My interview on Self-reconfiguring modular robot in Radio Statler at Hope number 9, July 2012

If you have the opportunity to visit the next hope in 2014 do not miss it. It is great! I [...]]]> This is my interview for radio Statler on Self-reconfiguring modular robot
from Hope number 9 in New York July 2012.

My interview on Self-reconfiguring modular robot in Radio Statler at Hope number 9, July 2012

If you have the opportunity to visit the next hope in 2014 do not miss it.
It is great! I am definitely going!

In Canadian schools, June is a month that requires some of the most creative teaching.

Picture this: Summer hits. The sun is out. The weather is hot. Minds start to wander into dream lands of summer vacations. Thoughts of sleeping in, swimming and playing video games replace math, language and [...]]]> This is a guest post

In Canadian schools, June is a month that requires some of the most creative teaching.

Picture this:
Summer hits. The sun is out. The weather is hot. Minds start to wander into dream
lands of summer vacations. Thoughts of sleeping in, swimming and playing video games
replace math, language and science lessons.

Motivating students in June is difficult. When I mentioned an extra assignment
to my students, one that was completely voluntary, I figured that a small
handful would want to participate.

I was wrong.

In mid June I showed students a Cubelets video that I had found on youtube.
The class freaked out. The kids started asking where they could buy some and
if we could “please, please, please” get some for our class. I told them we
had gotten some on loan from the FlexibilityEnvelope.com, but there was
a catch (“nothing in life is free”). I told them that they could have time
to play with the Cubelets, but it would cost them a writing assignment.

I expected the majority of my students to lose interest when I mentioned work.

I should have known better.

My class is awesome. They are hard-working and committed learners with a zest
for trying new things. They are the kind of people that I want running the
world in twenty years.

They all volunteered.

Next step was finding a way for the students to get some small group time to
work with the Cubelets. Currently our school is very focused on oral language
development and the power of discourse. In short, our school is testing out
how meaningful conversations and human interaction have the power to push learning.
When I mentioned to my principal that I might need some support/extra
bit of supervision for this Cubelets assignment to take place, she quickly
arranged for it.

Watching the students work with the Cubelets was an amazing experience.
I promised to stay out of their way and let them play. At times it was
really challenging to not step out and “help”. They went through cycles
of frustration where they would blurt out things like
“what the heck does this thing do” and “this isn’t working”.
Not teaching them and guiding them through this was hard, but also a
very necessary part of the process. I wanted to see how they learned
together, not how well they could follow instructions.

As they worked, there were a few trends that I observed. Every group jumped
right in, fearlessly. At some point all groups connected all of the cubelets
together to see what would happen. Some did this systematically, others
randomly, but all groups tried it out. All groups really were the most
interested by the wheels and making creations that moved. The lights and
sound were cool, but movement was unanimously a measure of success.
When a group made a creature that could move, they cheered and did
some kind of victory dance.

I was most impressed with the groups that really sat down and tried to
figure out what each cube did before putting them together. Two girls,
Ashley and Kate, figured out that
“One of the black Cubelets uses light, one is a motor sensor, one is
for temperature, one controls the amount of power you’re using
(with a knob)”.

More importantly, they got the bigger idea that
“They all send information” of some kind. Another group of boys,
Daniel, Rakeem and Johnson, separated all of the cubes by colour
to figure out how each one worked. For example, they figured out
that “the red ones are like power on” so that they could build
their “spinning drill”.

While the students played, I recorded them. The following day in
class, we took a look at all of the videos and I gave them 15 minutes
to write as much as they could – less focus on quality, more focus
on quantity. At the end of the speed writing session they had to go
back and underline their best 3 ideas. These could be single words
or sentences. Some of the ideas that came out were:

• “I recommend this item for anyone who likes to learn about how electricity works” – Thomas
• “My group made a spinning drill that lights up” – Daniel
• “It was fun to talk about what we learned and made” – Daniel
• “It was so nice to get this kind of chance to use them” – Saranya
• “Cubelets are something that you use to make inventions but they’re toys” – Thyra
• “There’s only one thing that could get you frustrated (actually now that I think about it two things). The first thing is figuring out which one does what. The second thing is recharging the battery, but that’s not the point (right?).” – Breanna
• “The red ones are like power on” – Johnson
• “They are all awesome because there are endless possibilities” – Phillip
• “They are robotic cubes that can light up, drive and make sounds” – Recshana (black cubes)
• “They all send information” – Ashley
• “They are like Lego, but they stick together with magnets” – Kate
• “One of the black cubelets uses light, one is a motor sensor, one is for temperature, one controls the amount of power you’re using (with a knob)” – Kate
• “I made a tank that looks like a dog” – Jules
• “The problem is there’s only one battery” – Bezawit

