AirBurr UAV Navigates By Crashing Into Things 74
Zothecula writes "If you've ever watched a fly trying to find its way around a house, you might have noticed that it didn't take a particularly graceful approach – it probably bounced off a lot of windows and walls, until by process of elimination, it found a route that was clear. Well, researchers at Switzerland's EPFL Laboratory of Intelligent Systems are taking that same approach with the latest version of their autonomous AirBurr UAV – it's built to run into things, in order to map and navigate its environment."
Sounds like robotics class in college (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Sounds like robotics class in college (Score:4, Informative)
You guys left college and formed iRobot and built Roomba floor sweepers, right?
It sort of navigated by knock as well.
Re:Sounds like robotics class in college (Score:5, Funny)
I find this bash quote to be appropriate:
#240849 +(13311)- [X]
[Patrician|Away] what does your robot do, sam
[bovril] it collects data about the surrounding environment, then discards it and drives into walls
Drunk (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Drunk (Score:4, Funny)
This is the way my wife navigates when she's sober.
Re:Drunk (Score:5, Funny)
This method has certainly been used by many to detect whether the toilet seat is in the correct position.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, your ex-wife...
Re: (Score:2)
Prior Art :-)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the way my wife drives... (Score:2)
/joke>
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These days, that's how my Mom drives. Wish I could use the joke tag.
I wonder if I should call her up and tell she's being replaced by robots.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if you're planning on eating Easter dinner at her table. ;^)
Idiotic approach (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Idiotic approach (Score:4, Interesting)
I can think of a couple of reasons.
1) For the purpose of saving the weight of radar/sonar/laser devices. It's a small flying device. Weight matters.
2) For the purpose of saving the cost of radar/sonar/laser devices.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mapping closed spaces, perhaps recording sounds or sniffing chemicals and reporting back, as suggested in TFA. Maybe we've read too much about military/police applications. Make it smaller and you won't worry about knocking anything important, and it'll be able to slip through smaller openings.
Re: (Score:2)
Provided it can find them before the battery runs out...
Re: (Score:2)
The saved weight should help a bit. Have you seen quadcopter videos in YouTube? Also, I figure that it might have path-integration capabilities to know when the charge is just enough to go home ("bingo fuel").
Re: (Score:2)
But how does it find home if it doesn't have traditional sensors?
Re: (Score:2)
Accelerometers. It mapped the place as it went about, right? There may be a few more bumps on the way back due to linearity/quantization errors.
Re: (Score:2)
You wouldn't have anywhere near the accuracy you'd need - especially after one or more collisions. Even a full-blown laser-gyro INS drifts.
Re: (Score:2)
I meant, whatever sensors it used to map the place as a primary mission. Namely:
By analyzing the position and force of its collisions, the AirBurr is able to gradually map out its surroundings, establishing where the various boundaries lie
Of course, I expect it to bump all the way back, but knowing left from right would be enough to trace back the maze. Worst case, it could radio its rough position as it goes, so you know where it ended up. Here's the project's page including a long exposure photo showing the bumpy path; I have to wait until I get home to watch the video.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if the weight saved by forgoing sensors isn't replaced by the weight necessary for power. Given the extra flight time needed to exercise this rather inefficient navigation method, you'll need more power on-board to do anything useful with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention the weight saved by "armor" for the lack of a better term.
If this thing is going to be constantly bouncing into things... by DESIGN... then it's going to have to be able to take a heavier beating than something that will try to avoid bouncing into things all-together.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just think about the amount of time it would take the thing to find (by chance essentially) the opening, that could have been determined easily from a single sensor 'pass' and some processing.
Meaning any weight/battery saved not powering sensors is thrown right out by aimless bouncing.
Re: (Score:3)
To quote Jeremy Clarkson: "What could possibly go wrong?"
Re: (Score:1)
I don't think it's that crazy. I did some robot navigation work for a thesis project, years ago, when compute power was abysmal and sensor capability was very limited as well. The lesson learned was that navigation and mapping is relatively easy regardless of the data source (we did nav and mapping with an original 128KB Macintosh), but spatial sensor processing is hard and unreliable (nothing that we had available could keep up, and the raw sensor data sucked too).
The key is reliability; you can certainl
Things that go "Bump" (Score:2)
it's built to run into things, in order to map and navigate its environment.
Hey that's neat... Question:
What happens when it bumps into a weakened structural support, one that just happens to barely be holding the building up?
I assume the AirBurr is cheap to replace?
Re: (Score:2)
1. Make it light enough. At any rate, it doesn't *crash* so much as "bump its feelers" in traditional robotics lab fashion.
