Andrews: Humanbots vs. Indubots

[from Gary Cziko 951109.0152 GMT]

Avery Andrews 951112 said:

With an accurate simulation of the forward dynamics, we could demonstrate
(perhaps), that you don't need sophisticated equations to control a 4+ df
arm in a human-like manner (which, is, I might add, in case some
industrial roboticists are listening in, extremely different in nature
from the problem of controlling an industrial robot.

Is this because industrial robots work in situations where there are no
disturbances?--Gary

[Avery Andrews 951109.1415 Eastern Oz Time]
(Gary Cziko 951109.0152 GMT)

>>With an accurate simulation of the forward dynamics, we could demonstrate
>>(perhaps), that you don't need sophisticated equations to control a 4+ df
>>arm in a human-like manner (which, is, I might add, in case some
>>industrial roboticists are listening in, extremely different in nature
>>from the problem of controlling an industrial robot.
>
>Is this because industrial robots work in situations where there are no
>disturbances?--Gary

No, it's because robot arms require optimal performance for a specific
task rather than tolerable performance for a wide-range of tasks, and
are furthermore much safer to make mistakes with, comparatively speaking,
so trial-and-error methods are much more appropriate (a robot arm is
an powerful, expensive and dangerous piece of machinery, you don't want
it deciding what it wants to do ...

There were some postings about this some time ago, not sure what their
headings were, but they were on the general subject of why for example
inverse dynamic calculations might not be inappropriate for robot arms.

  Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au