ROBOTS!!!

Finally I have my hands on a Lego MindStorms Kit. $380 later mind you. Luckily I had a win on poker which paid for it. The first thing I noticed when I open up the box was how much shit you get. I really didn’t expect to get as much stuff as you do.

I started by building the “Startup” robot which took about an hour. It was pretty simple and straight forward (as you’d hope for the beginners robot). I tested out some sample programs that are built into the NXT microprocessor. Basically the robot could play a sound, drive forward, turn 180 degrees and drive back again.

I plugged in all the different sensors that come with it too. I was really impressed with the sensitivity of them. However the only sensor that I think I will really be able to use for the stuff I want to do, is the Ultrasonic sensor. It basically returns a value of how far away the nearest object is that its facing.

My main goal was to build a robot that can move around a room (whilst avoiding objects of course) and when it finds something interesting it would be able to take readings on the object with all its sensors and report back.

So with the sensors it comes with it would -

• See how far away the object is (or maybe measure how far across it is)
• Take a reading in dB of how loud the object is
• Take a reading of what colour (or greyscale colour) the object is.

The touch sensor doesn’t seem to be of any use to me. It can be used to object avoidance but I like the idea of the robot figuring out how to not hit the wall in the first place.

With all this in mind I had the idea to make a spinning sensor rig of doom. All the sensors would be mounted on a spinning platform. This would allow the robot to drive up to the object and then just cycle through each of the sensors and take readings. Sounds like a bomb idea right? Well I didn’t think of it, NASA did. I started to modify the basic robot I had built so it would be able to do this.

It was here (without diagrams and instructions to guide me) that I realised that I completely suck at building things. When I did robotics in Uni, the robot was basically built for me and I had to program it. Even with the really easy connections that the Lego Technic provides, I had a lot of trouble creating good supports for things. I didn’t really know what most of the obscure connectors were for. I struggled through I came up with this.

The big problem I had was the rig was only supported by one pole in the middle. Because of its centre of gravity this meant it leaned slighty forward, looking down. I didn’t think it was that big of a deal. Then when I connected the wires up to the NXT block, I realised a problem I would have. The rig wouldn’t be able to spin in the same direction for more then maybe 270 degrees. Obviously because the wires would strech and twist until they stopped the motors from turning. No problem I thought. There is only 3 sensors so it can go 90 degrees either way from the start postion and back again. How wrong I was. The “gears system” I was using to spin the rig completely failed the first time any pressure was put on it from the leads on the rig.

At this point I was “programming” the robot with the software that comes with it. Basically its for kids. You use drag and drop blocks onto a line which represents the senquence of instructions the code is executing. You can’t (without doing some crazy shit) do simple switch statements or complex if statements. Loops are a nightmare because you go across the page and when there are a lot on instructions in a loop the whole program is really hard to read.

I had looked into other ways to program the NXT before I got the kit. RobotC and NXT#
were the two I found. I wanted to use NXT# as it would allow me to do more (multithreading etc). However for it to sent commands to the brick you have to have a bluetooth connection on your computer. So I went out and bought a Bluetooth dongle and installed it. It was the cheapest one I could get which was my downfall in the end. I found out after a full day of googling that the driver for this dongle isn’t supported by the NXT Bluetooth on the brick.

So I looked into the RobotC option. It allows you to write in C (a cut down version). You can access the motors and different sensor ports and then you can download the assembly to the brick via USB just by pressing F5.

So with this new way of programming I decided to redesign my “MidgeBot” to only be able to see. My new plan was to make the object avoidance a lot smarted buy making the ultrasonic sensor be able to be moved around to look in different directions. After a couple of iterations I came up with this.

After a day of programming I have it doing the following (with a few bugs left to go).

• When the program first runs it turns the head back and forth until an object is placed in front of it. This sets the head in a forward position.
• It then moves forward until it senses an object in its way.
• It then stops and scans the 180 degrees in front of it for a path that doesn’t have an obstruction.
• It then turns (almost on a dime, more design work is needed) to the heading that the “eyes” are reporting.
• Then the eyes return to the forward position.
• Then it goes on its merry way.

So at this point I have a few things I’d like to do. First, I’d like MidgeBot to reverse and turn 180 degrees if it can’t find a path. I’d also like to use the same gear system to rotate other sensors (as I’ve used up all 3 motors already).

When I go back to work this week I will return the Bluetooth dongle and try to get one that works.

I’m still on crappy dial up while TPG gets there fucking arse in gear so I’ll upload some videos of it in the next post hopefully.