The next step was to share their ideas. I set up a writing chain. Each student
had a piece of paper. He/she wrote his best idea on the top and passed it to the
next student. That student would add his/her best ides to the sheet and pass it
to the next student. And so on. In fifteen minutes the whole class had 25 really
good words, sentences on a piece of paper. This acted as an efficient brainstorming
session for the students.

Finally, students had to synthesize as many of those ideas as possible to write
about their Cubelets experience.

Looking at their writing and hearing their conversations while they worked with
the Cubelets was a fantastic experience. Students would have arguments about how
to improve how a creation worked. One group of boys was even able to create a
vehicle that used a motion sensor to steer their craft. As they worked, they kept
saying things like “this isn’t working because…” “we need to try….” this kind
of problem solving is difficult to create in an authentic way. Yet, Cubelets did it.
They made students think on a very deep level. The cubes forced them to analyze,
diagnose, fix and understand.

Such a wonderful experience. Thank you.

This is Stepans second post check out:
Cubelets and Inquiry Based Learning by Stepan Pruchnicky

Editors note:
Thank you to Stepan and all the students in the class for sharing your
Cubelets experience with us. This is exactly why I started the Cubelets
Competition. I am thrilled that the students liked it and that great
teachers like Stepan thinks they help children learn! The competition
is still open, and an expansion of this program is on the way, so if
you are a teacher or would like to get involved, do not hesitate to get
in touch! And, although I like the notion of a writing assignment as
payment, the loan of the Cubelets in this competition is absolutely free!

This post is the first winner in The Flexibility Envelope’s Spectacular Cubelets Competition
Check out the competition to win free tinkering time with the Cubelets and soon other Modular robotics systems!

This is a guest post by an external writer. For more guest posts and how you can contribute,
check out the guest posts page.

A screen capture of me runing the Mobot over G+

I operated Barbo INC’s Mobot remotely over the Internet! The prototype UI was simple but it worked great.

I have always thought that beeing able to operate modular robots remotely would be a great thing (especially the Self [...]]]> Recently I did something really cool!

A screen capture of me runing the Mobot over G+

I operated Barbo INC’s Mobot remotely over the Internet!
The prototype UI was simple but it worked great.

I have always thought that beeing able to operate modular robots
remotely would be a great thing (especially the Self reconfiguring kind
you know I like). This will reduce the barrier to developing solutions
with modular robotics even further. If you could debug what you
developed remotely, then you could developed SRCMR solutions with
just a basic computer.

The Mobot modules are just $270 a piece and that is a fantastic price,
and a big step towards making modular robotics available to more people.

If you add remote access to that where you only pay a small fraction
of that, I think we eventaly could get down to cents per modul/hour,
that is a game changer indeed!

I also think that remotcontrol of (Self-Reconfiguring) Modular Robots
will be use full in it’s own right, som much of the computer power we
use thesa days are in the cloud that I think it will be the same way
for SRCMR. Many new cool things will be posible with remote control
of SRCMR, just think how cool a (semi) IRL version of Mindcraft or
WOW could be!

I hope this will be publicly available soon and that we can control
many modules I will definitely stay on top of this story and I would
like to thank Graham for letting me be the first one to do this test
drive.

I think that it is great that venture capitalists are appearing more in the robotics field and even more cool that they dare to venture into modular robotics where the direct application is hard to see.

It is, I would say, rather hard to explain what can be done with a (self-reconfiguring) [...]]]>

The Cubelets

I think that it is great that venture capitalists are appearing more in the robotics field and even more cool that they dare to venture into modular robotics where the direct application is hard to see.

It is, I would say, rather hard to explain what can be done with a (self-reconfiguring) modular robotics system, as it can assemble and be programmed into an endless variety of solutions. Much like another device we have come to be quite familiar with .

