Here are the few specimen entries for the Android Makers
Encyclopedia "A" topics:
...
Actuators: Actuators are the equivalent of muscles. There is
not much available for muscles as of June 25, 2001 since my
bookmark to Shadow sometime went cobweb, but the mileage
with your browser may vary. However, some products and
technologies, e.g. Artificial Muscles, suggest potentials.
Regrettably, a certain Polymer Hydrogel would have promise
if it did not need a lot of engineering to change state.
The products and potential technologies are few and not all
developed. These solution key words, practical and impractical,
potential or available (marked with a company name or trademark),
include:
Conventional robotics.
Dual Shape Memory Effect (DSME, See "muscle wires" and
"shape changing metals").
Elastic biomolecular machines.
Electrorheologic fluids ("er" or "erf").
Ferrofluids.
Hydraulic or fluid powered.
Magnetostriction or using magnetic force.
Muscle wires from Mondo-tronics' Robot Store: Robots Kits,
Muscle Wires, and More!!!.
Pneumatic or air powered.
Piezoelectrics.
Shape changing metals (DSME).
Bladder or "Windjammer.."
Some related tidbits are:
"Deflection is proportional to air pressure in a hose"
[B2000, 27 Sep.`93.]. How this relates to a product called
"Windjammer," a collapsible hose, is not clear. However, it is
not counter-intuitive.
Alternatively, there has been some recent articles that suggest piezoelectric materials may have interesting properties.
Unfortunately, those items have not been clipped for the Android
Makers Scrapbook.
...
Android
(n) By dictionary definition is: ``a. "Resembling man,
in human form." (also) androides n. "Machine or automaton
in human form, which, by means of springs, performs natural
motions of a living man."'' [Whitehall]
That 1950 era definition is so conventionally, industrially
robotic, which the associated technology is far too crude for the
purposes of this reference work. Note that "it" may be a suitable pronoun for a common android or one assembled like a mannequin which is much less human-like than a Hatfield Type Android
(HTA).
Although "automaton" does not sound "warm and fuzzy," it is
true by definition of being created by human and capable of some
special movement. A Hatfield Type Android could serve robotic
functions, be a test bed for prosthesis design, be an animated
mannequin, doll, or replacement actor, or ... almost whatever you
need or desire.
However, there is an essential difference between the common
android and a Hatfield Type Android. The common type android's
form follows its function more than in an HTA. A Hatfield Type
Android is by design to be more like an "artificial human companion" than the common android so an HTA's function follows form.
The form of an HTA is more important that a specification sheet
of super-human capabilities.
...
Android Actuator Naming Conventions: Human muscles each have
unique names, therefore, android adductors or actuators
should also. Wherever there is a direct correspondence to a
human muscle, the android actuator should be known by that
same identifier. However, when there is some confusion,
then there must be some consistent method of assigning a
label to that actuator.
The significant number (792) of muscles in a human body suggest that there will be some elimination and some combinations
into android actuators. Some of those 792 human muscles have a
pure biological, biomechanical , or visceral purpose which the
equivalent could be omitted from the current generation of HTA.
It will not be necessary to name an omitted muscle.
Combined muscles' names can begin with the common parts of
the combined muscle's names. These common name parts usually
relate to the location or view such as "Anterior" or "Posterior."
There are some other anatomical descriptors that are common such
as "Flexus." Naming a particular actuator that represents a
combination of muscles is best done by "winging it" when the time
comes since there is no well defined rules as of July 28, 1997.
...
Android Frame Element Naming Conventions: Each human bone has
its own unique names, therefore, android framing elements
should also. Wherever there is a direct correspondence to a
human bone, the android frame element could and probably
should be known by that same identifier. However, when
there is some confusion, then there must be some consistent
method of assigning a label; akin to the actuator or muscle
naming convention to that frame element.
The significant number of bones in a human body (200; less
for the inner ear) suggest that there will be some elimination of
certain bones and combinations of others into singular frame
elements. Of course, it will not be necessary to name an omitted
element. Naming a particular element that represents a combination of bones is best done by "winging it" when the time comes
such as a hash of the combination of names.
Android Model Number convention is built upon a concatenation of
the "Android Type," "Racial Index Modifr," and "Appearance
Index Mo." For example, a "311" model number is a juvenile
white female; Anglo-Saxon (white); and pretty, respectively
by digit position. Characters, such as those that an alpha-numeric numbering system would support, probably will not be
used because the modeling work sheet only uses numbers which
are index numbers for a "look-up" expression in the model
template files.
...
Android Rights was established in fiction; the Star Trek: Next
Generation episode "The Measure of a Man." (See the topic;
ANDROIDS IN FICTION for more about these characters. This
link shares a source file with the formal encyclopedia, so
you will need to use your browser's [Back] button.) Captain
Picard proved in a hearing during that episode that a
sapient android such as Commander Data must have certain
basic rights.
How the Judge Advocate General (JAG) could rule that "Data
is a toaster" after Commander Data has academic degrees, a humanoid commission and earned rank of an officer instead of that of a
mere vessel, and decorations, is bizarreSee footnote 1 and was not addressed.