Gutted

Tonight I played in the final of the PokerNetwork League. Nine of us started to play for an Aussie Millions seat. It was a deep stack tournment with 5000 chips to start with and 15 minute blinds. I was pretty confident that if I got got OK cards I would have a chance at winning it.

For the first 3 or 4 levels I didn’t have any cards better then K 10. No pairs, no suited connectors. I struggled along getting caught stealing blinds a few times and got down to around 3000. I got dealt aces and managed to get back up to 5000 with those. Not long after that I got KK and an got a nice flop to get up to 6000.

Another level went by and I hit a set of 6’s which I used to get to 7700. I checked a mildy scary river and won the hand. It was at that point I realised I wasn’t being aggresive enough with made hands. I was playing to scared that I would be sucked out on. I changed my play and the next time I picked up a good hand, that exact thing happened. I hit a set of Q’s and got outdrawn to a flush on the river. I still don’t think looking back I played the hand strong enough.

That put me back down to around 5000 where I stayed until the blinds got up to around 300 – 600. I had been up and down and my blind stealing had been doing very well which had enabled me to survive with no hands after the Q’s. After that the blinds rose and it was very hard to steal as people were raising a lot pre-flop. I got blinded down to aroun 3000. Then I called all in with AK to double up to 6000. From there I worked my way up to 8000 and then I got dealt 2 back aces.

Again someone went all in before me and I called. Suited J10. When I first saw the hand it made me a bit uneasy. Thats the kind of hand i’ve cracked a lot of aces with myself. I would have (obviously) much rathered him have a AK or Jack’s or something. After a really good flop I had almost switched off. Until I saw someone call for a Q in the chat box. Just as I realised he had 4 outs to make a runner runner straight on the river, it hit.

I was crippled and down to about 2000 in chips with blinds at 300-600 with a 50 ante. I pushed a couple of times and got one walk on my big blind. Then I pushed with a J high on my small blind into another short stack hoping for a fold. He called and I only had one live card.

That was the end of me finishing 8th. I was really disappointed because I could have made a good run of it if those aces held up. The Aussie Millions would have been a dream to play in and a good little holiday for me as well. I got $250US for 8th which is going to help buy some robotics stuff that I couldn’t have afforded otherwise.

Oh well. I have been on a good upswing in tournments this year so I supposed I can take pride in that. One of my goals for 2007 is to win a seat in a WPT event(or some other 10K+ tourny) so hopefully I’ll get to do some poker travelling some time in 2007.

The debate continues….

After my last post I received a comment which I would like to respond to. I’m glad my post has sparked some interest and I’d like to thank “SlashGordon” for expressing his point of view. Here are some of the things he/she said (in italics) and my responses.

Where do you get the idea that 99% of all chemists believe in Darwinism? If you have hard facts on that I’d like to see it. For that to be known, every chemist would have to be asked what he believes.

If you’re looking for a record testimony of every scientists view then obviously your not going to get what you need from me, are you? I’m not claiming that exactly 99% of chemists believe one way or another. What I’m doing, is making an informed guess on what the figure might be. Unlike the Creationist believes, I don’t assert that I know the exact way things are. Either do Evolutionists for that matter. What Evolutionists do is gather information which they can use to guess and what is going on. Just like every other type of science. The information I have gathered would be life experience that through every level of my education I was taught evolution. I could give you 1000+ links that point to science papers on the matter. I didn’t really think that it would be necessary. Most new science is theory, just because it is a theory doesn’t mean it can’t be true.

Also, to say that “religious” ppl are closed minded when it comes to science. I don’t agree with that. Religious ppl are don’t believe that Darwinism is a science, and for good reason.

Here’s is a growing list of 600+ scientists that don’t believe in Darwinism:
http://discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

I never said that all religious people are closed minded. Maybe read over what I said again carefully. I know religious people who believe in Evolution. I’m not (unlike Creationist people) going to use this as a reason why Creationism must not be true. Again, I’m not saying the Creationism isn’t true. I’m saying that from the evidence that has been put in front of me (from both sides) I have made an assertion that Evolution theory is more likely. A growing list of 600 scientists that are “skeptical” (direct quote from title) doesn’t prove anything. I’m skeptical about the Evolutionary theory being 100% correct as well. That’s why I’m glad we have people out there looking for evidence to support/disprove some of the things being said. Creationists are happy not to look for this evidence and stand strong with what they have been taught and not seen. It’s funny how the Creationist view keeps changing over time as things get proven without a shadow of a doubt. If you look back in history religion has been doing this to every single type of science. Since the persecution of Galileo for saying that the earth wasn’t the centre of the universe. Then once it has been proven the church changes its view on it. Science only says something is correct until something proves it wrong (or more precisely). Religion says things are the “truth” until science makes them use another “truth”.