Like Brad, “I’m completely fascinated” by (self-reconfiguring) modular robotics, and the way he describes modular robotics as “software wrapped in plastic” is just what I think it is.

One could also say that self-reconfiguring modular robotics is a body for the computer.

I think that (self-reconfiguring) modular robotics is destined for big things and it is great that VC start to help!

There are also other companies in the modular robotics field that are interesting and definitely worth a look! I would especially like to mention two: Barobo and Robosynthesis

Read more on the story:
Posts by Eric Schweikardt, Modular Robotics and Brad Felds, the Foundry Group on the announcement
and article by Dan Primack at Fortune

Thanks John via CNN

I am bringing three Mobot modules from Barobo to Hope Number Nine, from 13th to 15th of July at Hotel Pennsylvania in NYC, thanks Graham for lending them.

So either swing by my presentation, comment below or tweet me @Perblog, if you want to see them!

This is what EFF has to say about HOPE Number Nine:

“Hackers On Planet Earth (HOPE), one of the most creative and diverse hacker events in the world. HOPE Number Nine will be taking [...]]]> My talk is on the Friday July 13, at 22:00 in the Nutt room on the 18th floor of Hotel Pennsylvania

This is what EFF has to say about HOPE Number Nine:

“Hackers On Planet Earth (HOPE), one of the most creative and diverse hacker events in the world. HOPE Number Nine will be taking place on July 13, 14, and 15, 2012 at the Hotel Pennsylvania in New York City. Several EFF staffers from the legal, tech, and activism teams will be giving presentations. Stop by the EFF booth at HOPE for an invite to our Speakeasy meetup at a secret location on Friday night. Here is a round-up of talks you should make sure not to miss. …”

This is my talk summary:

“No Natural Resources Were Hurt Assembling This Sofa”

This talk is an introduction and overview of a new and exciting field in robotics called Self Reconfiguring Modular Robotics (SRCMR). SRCMR is basically about modules, like Lego pieces, that can assemble themselves into anything you want (self reconfigure). You will hear how this makes a prosperous, growing, and environmentally friendly world accessible for all of us. This is possible because the stuff you need is assembled from the same modules, again and again, using no resources other than small amounts of energy. This drastically reduces the resources we use, and de-couples growth and environmental problems. Because the modules are programmable, SRCMR will also make the world completely hackable, introducing many interesting opportunities and challenges.

My presentation will include a Q&A, so if you are in NYC and have a question regarding Self Reconfiguring Modular Robotics I would love it if you came by!

And you are naturally welcome to ask questions about robotics in general too, as I am fortunate enough to meet many excellent researchers when interviewing roboticists for the Robots podcast.

See you soon in NYC!

Update: Check out Stepan second post with his and the students Cubelets experiences Students love the Cubelets

Elementary school learning is a messy thing. It’s loud and it involves a lot of hands-on, exploratory, cooperative learning. Kids like building, taking apart and re-building. In my grade five class, I have [...]]]> This is a guest post

Update: Check out Stepan second post with his and the students Cubelets experiences Students love the Cubelets

Elementary school learning is a messy thing. It’s loud and it involves a lot of hands-on,
exploratory, cooperative learning. Kids like building, taking apart and re-building.
In my grade five class, I have seen some really exciting learning happen when students get
a chance at messy learning. When younger students get a chance to tinker, they really get
to learn. They internalize their learning and then are able to access it later.

One of biggest hurdles for elementary school teachers to get through, over and across,
is that kids need this kind of learning. Not all learning can be quiet and controlled.

The second biggest hurdle for elementary school teachers is coming to terms with the fact
that students also need to learn to sit and read, write and process slowly. Not everything
in life happens in an interactive way, at a high-energy pace.

In my class I try to keep to the following model: messy, exploratory, hands-on lesson followed up
by a slower, reflective piece of work describing the learning that has just happened.

I would love to take part in the Cubelets competition to see what kind of writing it will yield.
I AM interested in modular robotics, but I am far more interested in what my students will do
with the Cubelets. I am still more interested in the reflective, thoughtful writing that it will
generate. I’m eager for my students to play with the Cubelets, record (on video) what they have
constructed, then describe what they have learned about Cubelets and how they work. Perhaps they
can write a follow up to this blog post?

