|
Post by Lensman on Mar 8, 2005 6:52:03 GMT
[Lensman wrote:] It does not take "more" neural control to manipulate a tentacle than an arm or leg. Many invertebrates do it all the time. [Lanceradvanced replied:] When you're talking about mechanical control systems without computer control (or some analogue, like a -nervous system-) it does. The hydra, which IIRC is the simplest of multicellular animals, has tentacles. Controlling simple tentacles does not require a highly developed nervous system If you're using artificial muscles like the Martians are, you've got to run a separate artificial neuron, or activation control, to each one anyway. This is true whether those artificial muscles are distributed evenly along a tentacle or distributed in clusters along an arm. The secret to waldo-type control is to group the artificial neurons so that the artificial muscles work in groups. Just as you can send a signal to your hand to make a fist; you don't have to think about each individual finger closing. Just as a human uses a waldo to mimic his hand/arm movements on a larger scale, the Martian could use a waldo control to mimic the movements of one of its tentacles on a larger scale with one of the tripod's tentacles.
|
|
|
Post by lanceradvanced on Mar 8, 2005 16:16:30 GMT
The hydra, which IIRC is the simplest of multicellular animals, has tentacles. Controlling simple tentacles does not require a highly developed nervous system Which nevertheless is in a network type orginazation, the signal goes out -everywhere- but only the selected cells respond, the issue isn't really a matter of scale, or complexity of the system, it's in the quality of the information sent, if you have low quality information sent, as your insistance on the martian's lack of infrmation technology requires you need to compensate. Which is made much easier if you have some from of information processor in the heart of your system. If you don't then your system becomes unweildy, especially if you want the system to be able not only to work in groups, but to work in sub groups or units, not just making a fist, but wiggling a fingertip, or a finger, and everwhere in between. If you have some kind of information technology, you can run -one- cable in series, to the actuators, which would then only trigger on the receipt of a signal coded to their receiver, a=b=c=d as opposed to a ==b ====c ======d The message going down the line becomes "Actuator a move" actuators b,c,d would just ignore the signal... Rather than just "Move" going down actuator a's line Babbage's concepts for steam powered "Analytical Engines" predate WOTW by a good 70 years, I'm not sure how much they predate electrical power and motors, but the martians would certianly be capable of refining the idea to it's ultimate extent. Even if they didn't use it in the FMs and HM, the digging machine shows that they -did- use indendant automata, which all but require some form of information technology at the controls.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Mar 9, 2005 1:20:07 GMT
the digging machine shows that they -did- use indendant automata, which all but require some form of information technology at the controls. The digging machine *was* a handling-machine, Lancer. The Narrator repeatedly mentions how the Martians' machines seem more alive than they do. It's easy to miss where he talks of the Martians directly controlling them. I don't know why you keep insisting some form of complex information processing is necessary for the Martians' tentacles to control the Fighting Machines' tentacles. It would be as easy for one tentacle to directly control another by use of a waldo, mimicing the movements, as it is easy for a human hand and arm to control a mechanical hand and arm with a waldo. Waldos were being used as far back as 1950: cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=14279&item=6153743634Do you honestly think they had sophisticated computer controls in 1950? Lancer, you seem to want the Martians to do things our way. You've tried to give them rocket propulsion systems-- because that's how WE would get from Mars to Earth. Now you're trying to give them computers-- because that's how WE control complex waldo devices today. The Martians did things differently. They did not use rockets to reach the Earth, they used a giant cannon. They did not use tanks and ground attack aircraft and artillery to conquer England-- they used giant legged fighting-machines, and heat rays, and black smoke. For heaven's sake, they didn't even use the wheel! What could Wells have possibly said to make it more clear that the Martians don't think like us, and don't use the same engineering approach to solving problems? Can you imagine us even *contemplating* doing anything as sophisticated as interplanetary invasion without using the wheel? The Martians don't *need* computers to do what is described in WotW. The only point you've actually made is that you could use a simpler control system inside the tentacles if you used computer-assisted control. So what? In order to make the control system slightly simpler in one area, you've got to make it a hundred or a thousand times more complex in another. Unfortunately, that is all too often the approach we foolish humans take, and one of the reasons why our sophisticated machines break down so often. Wells' Martians are smarter than we are, and this is one area where they demonstrate it.
