8 ms·

Youtuber Marques Brownlee had a cool video on Spot last week. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6_azdBnAlU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6_azdBnAlU His take

Youtuber Marques Brownlee had a cool video on Spot last week. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6_azdBnAlU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6_azdBnAlU His takeaway was that the big use cases currently are around LIDAR and mapping, e.g. tracking construction progress, in irregular / uneven terrain. I'm less convinced that walking robots are useful for some of the use cases described in the Economist article, like moving boxes in a warehouse. After all, warehouses are generally built to facilitate wheeled vehicles (forklifts) already...

clairity 6y ago
yes, it's been common knowledge in biomechanics that wheeled vehicles win on flat surfaces, hands down (ha). legs are good for the 99.9% of earth's land that isn't nearly as predictable. the general utility of accessing that 99.9% is relatively dispersed though (and hard to build a business on).
- Robotbeat 6y ago
  Simply using big wheels or tracks work for non-flat surfaces, too, and are cheaper & more efficient (especially the wheels). Legs allow you to climb, ie a ladder, very steep stairs ( more than 45 degrees), a tree, or an extremely steep rough slope (think: mountain). A tracked vehicle or large-wheeled vehicle can go almost anywhere a legged robot can go with a large efficiency and cost advantage. However, you can run into space constraints. Bipedal robots are good for navigating human-scale environments while still having a tall and stable robot. But generally, tracks or big wheels are way cheaper and more efficient and can do the same thing.
  - clairity 6y ago
    sure, bigger wheels and tracks can get you some greater percentage of navigable land, but nowhere near 100%. most terrestrial animals uses legs and not wheels for a reason (and it's not because it's not evolutionarily possible). but yes, bigger wheels and tracks probably cover a greater percentage of the commercially viable landscape.
    - Robotbeat 6y ago
      It is close to evolutionarily impossible to do a wheel and axle biologically. If the whole animal rolls, sure, but not a full wheel and axle (macroscopically). That is probably the main reason we see zero macroscopic animals with that configuration.
      - clairity 6y ago
        biology on an evolutionary timescale is exceedingly clever, more ingenious than us humans. you don't need an axle, just something roundish (eyeballs or even pearls, for example).
        thombat 6y ago
        The organism will need something like a fluid rotary union so the nervous and circulatory system can reach the rotating part, or that part will be limited to very low metabolic levels (basically diffusion). That will certainly be ingenious.
        clairity 6y ago
        certainly, but biology is amazing. our muscles are basically chemical ratchets interconnected throughout a mosaic of levers (ignoring the complex control and feedback mechanisms, as well as the energy and waste systems, for a moment). also, your point is why i mentioned pearls--not all tissue needs to be activated or enervated similarly, or at all. we should have no doubt that biology would find a way given enough time.
        Robotbeat 6y ago
        It has found a way! Through engineering. We invented wheels, and we’re a result of evolution. Dung beetles have engineered something similar, although no axle (yet).
        Robotbeat 6y ago
        And yet it hasn’t happened! So I think that means there are fundamental reasons why it’s difficult for evolutionary processes.
  - somewhereoutth 6y ago
    Our built environment has been designed for the human form, so a general purpose robot will necessarily be humanoid. Essentially we would leverage the existing interface between humans and structures/machines - instead of having to create a new interface for robots to interact with their environment.
    - jtsiskin 6y ago
      Many humans are already on wheels, and the ADA tries to ensure accessibility.
      - Robotbeat 6y ago
        This is a hugely important point and much of the reason I chose a wheeled or tracked robot over a legged one for a project I’m working on. My workplace is supposed to be accessible, and to the degree that it isn’t, my workplace is federally required to fix it. So in some ways adding a tracked/wheeled robot to the mix could also help us find ways to make our workplace more welcoming for wheelchair users. As a mobility platform, a wheeled/tracked platform is more efficient, more open (less overhead), probably more robust (doesn’t fall over of power is lost mid-stride), an order of magnitude less costly, and it may even enhance workplace accessibility. Win-win.
        somewhereoutth 6y ago
        Indeed! And by digging up some wheelchair accessibility specs you will know exactly the form your robot needs to take to take advantage of that interface.
- renox 6y ago
  I think that eventually robots will get both wheel and legs: wheel are more efficient where they are usable.
stetrain 6y ago
SpaceX uses one for inspecting their testing site before clearing personnel to return after a test. https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/sn7-zeus https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/sn7-zeus

clairity 6y ago

yes, it's been common knowledge in biomechanics that wheeled vehicles win on flat surfaces, hands down (ha). legs are good for the 99.9% of earth's land that isn't nearly as predictable. the general utility of accessing that 99.9% is relatively dispersed though (and hard to build a business on).

