I would imagine that there is a well-defined, generally-accepted definition of robot, but I don't know what what it is. I would have thought that it would be some degree of autonomy, i.e., that to some extent it would receive data from the environment and respond differently depending on what those data were. If this is true, though, it excludes RC machines and things on wheels that may look like a robot, but just roll. There is no doubt in my mind that Frits's Start Here Version 2 (or Version 1) is a robot.
I guess my question is, what are the distinguishing characteristics of the class, Robot.
Is an irrigation controller a robot? It can receive data from the environment (to measure and model moisture lost from the soil) and it can respond by turning the water valve on and off as appropriate. I don’t know if I think that’s a robot or not. But if a rover probes the soil and determines that it is dry, THEN drives to the control valve and turns on the water, I’d say that was a robot - even if it had no other capabilities for interacting with or moving about the environment. I’m not sure what makes the difference.
To me, a robot is any machine that runs a program and has a set of arguments that it calls on when a certain variable changes, without human involvement in any way. In my mind a little voice is screaming 'It should move or it is just a computer!'
So, the irrigation controller mentioned by Cactus, would be a computer, while the rover that roams around, probing the soil and running off to the valve would be a robot.
Not me, because you tell it exactly what to do. It’s a computer at most, it has a preprogrammed sequence to run and it won’t do it by recognizing what you’ve put in.
I’d consider them to be robots if they were mobile and could navigate streets, or at least a parking lot while performing their tasks
I am interested in why airuno2l asks. Presumably they adjust their cycles in response to some sensor input?
OddBot and Benji83, Do you consider vahid_you2004’s Balancing Robot on Instructables tp be a legitimate robot? It moves and it responds to its environment, as cited by OddBot, but neither runs a program nor has a set of arguements that it calls on when a certain variable changes," criteria suggested by Benji83. I don’t mean to pick on Balancing Robot, but was wondering if having only simple switches (e.g. bumper switches that might reverse motors), exiles a moving machine to the realm of not-really-a-robot.
Newer washing machine weigh the load and adjust it’s water level accordingly, as well as continuously monitors water temperature to keep it at a certain level. So they do all of the following:
- Takes measurements and adapt (in fact they utilize fuzzy logic)
- They are reprogrammable
- They automate tasks that were at one time performed by hand
- They have moving parts (they are electromechanical systems)
- They are autonomous
Why would they not be considered a robot? To require something to be mobile in order for it to be considered a robot doesn’t work since stationary manipulators are not mobile but are definitely robots.
Me definition of a robot is Me definition of a robot is simple: anything that senses, thinks, and acts is a robot…so yes, all the devices in your kitchen are robots because they have sensors, such as temp sensors, or timers, or water level sensors. Then it decides what to do, and then does it, such as shut off, switch to rinse cycle, or shut off after coffee is made… Whereas RC cars or anything controlled by a human is not a robot. Must be autonomous to be a robot in my book.
A washing machine is an automaton, AIBO is a robot.
An automaton is a device or machine that is able to execute automated tasks under a program set by an operator to follow certain parameters in a reduced, closed environment.
A robot is a mobile automaton capable of a wider range of interaction with it’s environment.
(Some aspects might escape me at this hour, so don’t take it as a perfect rule.)
In these modern days there are more and more automatons available, starting with the coffe machine and going to automated irrigation systems. Everything that has a programmed microcontroller inside is an automaton. Yes, in the old days there were mechanical automatons, which were true, nowadays they became electronic and more capable.
In my opinion, a robot must move around (an industrial arm is a robot, because it moves around it’s base) and must interact with it’s environment (by reading sensors and controlling actuators) autonomously, by following pre-programmed parameters. I feel beam bots are closer to automatons, as long with other mechanical robots that were built in the old days. Any autonomous ground, aerial, floating, underwater vehicle is a robot.
RC battle bots are nor robots or automatons. They do not execute any pre-programmed action, they execute instant human commands and most of the time they do that in analog mode, and they are in human sight at all times. There are RC rescue robots, Moon rovers, etc. that besides executing human commands they rely sensor information to humans (including video) and are capable of some autonomous movement and they are most of the time out of human sight. They are robots.
A lot of those industrial arm robots don’t have sensors other than maybe a feedback sensor to make sure they don’t crush the object they are handling. They just perform repetitive motions that are explicitly defined by their programming via a remote computer system. The arms I’ve seen don’t do any environmental interaction. A signal external of the robot arm tells the machine that the object it needs to manipulate is present and it moves. There’s no decision-making going on. So, wouldn’t they be automatons as well?