To believe that every complex thing we see today, evolved or came into being, from a single dot, billions of years ago, that came from nothing and nowhere, and then somehow exploded into all the planets, stars, moons, meteors etc (without ever observing it) by energy that came from nowhere and by nothing, takes great faith.

 

I’m sure there aren’t astrophysicists out there that say the energy for the big bang came from “no where”. They say “I don’t know”. Creationists can’t say that. They proclaim to know all until someone higher in their church tells them to believe in something different. I’m not sure why you think we haven’t observed plants and solar systems being made. Maybe you should check the countless science news sites. We are observing them every day.

 

The Big Bang is discredited for the simple fact that some planets and moons rotate in different directions, and not in the same direction. In fact, Uranus spins like a wheel.

This is completely untrue. There also is a mountain of evidence to support this theory, red shifting for example (and I’m not even an astrophysicist).

It takes faith, to believe in the primeval soup that came from nowhere and by nothing

Again, religion is the only supporter of these “nowhere and nothing” claims.

after millions of years of raining (where did the rain come from? Nowhere and by nothing?)

That’s actually up there with the stupidest argument ever. Where did rain come from? Would you like an address? I’ll give you where rain might have come from. Rain, is actually water. Once you’ve comprehended that, move on and keep reading. Water, is made from base elements (which Creationism doesn’t disagree with). Just like every other material in this universe, it is created by elements coming together to form molecules. We can reproduce this in labs. Its basic chemistry that has been used to make drugs and lots of other things you might be familiar with.

If the Intelligent Creator is all powerful, and all knowing, He doesn’t need to have a beginning. He would be the uncreated Creator, which makes better sense than the all mighty “Dot”.

Well I’m sure just by you saying “He doesn’t need to have a beginning” that you have proved a “truth” as religion might say. Ok, I’m going to use your logic and “prove” that the big bang happened. Its very clever, watch. Big Bang doesn’t need a beginning…WOW I did it. Just by saying I don’t need to have an answer, I have completely proved what I’m trying to say. What great “sense” I’m making, as you put it. I’d make a great scientist. I could prove that pigs actually rule the world from underground bases. When I’m asked where they are I’d simply say “I don’t need to show you”.

The thing about the Big Bang is again, its scientific theory. People are actively trying to figure it out. Because guess what, it’s really hard. Remember that the earth revolving around the sun was once a theory that was hard to understand too. Now its fact. Unlike the word “truth” that Creationists use.

There should be “missing links” and transitionals running around today, for everyone to see, if evolution was true. There would be so many transitionals, that there wouldn’t be any debate about it. But, cuz there aren’t any transitionals running around, and none ever found underground (except those found in the evolutionists’ imaginations), it takes faith just to believe they ever existed.

 

I don’t proclaim to know the exact ins and outs of fossils and the mutation of species. Although I would argue that IMO, there are “transitionals” running around. Just because there aren’t animals that look like both people and fish doesn’t disprove we evolved from them. Creationism likes to make big jumps so it seems more unlikely to those they are trying to teach (usually kids). Survival of the fittest suggests that “transitionals” die out because they cannot compete with the new species that is created. Therefore the link between a lizard and a bird could have been made extinct by the bird itself. The bird would be more capable of obtaining food and mating then a lizard with only half evolved wings.

“Lucy” is a hoax, and most ppl probably don’t know it. She was found with NO feet or hands, yet she is displayed having human hands and feet at the St. Louis Museum, making it appear that Lucy is a missing link. Evolutionists have a nasty habit of using drawings, and not actual bones, as evolutionary evidence.

Recently, an entire village was created by just a few bones found in Indonesia. Evolutionists called these ppl, “hobbits”. They proceeded to draw a “hobbit” man, woman and child, from the few bones found. These types of hoaxes seem to be never ending.

Again you’re using hoaxes to disprove things. That is the perfect example of a closed mind. I can name heaps of religious hoaxes (i.e. Mary statues crying blood etc). That doesn’t mean that I am going to use them to “disprove” there is a God. It’s a stupid way of thinking and Evolution doesn’t need to resort to those kinds of pathetic attempts.

Creationists also believe in variations. or microevolution, as evolutionists like to call it. A big dog, giving birth to a small dog, isn’t evolution. A bird evolving into a bat would be evolution (macroevolution), but that’s not being observed anywhere on this planet.

