Transforming Robots: Smart Blocks 48
Andy Smith writes: "The BBC reports that researchers from Dartmough College in New Hampshire aim to create robots made from 'smart building blocks.' The idea is that the robots can then transform into other objects. According to the story, the reseachers eventually 'hope to use thousands of microscopic units to make infinitely flexible machines, fit for any task'. The article goes into a lot more detail about how the units will work, and the research that is currently being done."
Re:RobotWars (Score:1)
Re:No problem (Score:1)
I dont think its nice to insult "The Devil" with such a low blow.
Fight censors!
But what we really want to know is.... (Score:2)
--
Will this ever be useful? (Score:2)
--
true theyre fakes but... (Score:1)
Modular Robots? (Score:1)
Do we have to control the modular parts with a modular program? .NET Bots...
NOOOOOOoooooooooooooo!
Wakes up in cold sweat
All i can think of... (Score:1)
mimic (Score:1)
"I cannot morph, yet I am suitable to many varied tasks." and "They will not be able to make a robust system by trying to control these "building blocks" from the top down. The cells in our body are not being told by a controller that they are an arm, or a kidney, the information is stored in the DNA. Yet our bodies do have arms and kidneys."
we weren't able to make airplanes until we realized that trying to mimic a bird wasn't the best way to go. while i do agree that centralized, dna-ish control is the way to go, i'm not willing to rule out a top-down (or heretofore unthought-of) method of working this. where would we be if we were still trying to make 747's flap?
My .02,
Re:Modular Robots? (Score:2)
-Nev
Does this sound familiar? (Score:1)
See the /. posting on the CONRO project, a joint USC/ISI project:m l [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/articles/00/12/26/0750248.sht
Or go directly to the CONRO Website:
http://www.isi.edu/conro/ [isi.edu]
-Z
This is all wrong.. (Score:1)
This is all wrong.. What you need is a format in which some kind of central processor or remote can can tell each module the "Big Picture" of the morph. Maybe by wireless control.
Then each module should then discover where it is at in the current "Big Picture" then decide at a random interval to choose to be some other part/position in the new "Big Picture", and then it should broadcast to the rest that it is whatever part.
Since the modules are changing at a random interval, the ones who havent morphed/decided on what to be have received the notice that other modules have become some type of part, and crossed it out on the list of parts in the "Big Picture" then decide from what hasnt been used yet, to be come one.
After a few hundred cycles they should be able to complete the form required. This would be better and quicker than than each module making a call to a central system and waiting for a response. Although, the method I described would require every unit to have some smarts (we couldnt call them cpu's cuz they would now be decentralized :P DPU maybe?)
As for powering, maybe place the central system somewhere in the mass with battery power (maybe with solar cells) and have each module make power connects with other modules to connect to the central system. This could also be setup where you can place solar cells on the modules, while removing the wireless crap and using the power leads for signalling (that might help keep ppl from stealing modules from one unit to another.. Might need a litte dose of keycodes/serials/encryption)
I thought on this before when I saw a Stargate SG-1 episode with some type of modular pesky robots. Very fun episode. Only diff was the modules themselves would do all the processing themselves, (very good AI Im sure). They also were supposed to be able to create more of themselves by consuming metals. Just 2 modules is all it took to start a rampage.
So, you saw it here.. on Slashdot, now archived on hundreds of thousands of computer caches (for a few days), as well as slashdot's archival system (for a few months).
If one of the science dudes read this stuff, I really wouldnt mind changing careers to robotics if theres an offer. :)
T2 (Score:2)
The Philosophy of the design has a lot of merit too. I remember a music composition program called Bars and Pipes on my old Amiga. It made numerous effects possible, and easy, by letting you drop the gizmos of your choice into the pipeline. It's also a reason I'm migrating development from Windows over to Linux, because the latter has a much better grasp of piping one universal tool's output into the input of another.