However, Picard brought up the slavery issue after being prompted
by his discussion with Guinan; a wise more-than-"meets-the-eye"
barkeeper. Picard also asked "what-is-sapience?" and asked the
plaintiff, Commander Maddox, to prove that he (or anyone) is
sapient and Data was not; what is the difference and why. Those
issues, and that Data had been close to a female member of the
Enterprise 1701-D crew seemed to change the JAG's ... and the
plaintiff's minds.
The JAG finally ruled that Commander Data did not have to
leave his present duty to submit to Commander Maddox's
experiments and dissections, but like many justices before her
time, did not address the main legal issue. However, and to her
credit, she made the correct ruling for some possible suitable
reasons.
An episode of Outer Limits that aired 3 November 1995 addressed the matter of android rights more realistically. Leonard
Nimoy, an actor well known to generations of Star Trek series
and movie fans, portrayed an eccentric attorney called upon to
prevent a very sophisticated bi-pedal robot (clearly not anything
like a Hatfield Type Android) from being routinely scrapped like
an old car.
This android was demonstrated to have certain uniquely human
traits in a "court of law." By these traits which are not limited to programming, animal behavior, or even "artificial intelligence," the court ruled that this android had the same Constitutional Rights as any flesh-and-blood Citizen.
The subject android had proved much of the point by submitting to the authority of the police in spite of his extraordinary; although typical for fictional androids; strength of which he could easily escape. After the judge ruled that he could have
all citizenship rights, he was still remanded to the custody of
the jail (there is a lot that can be said about that). Even
then, this starring robot still proved more desirable human
qualities: When he observed that the prosecutor was about to be
run down, he broke his restraints and then pushed her out of the
way of a truck that would have killed her. He was fatally
injured as he himself was struck, scattering parts of robot
several feet. His dying words were not unlike any man's.
For more information or insight, see "Moral Advice About
Androids." For more confusion by looking toward the converse,
see "Asimov's (Isaac) ``Three Laws of Robotics''."
...
Android, Hatfield Type (HTA)
(n) An android whose handiwork as
near to the image of a particular human and as like a human
in size, motion, texture of materials, etc, as possible.
Note the personal pronoun "whose." A suitable synonym, in
the sample data set, could be; "dolldroid." The appearance
may be very individualistic because of the attempt to make a
`particular' android to an image.
Notice certain key words in this definition: "Image" in the
HTA instead of merely "form." Image is more restrictive in the
likeness because "form" can be no more than bipedal ambulation
with little more likeness than a scarecrow. "Automaton" and
"human;" too, clearly differentiate these special androids from
bipedal mechanisms built with conventional or even advanced robotic technologies.
One salient feature of the HTAs is the appearance of each
individual. The design parameters almost force their final
appearance to be defined before any design or fabrication is
started. Unlike robots or other robotic androids, a Hatfield
Type Android's function clearly follows their form; even to the
extent of being visually indistinct from a unique human. This
means that an appearance must be visualized before the plans
within the handbook can be used to determine the measurements of
framing components, or bones, and the subsequent processes making
the successive functional layers. It is quite possible to make
an HTA appear not only human, but very much like a particular
person.
The other feature, or more correctly a "salient fact," is
that their physical work capabilities may be somewhat limited.
They are not likely initially to be remarkably strong: In fact,
they may be incapable to the point of being nearly functionally
useless (The Android Maker can have perverse delight with that
thesis.). Without the powerful hydraulic rams of factory robots
or the biological muscles and their support systems, any task
taxes this generation of android construction technology. An
expectation: Every generation or incremental "peak-n-tweak" will
be an improvement, but a "super android" is not immediately
foreseeable.
An HTA is like an aircraft.in a way: An android's function-follows-form even though these forms are tightly coupled to their
functions. Androids and aircraft are clearly not a form-follows-function design. Androids' form, their appearance, size, human-like attributes, etc., must be defined or decided before anything
else of design and fabrication is accomplished.
Therefore: The FIRST step is to know, define, or imagine
your android's appearance. Who is your android to look like?
This implicitly requires the explicit statement of phenotype and anthropometric values like sex, age, race, build, height, etc.
among other general descriptors.
...
...
Note: Therefore, you will need to use your browser's "back"
button to come back here or to follow other internal
links--at least until I put links in the source.)
ANDROIDS IN FICTION
Asimov's (Isaac) "Three Laws of Robotics:"
1. "A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction,
allow a human being to come to harm."
2. "A robot must obey orders given by human beings except where
such orders would conflict with the First Law."
3. "A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law."
[Boyd, 16 Apr. `95] (And promotional materials for Asimov's
books).
These apply to ALLSee footnote 2 robots. Hatfield Type Androids, being
in the image of people, answer to both human law and robotics
law.
Want to contribute, comment, etc.? Write me! ... Your
suggestions are welcome.
as of June 28, 2001. ... Back to the Android Making
Encyclopedia Page of/or to The Android Maker site's home page.