|
|
|
Post by lanceradvanced on Mar 9, 2005 4:53:58 GMT
The digging machine *was* a handling-machine, Lancer. Um... no... it's not... and down on the left a busy little digging mechanism had come into view, emitting jets of green vapour and working its way round the pit, excavating and embanking in a methodical and discriminating manner. This it was which had caused the regular beating noise, and the rhythmic shocks that had kept our ruinous refuge quivering. It piped and whistled as it worked. So far as I could see, the thing was without a directing Martian at all.Now it's either distance controled (which if applied to the tentacles would be a third option that would rid all the mechanical linkages) or it's run by some form of computer, if they can apply information technology to that, I don't see a good reason to deny it's application elsewhere in their technology, especialy where it's a logical input. And you just want to leave them with nothing more than Steam-Age Technology, If anything you're taking Tim Hines "We gave a bunch of barbarians sophisticated technology, and see what they built" look at things, you're denying them any techinical sophistication, it has to be a brute force application in your book, regarless of the fact that were dealing with a intlegence that wells describes as the -ultimate- in technical sophistication. As for the "Minimum Correct Thing" philosophy you ascribe human failures in engineering to, I don't particularly ascribe to it, there are far to many -other- factors in play in the human design process, such as comfort, economics, planned obslence, style, etc... we cut corners far too often, something I don't see the martians doing, when they build a machine, it's -perfect- being well beyond human reliability issues.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Mar 9, 2005 6:00:59 GMT
and down on the left a busy little digging mechanism had come into view, emitting jets of green vapour and working its way round the pit, excavating and embanking in a methodical and discriminating manner. This it was which had caused the regular beating noise, and the rhythmic shocks that had kept our ruinous refuge quivering. It piped and whistled as it worked. So far as I could see, the thing was without a directing Martian at all. Wow, I had certainly missed that! Thanks, Lancer. I see the passage you quote at the very end of Book two, Chapter 2. I was thinking of the passage just a few pages later, in Chapter 3, where it describes the handling-machine digging and feeding the machine which refines the aluminium. You've certainly proved the point-- The Martians do indeed use automation, and therefore have some level of programmable control. It is, of course, difficult to pinpoint exactly when most major inventions in human history occurred, because usually they were comprised of a series of gradual improvements. "Programmability" is no exception. Connections, the companion book to the wonderful science series by James Burke, notes that in 1741 there was an improvement in control of automated looms, using punched cards-- which not only allowed the "program" to be changed, but also to be shortened and extended. Hollerith's punch-card tabulating machine was used to tabulate the 1890 U. S. census. Charles Babbage's "difference engine" was proposed in 1822-- however it was not actually built until quite recently-- and his "analytical engine" was proposed in 1837. Many upper-class Victorians were obsessed with clockwork-driven automatons, but they were generally toys for grown-ups, without practical use. Altho I've taken a few college courses in computer science, I won't claim to be knowledgable enuff to theorize on what level of automation the Martians must have obtained to be able to have an independently-operating digging machine. It does seem clear to me, tho, that they had not advanced to the level of either teleoperated machines or true artificial intelligence, else they would have used those to control their fighting-machines in preference to risking their own lives.
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Mar 9, 2005 16:22:16 GMT
I still think that the Narrator was purely speaking from his perception and not with any authority on the matter. We don't know how far the reverse engineering projects on the Martian technology had gone, but we do know that.. 1) Some (but not all) of the workings of the machines had been figured out. 2) Some of the Martian physiology was worked out. 3) PART of the make up of the black smoke had been worked out. 2) Experiments with the heat ray had to stop after several disasters. It could well be that some of the experiments results had been made secret and not released, after all, too much knowledge of advanced technology would make Britain an object of suspicion.. It could be that the general principle of the thing had been worked out (like Bob Lazar's famous 'sports model') but implementing such knowledge isn't quite the same as having an idea how it works. The Narrator's descriptions, whilst seeming to be authoratitive, has an air of vagueness about it to me. Alot seems to be purely guesswork. But one thing is always made clear.. the technology is awe inspiring and far beyond proper understanding. With that in mind we really can't impose our ideas of technological development on them. Some might even think it preposterous, or backward even, that they didn't invent the wheel, but they managed to kick our asses quite well without it. I feel the narrator has only used language he can understand to try to convey what we were dealing with. Why did they not automate the fighting machines if they could? Maybe they could have but felt there was no need to. They were obviously confident that we would fold pretty early on and there was minimal danger to themselves. They did slightly underestimate us, they must have else they wouldn't have lost a few machines in the battles, but otherwise they were onto a winner from the start. Unluckily for them they forgot about bacteria.
|
|
|
Post by Bayne on Mar 11, 2005 23:52:29 GMT
[glow=red,2,300]Some sort of automation is clearly then required.. perhaps miniaturised babbage style difference engines?
I still feel that the more likely control system for the machines is a whole host of levers... sixteen tentacles and one giant brain.. sounds ideally suited to multiple lever controls. [/glow]
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Mar 24, 2005 7:12:07 GMT
I still feel that the more likely control system for the machines is a whole host of levers... sixteen tentacles and one giant brain.. sounds ideally suited to multiple lever controls. I suspect that's what Wells was thinking. I'm advocating waldo controls because they're more intuitive and therefore provide better control. It also seems obvious to me that a Martian could best control a tripod's tentacles with waldos attached to its own tentacles. But clearly Lancer isn't convinced... ;D
|
|
|
Post by lanceradvanced on Mar 24, 2005 17:25:51 GMT
It also seems obvious to me that a Martian could best control a tripod's tentacles with waldos attached to its own tentacles. But clearly Lancer isn't convinced... ;D I have no problem with waldo's connected to the tentacles, I just think they'd have a information technology component in their setup..
|
|