 

This is a perfect example of what I was saying before. Creationists didn’t believe this 100 years ago. Now it has been show to them with enough proof that they accept it. It seems backward to me that religious people need to have science unequivocally proven and show to them right in front of their faces to believe it. However when I comes to a higher power they are happy to just believe because they were told to. They don’t realize that they would have completely different believes if they had been brought up in a (insert another religion here) family.

The Theory of Evolution, or Darwinism, or Neo-Darwinism, is religious, in the highest degree.

No religion is “truth”.

Evolution is theory. Most people can pick that up in it title. The Theory of Evolution.

As far as that debate. I don’t think Bower is that good. He spent most of his time being disrespectful, making dumb jokes, and making predictions what Pendleton was going to say. At the start of the debate, it appeared to me, that Bower was making excuses why he was going to lose the debate.

Bower actually won the debate so I’m not sure why he needed to make excuses for losing it. As for making predictions for what Mr Pendleton was going to say, its not hard when he just recited the exact same things word for word as his video on YouTube.

Open minds only

YouTube really does get you watching lots of different stuff with the “Related Video’s” section that is next to a video your watching. The thing I search on YouTube the most is robotics videos. As I started to look at related videos from a MIT robot this was the path I ended up on…

MIT Robot – > Mars Rovers -> Video about Life on Mars -> a Creationist Video

I have no beef with religion in its basic form. Be good to your neighbor, don’t steal shit etc etc. If you believe in a higher power, thats your choice. What I do have a problem with is people using religion to make money or force other people to do what they want. This includes trying to convert people to their way of thinking.

I believe the bible was created to show people examples of why you should be a good person. People have used the bible and their interpretations of it for personal gain.

One aspect of religion that I hate, is the closed mind most religious people have about science. Creationism is the worst of it IMO. I’m going to go through a “few” points this guy brings up and why I think he is wrong.

• At the start of the video his name appears with “Chemist” under it. Although it turns out he does have a chemisty degree, this is obviously a way of showing the audience that he is a chemist and knows what he’s talking about. Forgetting the fact that 99% of chemists disagree with what his saying. I think it’s a bit backwards using a science title to fight against science.
• He then goes on to explain why he thinks the earth is only 6000 years old. He uses the bible to get the ansestry all the way back to Adam and Eve. One point he makes is that there are 75 generations back from Jesus and gives an estimate of 50 years for each generation. This is “around” 4000 years which seemingly validates his point. The life expectecy in Roman times (the 1500 year period around the birth of christ) was only 28. Clearly the only figure he could use to get the figure he needs without it sounding stupid is 50 years.
• He then “proves” the scientific geological clock wrong by saying that at the grand canyon only has half of the layers of rock that geologists suggest should be there. Forgetting the point that when new rock is distributed around the earth from violent events in the past, that the rock isn’t distributed perfectly around the entire earth. When a volcano erupts, the lava doesn’t flow across the face of the planet. This isn’t even taking into account erosion from wind and water.
• He then starts to explain how Evolution works. He makes jumps from fish to cats and from cats to apes. Clearly trying to show how huge of a difference there is between the species.
• He then finds things in nature that are 6000 years old. Therefore proving the earth is only 6000 years old. I can find things that are 2 years old as well.
• Then he goes onto explain why we have 6 billion people on the earth today. He uses the figure of 150 years for a population to double. He then halves the population every 150 years to get a population of 5.5 when the great flood happened. He doesn’t give any reason whatsoever to explain why the population would double every 150 years. The only reason I can think of is thats the number that gives him the answer he needs. Actual population figures show that the population growth has been quickly increasing for the last 1000 years. Not staying as a linear constant.
• He also discredits fossils age because they don’t come out of the ground with tags on them with the date they were created. Such a brilliant tactic.
• He then uses examples of carbon dating that gave wrong results. This somehow proves that carbon dating doesn’t work. Even though every single type of test thats ever been created has given a false result before. I’m sure there have been plenty of examples where a pregnancy test has given a false result. I don’t see him saying that pregnancy tests aren’t to be trusted.
• He then asks people to ask “Were you there?” when people say things are over 6000 years old. When he suggests what to do when the question is turned back on the person, he only offers the bible as proof that you can use. 2000 years of Chinese whispers translated through many languages. This is the proof you should use when science asks you a question thats to hard for you.

After sitting through this video I came across a comment from someone to this link. It’s a video of a 2.5 hour debate between this guy and a professor with a PhD in Biology at a college in the USA.

If your interested in this blog then the 2.5 hours is well worth it. He gets owned completely on every topic they discuss.