On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 09:28:30 -0400, Philip Thrift <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 07:42:32 EDT, S.B. Feldman, MD <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> <A
>HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_841000/841839.stm">
>>Click here: BBC News | SCI/TECH | Robot has sweet tooth</A>
>
>But http://www.msnbc.com/news/435050.asp?cp1=1
>
>   “The ideal fuel in terms of energy gain, is meat.
>   Vegetation is not nearly as nutritious,” Wilkinson said.

Be careful then, that this robot won't catch and eat *you*.

Btw: What Wilkinson *did* say is:
"If you look at pure energy, then meat has a
higher calorific value than vegetation. But
there are downsides. You have to spend more
energy luring it, catching it and killing it. At the
moment I'm concentrating on using vegetation
like a cow, rather than building a meat-eating
robot."

Quite different, to what you reported, i think.

Interesting:
Energy density isn't all.
A rabbit has       114 kcal per 100g , whereas
potatoes have only  84 kcal per 100g.
Seems like more as the difference will be used up by the catching efforts.
Tubers don't run away.

regards

Amadeus