6 ms·

One thing that's scifi but would be cool is "smart sand". Using tiny parts that communicate with each other/interlock. Form larger units.

TeMPOraL 5y ago
Obligatory raining on the parade: small enough smart sand might be a cancer risk, the way asbestos is (suspected to be)[0] - apparently our bodies really don't like having small, stiff objects poking at it from inside, causing mechanical damage. That said, I'm all for "smart sand" and programmable matter. IIRC, the tricky bits are in making the individual smart particles to stick to each other, and then making them behave in a coordinated fashion. It's an interesting challenge to think about: you have a thousand, or a million, small little robots - how to get them to do something useful as a group? If the robots can barely sense their environment, can barely move on their own, can't communicate with each other except maybe their nearest neighbors - how to make them work together in a controlled fashion? Say, I have this bag of "smart sand", I pour it on a table and want it to form into a cube when I press "Enter" on my laptop - how do I translate a bulk concept like "cube shape" into instructions for a random pile of tiny robots? Does anyone know of good papers dealing with this problem? -- [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_impact_of_asbestos#Mechanisms_of_carcinogenicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_impact_of_asbestos#Mech...
- jcun4128 5y ago
  Yeah I was thinking about it, the particles would have to be able to transfer power to each other by contact. If it's a problem of corrosion maybe through induction. And some particles are specialized eg. an IMU or a battery, etc... spatial would depend on external direction probably IMU combo. But the manufacturing would be insane... scale and then hopefully it's cheap enough it could be like dirt. In the end what is it for, is it strong structurally. Clustering compute of each particle would be interesting too. Anyway at least you can model/simulate it, that would be a cool thing to design/program.
- hnlmorg 5y ago
  I guess in the same way you orchestrate any cluster of bots: you give each an ID, design your structure on your server and then and then pass those instructions to the bots. They wouldn't be aware of each other in any "smart" way but you'd want to keep the logic as low as possible on the nodes so you have less compute power to miniaturise.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    I feel that's not robust enough - what if some of your bots are missing? When we're talking millions of microscopic robots, I think we need to assume that many will break down, get misplaced, or be in a position disadvantageous for it to fulfill a designated role. A robust system cannot rely on all the robots in a predetermined ID range/set to be there - it needs to work with what's actually available. Ideally, I imagine being able to point at a random pile of robots and make that pile do something, without knowing any of the IDs or health of individual cells up front. So I wonder, is there a way to design the system in such a way that individual robots don't need to be micromanaged, but instead they self-assign to the appropriate role/place, without having full knowledge of the shared goal? Imagine those experiments in making shapes from sand with standing audio waves, e.g. [0]. The grains of sand have no identity and no awareness. The person setting up the experiment doesn't care about what any individual grain of sand does. They just set up a pattern, encode it in a standing wave, and the sand moves to conform to it. I'm wondering if this kind of approach is possible, except with the robots moving on their own instead of being moved by air. And, as a next step, with a pattern being persisted in the pile of robots, instead of being supplied externally. -- [0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvJAgrUBF4w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvJAgrUBF4w
    - hnlmorg 5y ago
      > I feel that's not robust enough - what if some of your bots are missing? When we're talking millions of microscopic robots, I think we need to assume that many will break down, get misplaced, or be in a position disadvantageous for it to fulfill a designated role. A robust system cannot rely on all the robots in a predetermined ID range/set to be there - it needs to work with what's actually available. Nothing about what I posted assumes that. I'm just saying it's the server that would orchestrate them rather than them orchestrating each other. The server would obviously poll them for positional data (relative to neighbour), health status, etc. > The person setting up the experiment doesn't care about what any individual grain of sand does. They just set up a pattern, encode it in a standing wave, and the sand moves to conform to it. I didn't suggest that someone manually plots each grain either. Clearly you'd just set up a design in a CAD and then let the server define the algorithm and orchestration required. Much like how when you manage nodes currently, you don't manually assign which node to scale up or down. You define rules and let the system manage the nodes itself. Given the problems of miniaturisation and decentralised computing, this feels like a problem easier solved in a centralised system that then hands out instructions (and your requirements clearly stated there was a control system that you used to instruct the grains of sand when you said "press enter on my laptop").
- Wildgoose 5y ago
  I remember reading of a primitive unicellular organism that can link up with its fellows and become mobile, searching for water sources if I recall correctly.
- evgen 5y ago
  > It's an interesting challenge to think about: you have a thousand, or a million, small little robots - how to get them to do something useful as a group? This was a big focus of a lot of the ALife research in the late 90s and early aughts. Cellular automata, swarming systems, etc. You can generally start with anything coming out of University of New Mexico and bounce around the citation graph of an interesting-sounding paper. You might also want to check out Dave Ackley's T2 Tile project and some of the youtube videos he has put out over the past few years. One thing he is very clear about is addressing robustness in the face of component failure (e.g. his 'Moveable Feast Machine' and 'Demon Horde' stuff is rather fun to watch as it responds to random and widespread failures.) Most of the work in this area is clearly bio-inspired, but why re-invent the wheel when you can steal from the best available examples...
timonoko 5y ago
Smart sand that learns like neural nets. Recipe goes like this: Mix semiconducting grains and metal and solder bits. Apply electric pattern at one end of the bucket and shake the bucket until some useful pattern appears at the other end. Then you apply much higher current between those patterns. Solder bits melt and form more permanent neural routes. Repeat until the device works as expected.
gjvc 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_goo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_goo
- gpderetta 5y ago
  gray-goo is self replicating smart sand.