Cubelets are toys that provide users with a unique opportunity to imagine, construct and play.
Students would be so excited to imagine their toys, then build them, then play with them. The play
would plant seeds into their imagination of other combinations of cubes to make new robots,
providing the students with even more ideas for robots to construct. Constructing and reconstructing
would give the children a chance to “edit” and refine their ideas with their hands. Since the Cubelets
require seconds to re-arrange, students with even the shortest attention spans would be able to take
part in this process. Moreover, they would instantly see how their edits had changed their robot.
Presumably, the students would then be able to write about this process.

Some key-learning that would arise from a process like
this would be:

1.  Ideas (in general) require editing. Cubelet robots require refinements – student thinking and writing also requires refinement.
2.  Teamwork is powerful. A team is far more likely to find its way out of a problem than an individual.
3.  Asking questions (“How can we improve this?”, “What else can these do?”) leads to an improved understanding of how things function.

I realize that this proposal is not technical/scientific; however, I think it will provide real insight
into how students learn. What is it about the hands on process that allows them to grow
synapses and truly learn? Maybe after the Cubelets challenge, students will be able to tell us.
Better yet, maybe they will recognize it in themselves and seek out authentic learning experiences
for themselves.

You can follow Stepan Pruchnicky on Twitter at @stepanpruch or his tumblr blog.

This post is the first winner in The Flexibility Envelope’s Spectacular Cubelets Competition
Check out the competition to win free tinkering time with the Cubelets and soon other Modular robotics systems!

This is a guest post by an external writer. For more guest posts and how you can contribute,
check out the guest posts page.

Modularity and reconfiguration are key concepts that enable nature as well as engineers to construct large systems reliably and economically. A modular design allows a wide range of robots to be assembled from a basic set of modules. [...]]]> The Journal of Robotics and Autonomous Systems invites papers for a
special issue on reconfigurable modular robotics.

Modularity and reconfiguration are key concepts that enable nature as
well as engineers to construct large systems reliably and
economically. A modular design allows a wide range of robots to be
assembled from a basic set of modules. If modules break they can
easily be replaced by spare modules. The cost of the entire system can
be reduced because individual modules can be mass-produced. Further,
current developments in bio-, chemo- and material science-inspired
communities are enabled using new principles of multicellular and
layered self-assembly and properties of materials. These developments
are leading to new application domains of reconfigurable systems and
new challenges for the robotics community. This special issue will
focus on current advances in the hardware and software areas of
reconfigurable modular robotics, issues related to dynamic network
topology and limited module resources (power, size, torque, precision,
etc.), difficulties in global synchronization, exclusion of
centralized decision makers, reliable communication among modules, and
minimalist sensing and actuation capabilities.

Papers are solicited on all areas directly related to these topics,
including but not limited to:

* Hardware: novel mechanics and electronics
* Sensing and perception in modular systems
* Behaviors for modular robots
* Distributed control and programming
* Plug-and-play mechatronics
* Different multi-cellular systems
* Self-assembly on macro- and micro-scales
* Artificial embryogenesis, morphing, structural self-organization
* Molecular, chemical, underwater and material science-inspired works
towards reconfigurable systems
* New challenges for future modular robots

Papers must contain high-quality original contributions and be
prepared in accordance with Robotics and Autonomous Systems
guidelines. Authors who intend to submit a manuscript are encouraged
to contact Serge Kernbach (serge.kernbach@ipvs.uni-stuttgart.de) or
Robert Fitch (rfitch@acfr.usyd.edu.au) as soon as possible in order to
ensure that the planned submission falls within the aims and scope of
the special issue. All papers will be reviewed following the regular
reviewing procedure of the journal.

GUEST EDITORS

Wei-Min Shen, University of Southern California
Kasper Stoy, University of Southern Denmark
Radhika Nagpal, Harvard University
Robert Fitch, University of Sydney
Serge Kernbach, University of Stuttgart

IMPORTANT DATES

Paper submission deadline: 30 June 2012
Notification to authors: 30 September 2012
Submission of revised papers: 30 October 2012
Final acceptance: 30 November 2012

ONLINE SUBMISSION

http://ees.elsevier.com/robot/ (open after 31 May 2012)

Self-Reconfigurable Robots - an Introduction by Kasper Stoy, David Brandt and David J. Christensen