Robotbeat 6y ago
Simply using big wheels or tracks work for non-flat surfaces, too, and are cheaper & more efficient (especially the wheels). Legs allow you to climb, ie a ladder, very steep stairs ( more than 45 degrees), a tree, or an extremely steep rough slope (think: mountain). A tracked vehicle or large-wheeled vehicle can go almost anywhere a legged robot can go with a large efficiency and cost advantage. However, you can run into space constraints. Bipedal robots are good for navigating human-scale environments while still having a tall and stable robot. But generally, tracks or big wheels are way cheaper and more efficient and can do the same thing.
- clairity 6y ago
  sure, bigger wheels and tracks can get you some greater percentage of navigable land, but nowhere near 100%. most terrestrial animals uses legs and not wheels for a reason (and it's not because it's not evolutionarily possible). but yes, bigger wheels and tracks probably cover a greater percentage of the commercially viable landscape.
  - Robotbeat 6y ago
    It is close to evolutionarily impossible to do a wheel and axle biologically. If the whole animal rolls, sure, but not a full wheel and axle (macroscopically). That is probably the main reason we see zero macroscopic animals with that configuration.
    - clairity 6y ago
      biology on an evolutionary timescale is exceedingly clever, more ingenious than us humans. you don't need an axle, just something roundish (eyeballs or even pearls, for example).
      - thombat 6y ago
        The organism will need something like a fluid rotary union so the nervous and circulatory system can reach the rotating part, or that part will be limited to very low metabolic levels (basically diffusion). That will certainly be ingenious.
        clairity 6y ago
        certainly, but biology is amazing. our muscles are basically chemical ratchets interconnected throughout a mosaic of levers (ignoring the complex control and feedback mechanisms, as well as the energy and waste systems, for a moment). also, your point is why i mentioned pearls--not all tissue needs to be activated or enervated similarly, or at all. we should have no doubt that biology would find a way given enough time.
        Robotbeat 6y ago
        It has found a way! Through engineering. We invented wheels, and we’re a result of evolution. Dung beetles have engineered something similar, although no axle (yet).
      - Robotbeat 6y ago
        And yet it hasn’t happened! So I think that means there are fundamental reasons why it’s difficult for evolutionary processes.
- somewhereoutth 6y ago
  Our built environment has been designed for the human form, so a general purpose robot will necessarily be humanoid. Essentially we would leverage the existing interface between humans and structures/machines - instead of having to create a new interface for robots to interact with their environment.
  - jtsiskin 6y ago
    Many humans are already on wheels, and the ADA tries to ensure accessibility.
    - Robotbeat 6y ago
      This is a hugely important point and much of the reason I chose a wheeled or tracked robot over a legged one for a project I’m working on. My workplace is supposed to be accessible, and to the degree that it isn’t, my workplace is federally required to fix it. So in some ways adding a tracked/wheeled robot to the mix could also help us find ways to make our workplace more welcoming for wheelchair users. As a mobility platform, a wheeled/tracked platform is more efficient, more open (less overhead), probably more robust (doesn’t fall over of power is lost mid-stride), an order of magnitude less costly, and it may even enhance workplace accessibility. Win-win.
      - somewhereoutth 6y ago
        Indeed! And by digging up some wheelchair accessibility specs you will know exactly the form your robot needs to take to take advantage of that interface.
renox 6y ago
I think that eventually robots will get both wheel and legs: wheel are more efficient where they are usable.

stetrain 6y ago

SpaceX uses one for inspecting their testing site before clearing personnel to return after a test. https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/sn7-zeus https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/sn7-zeus