If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by dttworld@aol.com on February 21, 2009, 11:45 pm
I've been building robots for 20 years (I remember a time when this
newsgroup didn't have any SPAM). I'm now focusing on a capable home
robot that can operate full size objects within the home. I came up
with what I call the 6 S's of Capable Home Robots here:
http://www.imaginerobots.com
Comments?
Danh
|
|
Posted by on February 22, 2009, 1:37 am
Nice list, but it is much easier said than done. I do disagree with
one comment;
"There is absolutely no reason why we can't have capable robot in our
homes TODAY. "
Many have tried, but it is certainly proving harder than it was first
thought. On the drive to work, I've been listening to Podcasts of old
radio broadcasts of science fiction stories from the 40's and 50's.
They really were expecting us to have farms on mars, and robots doing
all our housework by the 80's.
I suspect that, for the near future, the only things we can really
hope for, will be a practical robot vacuum and a lawn mower. This just
requires a bit more capability than current similar products; things
like more navigational certainty, and visual processing to avoid
obstacles. Autonomous robot airplanes for the military are relatively
easy, since there is nothing for them to bump into.
Although true autonomous robots are a problem, I suspect there will be
significant advancement in remote control ore teleprocessing
"robots". This is where there are "brains" in a machine that help
prevent it from driving off a step, but it will ultimately be operated
by a much more advanced processor that God designed and placed in the
skulls of human operators.
Joe Dunfee
|
|
Posted by dttworld@aol.com on February 22, 2009, 6:32 pm
I accidentally hit reply to author instead of replying to the group so
here's take two.
On Feb 22, 1:37 am, cadco...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Nice list, but it is much easier said than done. I do disagree with
> one comment;
> "There is absolutely no reason why we can't have capable robot in our
> homes TODAY. "
I can see most people disagreeing with the above statement since it
hasn't been realized yet. The only way to back up the statement is for
me to build it but that's the great thing about robotics.
> Many have tried, but it is certainly proving harder than it was first
> thought. On the drive to work, I've been listening to Podcasts of old
> radio broadcasts of science fiction stories from the 40's and 50's.
> They really were expecting us to have farms on mars, and robots doing
> all our housework by the 80's.
I see a lot of technology today that could really make these bots
real. WIFI, the internet, cheap computers, cheap actuators, wireless
video, webcams, USB, micros, software IDEs, etc, etc, etc
> I suspect that, for the near future, the only things we can really
> hope for, will be a practical robot vacuum and a lawn mower. This just
> requires a bit more capability than current similar products; things
> like more navigational certainty, and visual processing to avoid
> obstacles. Autonomous robot airplanes for the military are relatively
> easy, since there is nothing for them to bump into.
here are two companies that make vision products:
www.evolution.com
www.braintech.com
I've used the stuff from Evolution and it is good enough to recognize
objects in a fridge and pantry.
> Although true autonomous robots are a problem, I suspect there will be
> significant advancement in remote control ore teleprocessing
> "robots". This is where there are "brains" in a machine that help
> prevent it from driving off a step, but it will ultimately be operated
> by a much more advanced processor that God designed and placed in the
> skulls of human operators.
The PR2 from www.willowgarage.com takes the approach of teleoperation
and vision processing. I'm kinda building a poor man's version of that
bot. I do agree that ultimately a human operator needs to have the
final control.
> Joe Dunfee
|
|
Posted by greymaus on February 25, 2009, 5:56 am
> I've been building robots for 20 years (I remember a time when this
> newsgroup didn't have any SPAM). I'm now focusing on a capable home
> robot that can operate full size objects within the home. I came up
> with what I call the 6 S's of Capable Home Robots here:
> http://www.imaginerobots.com
> Comments?
> Danh
Someone gave a lecture at CHAOS this year on this sort of subject.
Their opinion was that insurance is the test. If you cannot insure a
device that works autonomously, you will (probably) not be allowed to
use it. The insurance companies have not enough data yet to quote.
An instance;
Someone has a robotic lawnmower (self-made) working in their garden,
a stone hits one of the control boxes (perhaps by bouncing off one of
the front tyres, not an unknown instance, even in human-controlled
ones), vehicle goes haywire, gets out onto the public road, and is
hit by, or hits, a car, or human.
(The above was solved in one real-life instance by the operator
running after the device and turning it on its back. If you have to
be in attendence the whole time, whats the point of having a robot?)
--
greymaus
.
.
...
|
|
Posted by dttworld@aol.com on February 25, 2009, 7:06 pm
That's an interesting perspective. Suppose we replaced the autonomous
lawnmower scenario with an owner's dog. If the dog runs into the
street and causes an accident I wonder if it would be covered by home
owners or auto insurance? Maybe neither???
> > I've been building robots for 20 years (I remember a time when this
> > newsgroup didn't have any SPAM). I'm now focusing on a capable home
> > robot that can operate full size objects within the home. I came up
> > with what I call the 6 S's of Capable Home Robots here:
> >http://www.imaginerobots.com
> > Comments?
> > Danh
> Someone gave a lecture at CHAOS this year on this sort of subject.
> Their opinion was that insurance is the test. If you cannot insure a
> device that works autonomously, you will (probably) not be allowed to
> use it. The insurance companies have not enough data yet to quote.
> An instance;
> Someone has a robotic lawnmower (self-made) working in their garden,
> a stone hits one of the control boxes (perhaps by bouncing off one of
> the front tyres, not an unknown instance, even in human-controlled
> ones), vehicle goes haywire, gets out onto the public road, and is
> hit by, or hits, a car, or human.
> (The above was solved in one real-life instance by the operator
> running after the device and turning it on its back. If you have to
> be in attendence the whole time, whats the point of having a robot?)
> --
> greymaus
> .
> .
> ...
|
Page 1 of 15 1 2 3 > last >>
Related Posts
Latest Posts
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML site map
> one comment;
> "There is absolutely no reason why we can't have capable robot in our
> homes TODAY. "