Talk:Robotics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Robotics is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, an attempt to standardise coverage of Robotics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

Welcome! This subject is outlined on the List of basic robotics topics. That list, along with the other Lists of basic topics, is part of a map of Wikipedia. Your help is needed to complete this map! To begin, please look over this subject's list, analyze it, improve it, and place it on your watchlist. Then join the Lists of basic topics WikiProject!
This article is within the scope of the Technology WikiProject, a group related to the the study of Technology. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Timeline

I added a timeline to the article, but information was difficult to find for several time periods. The timeline 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)