5 ms·

My awareness comes from a tragic event, but I still must say that the Colossus is pretty cool. I wonder if the birdlike Boston Dynamics robot could be adapted f

My awareness comes from a tragic event, but I still must say that the Colossus is pretty cool. I wonder if the birdlike Boston Dynamics robot could be adapted for indoor firefighting in confined spaces. (Perhaps with a flippable/rotatable 4 wheeled gimbal like the Dean Kamen iBot has, which would enable stair climbing.) https://gizmodo.com/boston-dynamics-new-robot-is-a-giant-segway-bird-that-l-1833666944 https://gizmodo.com/boston-dynamics-new-robot-is-a-giant-seg...

SiempreViernes 8y ago
I'm not sure the Boston bird can take any significant amount of heat or water, to say nothing of its ability to navigate a floor strewn with (burning) debris.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  I'm not sure the Boston bird can take any significant amount of heat or water If you take an architecture developed for warehouse running, you'd naturally have to adapt it for fire fighting. If you're not assuming that this sort of re-engineering needs to be done for a shirtsleeves R&D device being applied to the demanding context of fire fighting, then please think 1 or 2 more steps ahead when engineering. In short: I'm trying to talk about some specific modifications to an existing example and its effect on maneuvering, as a shorthand to discuss a general architecture, not all of the contextual specifics. I would be open to discussing how the contextual specifics would be applied, but to go directly to, "won't work -- specifics!..." is just throwing up roadblocks to be a pedant. to say nothing of its ability to navigate a floor strewn with (burning) debris Which is why I mentioned the bogey and extra wheels as in the iBot.
gpm 8y ago
Flying drones close to a fire seems like a counter productive idea, flight is achieved by pushing lots of air around, pushing lots of air around increases the amount of oxygen available to the fire. Edit: Oops - not flying - so this comment makes no sense. I thought you meant some of the bird-like drones we've seen.
- Notorious_BLT 8y ago
  The bird-like Boston Dynamics bots aren't flying drones, they are more like ostriches in shape, and they balance on two wheels on legs with a neck-like arm for manipulating things
  - gpm 8y ago
    You're right... oops. Sorry.
- loco5niner 8y ago
  That logic seems like a bit of a stretch to me. Following that logic, the best way to fight a fire is to get a lot of people in the building to breathe in all the oxygen and turn it into carbon dioxide ;-)
  - gpm 8y ago
    Humans aren't very good O2->CO2 convertors, and people object to you killing them in the process of fighting fires, so it's not "the best way" but I suppose it is a "way". A more extreme version, using explosives to put out oil well fires, is common. But we're really discussing the inverse prospect, adding oxygen to make a fire hotter. This is even more common. From blowing on camp fires, to bellows in a forge, to back yard foundries built with a hair dryer acting as a fan.

SiempreViernes 8y ago

I'm not sure the Boston bird can take any significant amount of heat or water, to say nothing of its ability to navigate a floor strewn with (burning) debris.

stcredzero 8y ago
I'm not sure the Boston bird can take any significant amount of heat or water If you take an architecture developed for warehouse running, you'd naturally have to adapt it for fire fighting. If you're not assuming that this sort of re-engineering needs to be done for a shirtsleeves R&D device being applied to the demanding context of fire fighting, then please think 1 or 2 more steps ahead when engineering. In short: I'm trying to talk about some specific modifications to an existing example and its effect on maneuvering, as a shorthand to discuss a general architecture, not all of the contextual specifics. I would be open to discussing how the contextual specifics would be applied, but to go directly to, "won't work -- specifics!..." is just throwing up roadblocks to be a pedant. to say nothing of its ability to navigate a floor strewn with (burning) debris Which is why I mentioned the bogey and extra wheels as in the iBot.

gpm 8y ago

Flying drones close to a fire seems like a counter productive idea, flight is achieved by pushing lots of air around, pushing lots of air around increases the amount of oxygen available to the fire. Edit: Oops - not flying - so this comment makes no sense. I thought you meant some of the bird-like drones we've seen.

Notorious_BLT 8y ago
The bird-like Boston Dynamics bots aren't flying drones, they are more like ostriches in shape, and they balance on two wheels on legs with a neck-like arm for manipulating things
- gpm 8y ago
  You're right... oops. Sorry.
loco5niner 8y ago
That logic seems like a bit of a stretch to me. Following that logic, the best way to fight a fire is to get a lot of people in the building to breathe in all the oxygen and turn it into carbon dioxide ;-)
- gpm 8y ago
  Humans aren't very good O2->CO2 convertors, and people object to you killing them in the process of fighting fires, so it's not "the best way" but I suppose it is a "way". A more extreme version, using explosives to put out oil well fires, is common. But we're really discussing the inverse prospect, adding oxygen to make a fire hotter. This is even more common. From blowing on camp fires, to bellows in a forge, to back yard foundries built with a hair dryer acting as a fan.