Research on self-reconfigurable robots started in the late 1980s when the idea of cellular robots emerged. The vision was to develop a system of autonomous cells that could jointly form different shapes to accomplish tasks. [...]]]> This is a guest post

Self-Reconfigurable Robots - an Introduction by Kasper Stoy, David Brandt and David J. Christensen

Research on self-reconfigurable robots started in the late 1980s when
the idea of cellular robots emerged. The vision was to develop a
system of autonomous cells that could jointly form different shapes to
accomplish tasks. Over the past two decades, significant progress has
been made and several self-reconfigurable robots have been built. The
book “Self-reconfigurable Robots — An Introduction” by Stoy,
Brandt, and Christensen is the first book on self-reconfigurable
robots to appear. The authors have divided the material into 10
chapters covering topics ranging from the history of
self-reconfigurable robotics and hardware to different approaches to
self-reconfiguration and future research challenges. The book is
aimed at graduate students and researchers. The material is, however,
presented in a language and at a level of technical detail that allow
anyone with an interest in self-reconfigurable robots to enjoy the
book.

Chapter 1 introduces the reader to the field of self-reconfigurable
robotics by providing two possible scenarios in which
self-reconfigurable robots could be particularly useful: i) a
planetary exploration scenario, in which a self-reconfigurable robot’s
morphological flexibility enables it to navigate in different
environments, and ii) a morphing production line scenario in which
reconfigurable robots autonomously assemble furniture. The authors
then present examples of two self-reconfigurable robots, namely the
CONRO and the ATRON. A brief history of self-reconfigurable robots is
then provided. The history starts at Fukuda’s CEBOT concept and Yim’s
PolyPod, while some of the more recent systems covered include Shen et
al.’s SuperBot and Zykov et al.’s Molecubes. The authors propose an
interesting classification for self-reconfigurable robotic systems
based on the number of modules in the system: pack robots consisting
of tens of modules, herd robots consisting of hundreds of modules, and
swarm robots consisting of very large numbers of modules. The
classification is justified by two observations, namely that (i) systems
of different sizes tend to be suitable for different tasks, and (ii)
different types of control are appropriate for systems of different
sizes.

Chapter 2 is titled “Designing Self-Reconfigurable Robots”. In the
chapter, the authors stress the interdependences between hardware,
control, morphology, task(s), and environment(s). Some of the
tradeoffs that have to be made in the design of self-reconfigurable
robotic systems are also discussed. A distinction is made between
design goals and characteristics of systems. Versatility,
adaptability, robustness, and cheapness are listed as desirable design
goals for most robotic systems, whereas systems can be characterized
according to their degree of reconfigurability, scalability,
responsiveness, and how well they meet the functional requirements in
their domain of application.

Chapter 3 focuses on the mechanical design of self-reconfigurable
robotic systems. The purpose of the chapter, as stated by the authors,
is to “enlighten software designers about the cost of implementing a
solution at the hardware level … [and] to provide the hardware
designer with a starting point for designing self-reconfigurable
robots”. The chapter starts off with a discussion of the different
types of self-reconfigurable robots, namely chain-type, lattice-type
and hybrids. The authors introduce different aspects of mechanical
design: reconfiguration in two dimensions and in three dimensions,
module geometry, module autonomy, the use of sub-modules,
heterogeneous modules, bipartite designs, and actuator strength.
Different types of connectors, that is, magnetic connectors,
mechanical connectors, and electrostatic connectors, are also
discussed.

Chapter 4 is titled “Electrical Design of Self-Reconfigurable
Robots”. The majority of the chapter is devoted to a discussion of
communication and to discussions of the advantages and disadvantages
of different types of communication, namely local communication,
global communication, and multimode communication. The authors briefly
debate the use of external power supplies vs. on-board batteries. A
table summarizing the computational hardware, type of communication
technology, and on-board sensors for 20 different self-reconfigurable
robots is also provided.

Chapter 5 is an introduction to the problem of
self-reconfiguration. Self-reconfiguration is difficult for several
reasons: (i) modules are often subject to motion constraints,
(ii) modules can get trapped inside or outside hollow substructures,
(iii) a robot usually has to remain in one piece during reconfiguration,
and (iv) when multiple modules move at the same time, congestion can
arise. An overview of approaches to simplify the problem of
self-reconfiguration is then provided, namely (i) the use of
meta-modules, that is larger modules that are composed of a number of
smaller modules, (ii) reducing the size of the space of global
configurations by only allowing for a limited set of local
configurations, (iii) the use of scaffolds of modules on which other
modules can move, and (iv) the use of a few, predefined intermediate
configurations during reconfiguration. For each of the simplification
approaches, the authors discuss why the approach simplifies the
reconfiguration problem and at what cost.

