4 ms·
I don't have a real robotics background, but I do work in automation, so I have a pretty decent grasp on machines that do things. I'd put this at a 9 on the im
by retroafroman 16y ago
I don't have a real robotics background, but I do work in automation, so I have a pretty decent grasp on machines that do things. I'd put this at a 9 on the impossibility scale. I base this mostly on the fact that robotics and automated machinery is usually very specific to a certain task. However, if you change your thinking from "a robot that cleans for me" to "machines that clean different surfaces" then the problem becomes much easier, probably around a 5 on your scale. Think a Roomba for the floor, an automatic shower cleaner for the shower, etc. It's a lot easier to make machines that do one very specific, repeatable task rather than a general purpose robot (which is probably why they aren't very common). Microcontrollers are dirt cheap and easily programmable, so I see your best route to getting a cleaner bathroom to break up the specific tasks to dedicated machines. That also has the benefit of breaking the development into smaller and more easily managed chunks.
- SMrF 16y agoInteresting. So I would have: Toilet cleaner, tub cleaner, shower cleaner, floor cleaner, counter cleaner, mirror cleaner, etc... The big drawback to this is that's a lot of robot maintenance. The vacuum is pretty easy, I just dump the dirt into a garbage can when I get home. Add five more robots for each bathroom... I will have to think about this.
- seven 16y agoI always pictured my solution to this problem like this: * Everything that is not allowed to get wet or is loose, is stored in a safe place. * Some 'high-pressure cleaner things' at strategic locations. * A big fan and a hole in the ground.
- retroafroman 16y agoThis would probably be my solution as well. Although not nearly as sexy (or fun to create) of a solution as a robot, it would sanitize quite well.