Autonomous Legos for Mars colonization (Score:1)
And the Nanites! (Score:1)
Re:Will this ever be useful? (Score:2)
I think the true commercial application for this technology beyond the benefits to military and scientific equipment will be the Multi-Shovel or some such thing. You have a little grey box, it has on it a panel with some selection mechanism. You can choose 'Rake', 'Shovel', 'Hoe', 'Hedge Clippers', 'Post Hole Digger', etc... And then you watch as the little thing constructs from pre defined plans the selected item.
That way you just spend 1500$ for this one item and it can act as a few dozen different tools. You could get updates to the plans to have it become new stuff, and you could increase or decrease the mass of the cube to have it make smaller or larger items by adding or removing blocks of the little bots.
I know this isn't doable now, but I think this technology might head in that direction for home use once it makes it down that far.
Kintanon
Yawn... (Score:2)
-----
"Almost isn't good enough - but it's almost good enough."
Re:Morphing vs Modular (Score:1)
do we see a trend here? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
The future of safe sex (Score:1)
So After 15 hours of webdesign ending right now (must sleep)... I ask:
I wonder how long it will be untill we can simply push the "condom" button after our partner says yes... Just think! We could have safe sex with out have to worry about holes! Perhaps even layer the "condom" so its soft on both sides but has a current of 110 volts in the middle, so if it breaks it will shock the hell out of both people (or more).
So using this tech, I wonder if I could simulate a much larger errection that could then bend around and type a link to Goat Sex [goatse.cx]
No, I am not trolling, I really want to have a condom that is easy to put on and one that will resize to fix your "member" as it grows (preventing breaks). Perhaps something similar is already out.. anyone?
On a related note I just got my nipples percied. I wonder; when I hook up a current to the rings (eg clips and a 9v), will the rings lower the resistance of my body, and make it easier to stop my heart? What would be safe? Any links? Also, who the fuck started goatse?
Fight censors!
It's "Dartmouth". (Score:4)
Yes, the idea of miniaturization is kind of hype. OTOH, Daniela trained under Dartmouth's MEMS guy back at Cornell, so she has some contacts in the field. He's already built (years ago, actually) prototypes of these "smart manipulating surfaces". They look like just a flat chip, but when powered, they'll spin things around, act as conveyor belts, and generally create 2D "force fields".
Shrinking the things isn't the issue. Even if they're an inch cubed, they could still be useful, especially if we borrowed from Lego the idea of having a few "special bricks". The problem is control. Can you imagine having to specify your body one cell at a time? These things are going to need to be able to work out where they should be with minimal cues from the central brain. She does have some work in the field (algorithms to move around furniture with a team of robots, all of whom have limited sensing and communications power; also, the stuff I worked on with transportable agents [dartmouth.edu]), but there's a long way to go.
Her own page on the subject is here [dartmouth.edu].
cool!-more than meets the aye (Score:1)
This Subject...It Makes Me Want To SING! (Score:1)
Something very similar was reported years ago (Score:1)
Anyone else recall this?
This is smart (Score:1)
This is exactly how we should be thinking about robots -- thinking in small pieces that work together.
Too often we try to build the entire thing (like the incredible walking robot Honda made). But think about how humans or any other animal works; We are made of a lot of small pieces that work together to create the whole. Machines break all the time, often requiring a lot of maintenance and care to get to work. But just think of how incredible it is that you never have to think about how your insides work -- you eat food, and it makes it through your system, your body takes what you need and separates and expels solid and liquid waste. It is amazing how often we use this system without needing any maintenence.
Asimov (Score:2)
It's a moderatly good read from an Asimov original idea, presented by him but written by a pletora of other sci-fi writers such as Stephen Leigh and William F. Wu.
Karma karma karma karma karmeleon: it comes and goes, it comes and goes.
Wireless transmission (Score:1)
Re:Morphing vs Modular (Score:1)
Transformers. (Score:1)
I have sex with goats (Score:1)
Re:It's "Dartmouth". (Score:1)
I guess I just don't have enough insight to see why this is useful... computers are getting fast enough now that we can simulate the parallel computability (i.e. traveling salesman simulations) of these cells without actually having to make them. As for "smart manipulating surfaces", sometimes it's just cheaper to make a couple interchangeable surfaces with a different functions. But it is pretty cool.