TeMPOraL 5y ago

Obligatory raining on the parade: small enough smart sand might be a cancer risk, the way asbestos is (suspected to be)[0] - apparently our bodies really don't like having small, stiff objects poking at it from inside, causing mechanical damage. That said, I'm all for "smart sand" and programmable matter. IIRC, the tricky bits are in making the individual smart particles to stick to each other, and then making them behave in a coordinated fashion. It's an interesting challenge to think about: you have a thousand, or a million, small little robots - how to get them to do something useful as a group? If the robots can barely sense their environment, can barely move on their own, can't communicate with each other except maybe their nearest neighbors - how to make them work together in a controlled fashion? Say, I have this bag of "smart sand", I pour it on a table and want it to form into a cube when I press "Enter" on my laptop - how do I translate a bulk concept like "cube shape" into instructions for a random pile of tiny robots? Does anyone know of good papers dealing with this problem? -- [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_impact_of_asbestos#Mechanisms_of_carcinogenicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_impact_of_asbestos#Mech...

jcun4128 5y ago
Yeah I was thinking about it, the particles would have to be able to transfer power to each other by contact. If it's a problem of corrosion maybe through induction. And some particles are specialized eg. an IMU or a battery, etc... spatial would depend on external direction probably IMU combo. But the manufacturing would be insane... scale and then hopefully it's cheap enough it could be like dirt. In the end what is it for, is it strong structurally. Clustering compute of each particle would be interesting too. Anyway at least you can model/simulate it, that would be a cool thing to design/program.
hnlmorg 5y ago
I guess in the same way you orchestrate any cluster of bots: you give each an ID, design your structure on your server and then and then pass those instructions to the bots. They wouldn't be aware of each other in any "smart" way but you'd want to keep the logic as low as possible on the nodes so you have less compute power to miniaturise.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  I feel that's not robust enough - what if some of your bots are missing? When we're talking millions of microscopic robots, I think we need to assume that many will break down, get misplaced, or be in a position disadvantageous for it to fulfill a designated role. A robust system cannot rely on all the robots in a predetermined ID range/set to be there - it needs to work with what's actually available. Ideally, I imagine being able to point at a random pile of robots and make that pile do something, without knowing any of the IDs or health of individual cells up front. So I wonder, is there a way to design the system in such a way that individual robots don't need to be micromanaged, but instead they self-assign to the appropriate role/place, without having full knowledge of the shared goal? Imagine those experiments in making shapes from sand with standing audio waves, e.g. [0]. The grains of sand have no identity and no awareness. The person setting up the experiment doesn't care about what any individual grain of sand does. They just set up a pattern, encode it in a standing wave, and the sand moves to conform to it. I'm wondering if this kind of approach is possible, except with the robots moving on their own instead of being moved by air. And, as a next step, with a pattern being persisted in the pile of robots, instead of being supplied externally. -- [0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvJAgrUBF4w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvJAgrUBF4w
  - hnlmorg 5y ago
    > I feel that's not robust enough - what if some of your bots are missing? When we're talking millions of microscopic robots, I think we need to assume that many will break down, get misplaced, or be in a position disadvantageous for it to fulfill a designated role. A robust system cannot rely on all the robots in a predetermined ID range/set to be there - it needs to work with what's actually available. Nothing about what I posted assumes that. I'm just saying it's the server that would orchestrate them rather than them orchestrating each other. The server would obviously poll them for positional data (relative to neighbour), health status, etc. > The person setting up the experiment doesn't care about what any individual grain of sand does. They just set up a pattern, encode it in a standing wave, and the sand moves to conform to it. I didn't suggest that someone manually plots each grain either. Clearly you'd just set up a design in a CAD and then let the server define the algorithm and orchestration required. Much like how when you manage nodes currently, you don't manually assign which node to scale up or down. You define rules and let the system manage the nodes itself. Given the problems of miniaturisation and decentralised computing, this feels like a problem easier solved in a centralised system that then hands out instructions (and your requirements clearly stated there was a control system that you used to instruct the grains of sand when you said "press enter on my laptop").
Wildgoose 5y ago
I remember reading of a primitive unicellular organism that can link up with its fellows and become mobile, searching for water sources if I recall correctly.
evgen 5y ago
> It's an interesting challenge to think about: you have a thousand, or a million, small little robots - how to get them to do something useful as a group? This was a big focus of a lot of the ALife research in the late 90s and early aughts. Cellular automata, swarming systems, etc. You can generally start with anything coming out of University of New Mexico and bounce around the citation graph of an interesting-sounding paper. You might also want to check out Dave Ackley's T2 Tile project and some of the youtube videos he has put out over the past few years. One thing he is very clear about is addressing robustness in the face of component failure (e.g. his 'Moveable Feast Machine' and 'Demon Horde' stuff is rather fun to watch as it responds to random and widespread failures.) Most of the work in this area is clearly bio-inspired, but why re-invent the wheel when you can steal from the best available examples...

timonoko 5y ago

Smart sand that learns like neural nets. Recipe goes like this: Mix semiconducting grains and metal and solder bits. Apply electric pattern at one end of the bucket and shake the bucket until some useful pattern appears at the other end. Then you apply much higher current between those patterns. Solder bits melt and form more permanent neural routes. Repeat until the device works as expected.

gjvc 5y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_goo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_goo

gpderetta 5y ago
gray-goo is self replicating smart sand.