4 ms·

I am always wondering, why they build such complicated biology inspired robots, while they can build something with wheels and simple levels which allows robot

I am always wondering, why they build such complicated biology inspired robots, while they can build something with wheels and simple levels which allows robot to jump over obstacles and turn upside down if it landed on the back.

next_xibalba 3y ago
My limited understanding is that wheels really don’t work for all terrain scenarios. For example, craggy mountains in Afghanistan. (Much of this research is funded directly and indirectly by the US DoD)
mcbutterbunz 3y ago
Its my assumption that biology inspired robots would adapt better to a biological world. It might also be easier to solve problems by copying those who have already figured out a solution.
- Mistletoe 3y ago
  Nature can’t really make a nice wheel and free wheeling hub though. Blood vessels would get ripped off, cartilage etc.
  - lusus_naturae 3y ago
    Nature does it own version of a "wheel", mainly in flagella: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_locomotion_in_living_systems https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_locomotion_in_livin...
    - Mistletoe 3y ago
      That’s very true but it doesn’t seem to scale up well from that. :)
bagels 3y ago
Gives us something tangible to compare.
Cthulhu_ 3y ago
There are robots / RC cars like that, but they wouldn't work well on rocky surfaces for example; legs are more versatile.
- riku_iki 3y ago
  how rocky?.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6qFzivoUdw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6qFzivoUdw
90-00-09 3y ago
My understanding is that such robots do exist and have a different application. For example, balancing on longer hind legs by lifting the rest of the body up, then making a jump over a gap is likely easier than when using wheels. In terms of landing on the back: if I remember correctly, one of these prototypes--from Boston Dynamics?--is able to rotate its legs 180 degrees to push off the ground when landing on the back.
TulliusCicero 3y ago
Well, for one obvious reason, that's not terribly interesting from a scientific perspective. For the other, legs are more versatile than wheels, especially when it comes to uneven terrain.
- moffkalast 3y ago
  The best solution would be to add wheels as feet which gives you the best of both worlds. It does however add even more cost to an already outrageously priced robot. https://spectrum.ieee.org/wheels-are-better-than-feet-for-legged-robots https://spectrum.ieee.org/wheels-are-better-than-feet-for-le...
  - Cyphonetic 3y ago
    The robot that they used is 14k, down from boston Dynamics 75k, and they also have another which is available for 5k which you possibly might be able to do the same thing with it too. Outragously expensive is not correct if you ask me.
a96 3y ago
Somebody else is already doing simple wheels and levels. A lot of people/groups, actually. These and others are doing legs. I don't know if anyone is looking at crawling and jumping, or screws or tracks. Or tentacles. I wouldn't be surprised. What would be really interesting if some way of motion turned out to be much better than what we find in nature or manufactured for non-autonomous machines.

next_xibalba 3y ago

My limited understanding is that wheels really don’t work for all terrain scenarios. For example, craggy mountains in Afghanistan. (Much of this research is funded directly and indirectly by the US DoD)

mcbutterbunz 3y ago

Its my assumption that biology inspired robots would adapt better to a biological world. It might also be easier to solve problems by copying those who have already figured out a solution.

Mistletoe 3y ago
Nature can’t really make a nice wheel and free wheeling hub though. Blood vessels would get ripped off, cartilage etc.
- lusus_naturae 3y ago
  Nature does it own version of a "wheel", mainly in flagella: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_locomotion_in_living_systems https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_locomotion_in_livin...
  - Mistletoe 3y ago
    That’s very true but it doesn’t seem to scale up well from that. :)

bagels 3y ago

Gives us something tangible to compare.

Cthulhu_ 3y ago

There are robots / RC cars like that, but they wouldn't work well on rocky surfaces for example; legs are more versatile.

riku_iki 3y ago
how rocky?.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6qFzivoUdw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6qFzivoUdw

90-00-09 3y ago

My understanding is that such robots do exist and have a different application. For example, balancing on longer hind legs by lifting the rest of the body up, then making a jump over a gap is likely easier than when using wheels. In terms of landing on the back: if I remember correctly, one of these prototypes--from Boston Dynamics?--is able to rotate its legs 180 degrees to push off the ground when landing on the back.

TulliusCicero 3y ago

Well, for one obvious reason, that's not terribly interesting from a scientific perspective. For the other, legs are more versatile than wheels, especially when it comes to uneven terrain.

moffkalast 3y ago
The best solution would be to add wheels as feet which gives you the best of both worlds. It does however add even more cost to an already outrageously priced robot. https://spectrum.ieee.org/wheels-are-better-than-feet-for-legged-robots https://spectrum.ieee.org/wheels-are-better-than-feet-for-le...
- Cyphonetic 3y ago
  The robot that they used is 14k, down from boston Dynamics 75k, and they also have another which is available for 5k which you possibly might be able to do the same thing with it too. Outragously expensive is not correct if you ask me.

a96 3y ago

Somebody else is already doing simple wheels and levels. A lot of people/groups, actually. These and others are doing legs. I don't know if anyone is looking at crawling and jumping, or screws or tracks. Or tentacles. I wouldn't be surprised. What would be really interesting if some way of motion turned out to be much better than what we find in nature or manufactured for non-autonomous machines.