Talk:Baxter (robot)

Recent expansion
There's some welcome new information in the recent expansion, but also some cleanup needed. In particular, "Baxter has a base-price of $22,000, the equivalent of an average US production worker's annual salary" is dubious, as this is about $10.50/hr, which is more like a low-level starting salary -- error in the source, I think. And the controversy section seems a bit overblown -- needs a trim and cites. Plus we lost a couple of useful articles about Baxter, I think. --Pete Tillman (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I am dubious about the claim that EPFL researchers "taught Baxter how to catch very fast-moving objects." The IEEE report shows that the research robot used is not Baxter (http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/robotics-hardware/epfl-fast-robot-arm-catches-flying-objects), and the Gizmag report (http://www.gizmag.com/catching-robotic-arm/32022/) only says that the way to teach the EPFL robot arm how to catch object is "programming by instruction," which is a technique "also utilized for teaching the Baxter industrial robot." I think we should delete this information unless a source can be provided. -- Kyllyk (talk) 04:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Advertisement
I think we should delete the whole lot. It is nothing but a press release. I'm amazed the article has not been challenged. Robotics1 16:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. While there may be room for reworking the article, Baxter really is notable in the field of robotics. - Paul2520 (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely notable but the article is terrible. It was obviously written by their publicity agent. I wish they could have got someone independent to write it. It can be reworked but going through it there are so many non-factual assertions that it's someone's major task. Robotics1 13:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I still don't know why the cleanup tag is here. Which parts of the article are "non-factual", and why do they need to be rewritten? Jarble (talk) 03:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't really think the whole lot should be deleted. However it is a bad article. For example the section "Technology" starts with "Its face...". You don't start a paragraph with "Its...". It should start with "Baxter...".

"Teaching Baxter" starts "Baxter is also different from other industrial robots because it can learn. A worker could teach Baxter how to perform a task by moving its hands in the desired motion and having Baxter memorize them.". That's a wonderful news item but actually lots of robots work that way. A more factual paragraph might read "A worker can program Baxter by moving the arm to a desired position then pressing a learn button on the arm" or "Baxter is programmed by moving the arm to a desired position then pressing a learn button on the arm". See the difference? One is designed to impress and the other is designed to inform which is what an encyclopedia should be doing. " Baxter needs no programming ". Really? OK, so the robot waits for a part to arrive. Part arrives and a sensor tells the robot it arrived. The robot takes the part to a measurement station. The station has 2 outputs, pass and fail. The robot takes failed parts to position A and passed parts to position B, then goes back for the next part. No programming required? Can you do all that by pressing a button on the arm?

"Baxter provides many advantages over traditional robots in that no cages are required for usage and students can work alongside him in a classroom environment without the potential for accidents." How? The next section, "Safety" explains more but "Other industrial robots are built to perform one task rapidly with many fast-moving parts that make them unsafe for humans to work next to. ". Whoever wrote this needs to learn some grammar. "Baxter doesn't just perform exactly the same movement repeatedly and at a rapid pace. It has sensors in its hands and around its arms allowing it to be able to adapt to its surroundings" How? The reader learns nothing about safety from that. I would have written "Baxter has sensors in the hands and around the arm to detect the proximity of workers and stop the robot before a collision can occur" if indeed that is what it does. We don't know.

"If Baxter hits something, it is able to sense the collision early enough to reduce the force before the impact." If Baxter hits something there is already an impact. How does it reduce the force before the impact? It doesnt' say. We then learn that the force is reduced because the drive is through a spring. In other words high compliance. Also let's not forget that any mass moving at speed takes time to stop as Isaac Newton showed. If a worker is hit by a fast moving object (e.g. part being carried" he/she *will* be hurt. Robotics1 09:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotics1 (talk • contribs)


 * : I'm not sure why the template is still there. As I started the page, I didn't feel like I should remove it. I can work on 's suggestions when I get some time. Someone else is more than welcome to work on it before I get around to it, as I've got a busy weekend ahead of me and this is, after all, Wikipedia! - Paul2520 (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't mean to tread on any toes. I just think some of the enthusiasm should be replaced or clarified with more technical detail. I have been writing technical manuals for decades and if they are not totally clear one customer or another will have a problem and require tech support. So I have immense experience and articles like this do stand out.

Robotics1 (talk) 08:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I did some work on the article. I realized while reading the text that I didn't in fact start the page (I did start the Rethink Robotics page). I apologize to for taking the credit.
 * What do you think, ? And if you have further suggestions, I'd encourage you to edit the page yourself rather than comment the changes on the talk page. - Paul2520 (talk) 03:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Awesome. I agree it's harder when someone else started the article. I had a similar problem with industrial robot. This is a big improvement. Thanks. I wish someone would tackle Universal Robots page sometime. Robotics1 (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * and others, thank you for the nice work. Yeah, this was a stub I put a long time ago when there was nothing, and I felt the topic was important. It is nice to come back and see it having grown. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 07:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)