In Chapter 6, the problem of how to find a sequence of module moves
that will reconfigure the robot from an initial configuration to a
goal configuration is discussed. Configurations of a robot can be
represented as nodes in a graph while edges between nodes represent
the move (or moves) necessary to go from one configuration to
another. The self-reconfiguration problem as seen from a search
perspective essentially boils down to finding a path from the node
presenting the initial configuration to the node representing the goal
configuration. However, as the authors demonstrate, the exponential
growth in the size of the search space makes brute-force approaches
infeasible — even for systems composed of relatively few
modules. Various heuristics and distance metrics are discussed. The
authors give examples of how simplifications, such as meta-modules and
scaffolds, have been used in order to make search a feasible approach
to the problem of self-reconfiguration. As noted at the end of Chapter
6, the use of search often necessitates centralized control and a
global view of the system.

Self-reconfiguration viewed as a distributed control problem is the
topic of Chapter 7. In the discussion, the authors assume that modules
know their current location and their goal location with respect to
the other modules. The challenge for each module is to determine how
and where to move next in order to close the distance to their goal
location. Different movement strategies are discussed, namely random
movements, local rules, coordinate attractors, gradient attractors,
and recruitment. The authors also discuss different representations of
the goal locations and how a target shape can be grown using
transition rules.

Chapter 8 is on the topic of self-reconfiguration as a side effect of
task-execution. The authors discuss several simulation-based works on
cluster-flow. In cluster-flow, a robot as a whole moves forward by
continuously letting modules from the back of the robot wander to the
front. The authors then present Bojinov et al.’s simulation-based work
on task-driven self-reconfiguration through growth and Ishiguro et
al.’s work on reconfiguration as a side effect of module
oscillations. Toward the end of Chapter 8, the authors discuss some
unaddressed challenges in self-reconfigurable robotics, namely for
robots to maintain balance during self-reconfiguration in environments
with gravity and reconfiguration in robots composed of heterogeneous
modules.

Chapter 9 discusses control of self-reconfigurable robots in fixed
configurations. The focus is mainly on locomotion, but one page is
devoted to a discussion of issues associated with manipulation. The
authors discuss some of the approaches that have been proposed and
studied, namely gate control tables, hormone-based control, role-based
control, and the challenges related to distributed control. The
PolyPod and the CONRO are used as examples.

Chapter 10 is titled “Research Challenges” and the authors discuss
some of the main challenges that need to be overcome before
self-reconfigurable robots can be used in real world applications. It
is argued that while we may soon see systems of up to tens of modules
(pack robots) outside of labs, a number of fundamental research
questions, such as how to program and control large systems, still
have to be addressed before self-reconfigurable swarm systems can take
on real world tasks. The focus of the chapter is therefore on
challenges for systems of tens of modules (pack robots) and for system
of hundreds of modules (herd robots). After a discussion of the
complexities associated with carrying out real world tasks, the
authors advocate a transition toward a common framework for the
control of self-reconfigurable robots. Under such a framework, it
should be possible to discuss how to move from isolated low-level
behaviors such as a gait, to controllers capable of solving more
advanced tasks. The authors outline what such a framework could be: a
behavior-based-like framework that takes the distributed and modular
nature self-reconfigurable robots into account. The authors discuss
the role of basic behaviors, behavior adaption, behavior selection,
and a novel concept called behavior mode. A behavior mode
corresponds to a set of basic behaviors and a robot shape. A switch
from one behavior mode to another causes the robot to execute a new
set of basic behaviors and triggers self-reconfiguration. In this
way, a complex task may be divided into a number of simpler subtasks
each for which a dedicated behavior mode can be designed. The authors
end the book stating that this is an exciting time for
self-reconfigurable robots because several fundamental problems have
been solved and because self-reconfigurable robots may soon be used in
real world scenarios.

