned goals of certain groups along research that is taking place, then fine, that can be discussed and the merits/demerits will determine keep or delete. If it says "Such and such a group is planning to introduce robotic drivers to its cars by 2040" and the refs support that point then it is fine as is. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Material moved out of article 23 Feb 2011

Hi all

I have removed the following text as it seems non notable, unencyclopaedic and unverified.

Besides this, Certified Progneer® - A Programming & Engineering Lifestyle Certification looks for one's abilities both in engineering and programming. The certification is designed for passionate folks. Folks having great passion for not just engineering but programming as well and the overlaping domain where these two mingle. This is where Progneers breed. If you are a pure programmer, you cannot breathe in this overlapping domain similarly if you are pure engineer, this domain will make you feel as if you are a foreigner. We thought a lot and concluded that passion cannot me measured using MSQs (Multiple Choice Questions). We think that passion can be measured by learning the lifestyle of those who apply for this certification. That is why we came up with this model. Therefore, to become a Certified Progneer® requires following three steps.

Step 1: Make sure you are eligibile

Step 2: Apply to become Certified Progneer®

Step 3: Share 30 small solutions or few complete projects

The eligibility requirement is pretty sharp and that is 4 years Bechalor of Science/Engineering Degree in Electrical (Electronic/Power/Mechatronics/Avionics/Robotics or closely related field) Engineering. If you already having such degree and few years of experience then you might already be having 30 small solutions or few complete projects available for this certification. Now it's just the matter of applying.

• Certified Progneer® - A Programming & Engineering Lifestyle Certification Website

Discussions welcome Chaosdruid (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing obvious spam is great, but don't repost on the talk page. Redbeanpaste (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It is fairly normal practice to do that. Obvious spam would be deleted. Text which may in some way be valid however, even if only a short sentence or two, is normally retained so that others can weigh in on validity/notability/weight etc.

I did not know enough about the qualification to ascertain its notability and validity. It may well be that the course is real, and if so, it may deserve a mention depending on weight and notability. I did a quick search for info but had more pressing matters which meant I could not investigate fully.

The point is that I could not decide whether to remove and delete. I noted above that "it seems non notable" and that it was unverified (not ref'd). I also noted that it was not written in a non encyclopaedic style.

Under these circumstances someone might easily verify its notability, ref it, rewrite it and put it back in.

It may also not be verified and deleted!

The term "progneer" was interesting and I will now research it to see what I can discover.

Chaosdruid (talk) 00:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It is nothing to do with robotics, I was right to move it out of the article. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)