2. Well, there's no [stereo] camera[s], and just enough storage for the flight log.
Air Roomba (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you dropped an anvil on it or something you can most likely fix it. There's all kinds of diagnostics built right in to every Roomba, they're easy to open with a standard screwdriver, and there's dozens of repair guides and forums on the internets.
Besides, if you don't fix it, you automatically forfeit the right to complain about Apple and/or Nintendo's unservicable products.
Easier way to do it: (Score:3)
Why don't they just graft tadpole eyes onto its butt?
Feature not Bug (Score:2)
I think it's just a bad programmer trying to close a bug as 'Won't Fix'.
Re: (Score:2)
Flies do bump into things like windows a lot, you'll notice flies often fly and bounce off of glass quite frequently. They may not bump into other objects but certain classes of objects the do most certainly bounce off of.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite true -- and someone's been missing the difference between blindly bumping into boundaries and helplessly (but not due to blindness) bumping into transparent solid objects which pretty much don't occur in nature.
Rather a lot of birds kill themselves flying into picture windows. Heck, I've seen humans (sober!) walk straight into clean glass slider doors.
AFAIK flies don't bump into walls; just windows.
Re: (Score:2)
My own observations agree with you.
June bugs [wikipedia.org], however, will run straight into solid walls.
Roomba (Score:3)
This is how the roomba vacuum cleaners navigate, isn't it? What's new?
Re: (Score:2)
Probably the aerodynamic/mechanical/control-systems design so you can do this while *flying* without being knocked out of the air. That's trickier than keeping a big, heavy hockey puck stable on the floor when it bumbles into walls.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, the mapping/modeling routine may be quite a bit more sophisticated than a Roomba. The Roomba has a fairly limited "short term memory," and relies heavily on tuned heuristics for how to mix methodical motions (following a wall or spiraling to cover an open area) with enough randomness to efficiently, fairly uniformly cover all areas. No overarching "floor map" is calculated/stored, just info about short-term events. The UAV might actually generate/save a more complete map, so it can retrace its steps a
ORLY (Score:1)
The flies in my part of California don't bounce off the walls. WTF? Sure, they fly back and forth and in circles, but bouncing off the walls as a form of navigation? I have my doubts as to whether this was truly nature-inspired.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I saw this in part of San Francisco. There would be these hovering flies (not houseflies) that would circle and hover while darting back and forth over small distances.
Completely different method of navigation.
great until it hits something (Score:1)
that won't be able to tolerate being hit. Like a child. Or drying concrete. Or another UAV.
Well, (Score:2)
that's what the whiskers on cats, rats and dogs are for. They are sensors for what they are about to bump into.
Bad picture (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Is this optimal? (Score:1)
So.... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's going to ding my car, damage my walls, break a window, and knock over a lamp before it assassinates me in my home now?
Well, I heard that AirBurr killed Alexander Hamilton. [wikipedia.org]
Why not use radar? (Score:1)
MSI made some robot vacuum cleaners like this (Score:2)
Funrobot is MSI's somewhat Heath Robinson robotics brand. They've got high end ones with ultrasonic sensors
This is the M800
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzV76Zjru5A [youtube.com]
It works pretty well and can find the docking station to recharge. It is somewhat expensive (US$400 - above most people's impulse buy threshold)
The R500 has bump sensors
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lFwhqcLnzo [youtube.com]
It's cheap (about US$120) but also very irritating. Bump sensors make a lot of noise and it will also get stuck on cables, curtains and
Great choice of picture (Score:2)
Dumb yet awesome? Awesomely dumb? (Score:2)
It would be insane to actually release a bunch of these into a space to find people or something like that. But on the other hand, as a research project, it is beyond awesome. Also, it would be really nice to see the majority of VTOL UAVs designed such that they "can't" (for some reasonable value most likely more properly described as "probably won't") chop stuff up with their props, like your face. And perhaps, to have them not kill you if they land on you from very high up. So there's lessons to be learne
Failed analogy (Score:5, Informative)
If you have TRULY observed a fly trying to find its way around a house, you might have noticed that it in fact takes a very GRACEFUL approach: it never bumps to anything but almost completely transparent objects (as do many birds), and its true grace can be readily observed through 1500 fps videos.
It is one of the animals with the highest flight maneuverability, as two of its wings have evolved to counterweights: not only it can hover and take-off backwards, but it can land upside-down, and does so very skillfully. See youtube and BBC documentaries for further edification.
Re: (Score:2)
On the subject of failing, a fly is not an animal. It's an insect.