Hydrodemolition Robot Crushes With Water 292
Roland Piquepaille writes "In 'Robot pummels roads with water', the Augusta Chronicle says that a hydrodemolition robot is going to restore seven bridges in Georgia. "It's a robot that destroys everything in its path with a crushing stream of water 15 times more powerful than a jackhammer. The robot looks like a street cleaner machine on steroids and is expected to begin use August 1 to resurface seven bridges on Gordon Highway from Walton Way to the bridge at the South Carolina state line." This kind of robot needs only two workers to operate it, instead of 15 workers for a jackhammer, is less noisy and more gentle for the foundations. You'll find more details in this summary."
Good for water-rich areas, not for deserts (Score:3, Insightful)
PSI, water source? (Score:3, Insightful)
However, that is in an environment where the water can be recycled to a good extent as the machine runs... where does this machine get water from, and how many PSI is it dishing out? I'd assume that it requires close proximity to a good source of water, either a fire hydrant or (preferably), a lake/river/etc - as it probably shoots out a lot of water in order to achieve the correct pressure.
I was going to re-read the article and double-check, but the blink tag at the end of the linked tech review just about blinded me.
this bring up something interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
The normal response is there will be 15 people working for the company that makes the automated product, but thats not true.
If I created a device that flips burgers, and cost less then maintaining a staff, people will buy it, and it will replaces millions of workes, far more then it would take to build the things.
I'm not saying we shouldn't automate, I'm just asking what do we do as our jobs per person keeps declining?
Good point (Score:3, Insightful)
There is nothing like driving by an empty lake bed, or not seeing a blue sky for 2 months through all the smoke of forrest fires, that makes you truly appriciate water.
On the subject, in the dorms there were always people who would go turn on the shower and then go take a 10 minute crap while the water was running... or leave the sink full blast while brushing their teeth. I wanted to kill them.
The problem is even worse in rural/flat areas where water is taken from pumps. The water table is very easily depleted and will take decades to replenish.
Re:this bring up something interesting (Score:1, Insightful)
I suggest that instead of laying them off, the GDOT makes, get this, 7 crews of asphault cutters and then they can repair 7 roads in the same amount of time as it took them to repair 1 road.
Now, once all the roads are up to snuff, my scenario will fail but that'll never happen
Re:this bring up something interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not saying we shouldn't automate, I'm just asking what do we do as our jobs per person keeps declining?
Yes, I remember how gramps lost his job making buggy whips when, 100 years ago today, Ford Motor Company incorporated.
Fortunately, by 1904 he was able to get a job writing C.
What, you say C wasn't invented until the 1970s?
Oh, yeah, he got a job running an MRI.
Oh, wait, I mean, in a genetics lab.
No, that's not right....
Getting rid of laborious, boring, physically punishing jobs that put people in early graves -- look up the etymology of "top-notch" for a real horror, and be glad we've forgotten how that phrase came to be --, and which can be done better, cheap, and faster by machine, is one of the great triumphs, along with medicine and leisure time, of technology.
gain robots, lose jobs? for skilled labor too? (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdotted version of article is inaccurate (Score:2, Insightful)
"One hydrodemolition robot does the work of 15 jackhammers." "Requires only about two workers to supervise it instead of 15 jackhammer workers."
Specifically, since the robot can do the work of 15 jackhammers, you don't need those 15 jackhammer workers operating the 15 jackhammers (i.e., one worker per jackhammer), and can instead rely on the (about) two robot supervisors.
The statement on slashdot: "This kind of robot needs only two workers to operate it, instead of 15 workers for a jackhammer" incorrectly states that 15 workers are for *a* jackhammer. It could more accurately state: "This kind of robot needs only two workers to operate it, instead of 15 workers for *15* jackhammer*s whose work is performed by the one robot*"
Re:this bring up something interesting (Score:2, Insightful)
How 'bout if we cut the number of hours the remaining laborers are allowed to work? c.f. the 30/35 hr work week movements in Europe. That has the added benefit of more leasure time, which means more opportunity for spending money at bars, amusement parts, theatres, what-have-you.
That has been one proposed measure.
Maybe I'm missing something (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, it still takes to people to operate it, so it's by no means autonomous.
As0k
Self improvement is masturbation... therefore masturbation is self improvement...*zip*