Re:It's "Dartmouth". (Score:2)
You're right; we can simulate the behavior of the cells in order to work out control algorithms for them. They've actually done some of that; Daniela has some animations of some of the older modular designs carrying out simple functions like climbing stairs. (I think they're on that webpage link.)
However, as I have learned in my attempts at robotics, simulation often doesn't mean jack shit. It's still basically impossible to simulate all the nastiness of the physical world, so in the end, you've got to put them out there and see what breaks. (As an example: when I took CS88 from her, we built Legobots. The IR sensor I made was actually sensitive to the color of the brick in which it was embedded; it only worked in blue bricks. Probably a function of the absorption/reflection of the dye, but who the hell's going to code that into a simulator?)
Moreover, in the end, if you want to use them, you've gotta make them. Therefore, it makes more sense (IMHO) to deal with the real-world issues up front rather than gluing them into idealized code at the last minute.
WRT to the surfaces... each one *can* do multiple things. Think of them as a set of "motion pixels" with almost-arbitrary pushing abilitity. The same chip can be a conveyor, an agitator, an aligner, or several other things, depending on what the control code tells the pixels to do.
BTW, thinking of Dartmouth in the news... did you realize that our very own Marty Vona, architect of the most recent modular robot unit, is also the man who hacked the Billy Bass? Every time I start to feel competent, I just need to look at what he's up to.
Humaniform robots would be better (Score:2)
Morphability is cool and all, but I think that it would be far more useful to build a robot in human form. Such a robot could use existing tools, essentially making it modular.
A morphing robot would (ultimately) outstrip any modular robot in usefulness, but I think the research and fabrication costs of such a robot are gigantic in comparison to simply building a human-shaped robot. A humaniform robot (to borrow Asimov's term) can instantly use of all our human tools, making itself useful very quickly.
--
and sci.space.policy!! Fractal Robotics again... (Score:1)
IIRC, he has also been on one of those Discovery/TLC documentaries, going on about the Amazing Fractal Robots that will revolutionzie everything.
He seems good at publicizing himself, if nothing else.
eeek - nooooo! (Score:1)
UPDATE!!! (Score:1)
Nanobots! (Score:2)
The first release (Score:1)
Morphing vs Modular (Score:2)
RobotWars (Score:1)
Anime U (Score:3)
"Evil beware: I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hampster!"
Re:UPDATE!!! (Score:1)
DejaVu (Score:1)
Does this remind you of your OO classes ?!? *grin*
Xerox parc already has done this... (Score:2)
Re:Morphing vs Modular (Score:1)
This isn't new though - they were discussing this when I did a course in A.I. At Edinburgh Uni about 5 years ago! Maybe Dartmough College are up for a funding review?
Not Fractal Robotics again... (Score:2)
AI is more important than "morphing" (Score:4)
She suspects that a process of top-down planning that "cascades" the process of form-changing will be needed to make the system change shape quickly.
They will not be able to make a robust system by trying to control these "building blocks" from the top down. The cells in our body are not being told by a controller that they are an arm, or a kidney, the information is stored in the DNA. Yet our bodies do have arms and kidneys.
Interesting research [santafe.edu] into complex systems has shown that robust systems are not controlled top-down, but are the emergent properties of lost of small agents that are reacting with each other based on a simple set of rules.
This type of research is the holy grail for scientists in this field, but we are still stumbling on much simpler problems right now.
Moto Mannequin
"With all appliances, and means to boot!" - William Shakespeare
Dartmough College (Score:1)
Now if we could only get 5 of these transforming robot;s to form one giant Devastator robot, we'd be in business...
Besides the answer to "what is the matrix" is in the Transformers The Movie, not the keanu flick =P
E.
www.randomdrivel.com [randomdrivel.com] -- All that is NOT fit to link to