The book, “Self-reconfigurable Robots — An Introduction” is a
well-structured and easily comprehensible introduction to the field of
self-reconfigurable robots. The book is the first of its kind, and it
brings together much of the research related to self-reconfigurable
robots that has been conducted over the past two decades in a single,
coherent, introductory text. The book covers a lot of ground — from
module geometry to distributed control of complex gaits. Each chapter
contains a “Further reading” section with categorized references to
publications on the topics and systems discussed in the chapter. Both
beginners and experienced researchers will therefore find the book a
valuable addition to their personal library.

Anders-Lyhne-Christensen is a current an Assistant Professor
at Lisbon University Institute (ISCTE-IUL),Portugal and a
researcher at Institute of Telecommunications.

Anders Lyhne Christensen

His research focuses on autonomous robotics, multirobot systems,
communication in large scale systems, swarm intelligence,
fault tolerance, self-assembly, evolutionary computation,
and high performance computing. He received a Ph.D. in
2008 from IRIDIA, CoDE, Université Libre de Bruxelles /
Belgium. He also received a Master’s degree in bio-informatics
at Aalborg University / Denmark in collaboration with deCode
Genetics / Iceland. After his Master’s studies, He spent two
years at Critical Software SA. / Portugal on R&D focused on
high performance computing and mission critical systems.

During his professional career, he have worked on IT projects
in industries ranging from space and defense to multimedia,
computer games, and web development. He have worked with
customers such as IBM, Microsoft, ESA, Sun, Landmark Graphics,
MSC Software, and Century Dynamics.

Editor’s note: Anders Lyhne Christensen is in no way
related to David J. Christensen.

References:

H. Bojinov, A. Casal, and T. Hogg. Emergent structures in modular self-

reconfigurable robots. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference
on Robotics and Automation (ICRA’00), volume 2, pages 1734-1741. IEEE
Press, Piscataway, NJ, 2000.

A. Castano, W.-M. Shen, and P. Will. Conro: Towards deployable robots
with inter-robots metamorphic capabilities. Autonomous Robots, 8(3):309-
324, 2000.

T. Fukuda and S. Nakagawa. Approach to the dynamically reconfigurable
robotic system. Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 1(1):55-72, 1988.

A. Ishiguro, M. Shimizu, and T. Kawakatsu. Don’t try to control everything:
An emergent morphology control of a modular robot. In Proceedings of
the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems,
pages 981-985. IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, 2004.

W.-M. Shen, M. Krivokon, H. Chiu, J. Everist, M. Rubenstein, and
J. Venkatesh. Multimode locomotion via SuperBot reconfigurable robots.
Autonomous Robots, 20(2):165-177, 2006.

M. Yim. Locomotion with a unit-modular reconfigurable robot. PhD thesis,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA,
1994.

V. Zykov, E. Mytilinaios, M. Desnoyer, and H. Lipson. Evolved and designed
self-reproducing modular robotics. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 23:308-
319, 2007.

E. H. Østergaard, K. Kassow, R. Beck, and H. H. Lund. Design of the atron
lattice-based self-reconfigurable robot. Autonomous Robots, 21(2):165-183,
2006.

This is a guest post by an external writer. For more guest posts
and how you can contribute, check out the guest posts page.

Guest posts are not covered by the CC BY SA Licence that covers the
rest of the posts on www.FlexibilityEnvelope.com
This post is copyrighted by the author, who can be contacted through
www.FlexibilityEnvelope.com if you would like to use the post, or a
part of it, any situation.

Stepan from Canada and his students are getting some free tinkering time with the Cubelets!

The Cubelets

You can get it too, check out the The Flexibility Envelopes Spectacular Cubelets Competition and enter to win your own tinkering time [...]]]> I am proud to announce the first winner in the
“Flexibility Envelope’s Spectacular Cubelets Competition”,

Stepan from Canada and his students are getting some free tinkering time with the Cubelets!

The Cubelets

You can get it too, check out the
The Flexibility Envelopes Spectacular Cubelets Competition
and enter to win your own tinkering time with the Cubelets!

Stepan’s post will be published shortly so don’t miss it!
Update:
Check out Stepans first post Cubelets and Inquiry Based Learning by Stepan Pruchnicky, The first FE Contest Winner Post
Check out Stepans second post: Students love the Cubelets

That, and much more to come!