From Citizendium
< Talk:ASIMO(Redirected from Talk:ASIMO)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article has a Citable Version.
Main Article
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Catalogs [?]
Gallery [?]
Video [?]
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition A Japanese humanoid robot created by Honda. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Robotics, Engineering and Computers [Please add or review categories]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant American English

Reference to Isaac Asimov

Honda officially claims that "ASIMO" is not a reference to Isaac Asimov. So is the name merely a coincidence? Anyone with a high school diploma should be able to figure out that this is not the case; I think it's more appropriate to write in the introduction that ASIMO is named after Isaac Asimov than to echo the "contrary to popular belief...." (Chunbum Park 02:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC))

What does a gyroscope do?

Is this correct?

gyroscope [ used to determine ] the overall orientation relative to the ground horizon

(Chunbum Park 23:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC))

Approval Process: Approval certified

Call for review: Chunbum Park 02:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Call for Approval: Peter Schmitt 01:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Approval Notice: Revision 04:30 29 February 2012

Certification of Approval: Anthony.Sebastian 17:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss the article below, ASIMO/Approval is for brief official referee's only!


This article is certainly worth to be examined for Approval. --Peter Schmitt 01:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I moved 'development history' section to my sandbox. I think it does not necessarily need to be included for the article to be approved, so it could be completed by Approved version 2.0. (Chunbum Park 12:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC))
Is there something that I am not doing to get the approval process moving, such as providing reasons why the article is fit for approval? Approval could wait until I finish writing the development history section as well. (Chunbum Park 06:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC))


Having read the entire article, it is my opinion that it is exceedingly well written and I would recommend that it be approved. I am an Engineering editor, but I am no expert on robotics. However, I found this article to be very interesting, well detailed, easy to understand and well written.

The only point that should be corrected is that some of the references provide only the authors' names and dates but do not include the the title of their publication or the book (or journal) in which the publication appeared. For example: (a) the four references to Masato, Hirose and Ogawa Kenchi, (b) the two references to Sakagami et al, (c) the reference to Kim et al and (d) the reference to Pfeiffer, Friedrich, and Hirochika Inoue. Milton Beychok 18:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Those are now fixed. Thank you for the comment. (Chunbum Park 05:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC))

falling forward vs falling down

"The early E series robots were far from surefooted, however, and often toppled over mid-step. One factor that helped them evolve from klutzes to surefooted walkers was the 1989 addition to the team of Toru Takenaka, a robot control technology specialist who regarded mainstream motion theory with skepticism. This theory held that the robot should approximate an ideal pattern of movement, and that the act of falling was a deviation from which the machine had to recover to keep its balance. It would end up pressing down with its toes to avoid a fall, but its heels would then lift up. Watching TV one day, Takenaka saw a gymnast performing a midair somersault. Instead of standing upright after landing, he continued in a forward motion into a pushup position in a move that looked like it was meant to cover a fall. Or was it simply a smooth, planned transition? Takenaka got to thinking. Perhaps surefootedness was not about avoiding deviations from a model, but just leaning forward. In fact, it was all in the hips. By making the robot push forward from the hips when it was about to fall instead of pressing with the toes, the machine regained its balance. Instead of falling down, Honda's robot was falling forward."

Could someone check whether I wrote this section about the E4 correctly in the prototype development history section? Thank you. (Chunbum Park 06:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC))

To someone who spends his life studying human biomechanics, it makes perfect sense to me, CHunbum. D. Matt Innis 15:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

APPROVED Version 1.0