3 ms·
Battery density is only an issue if these things are spending most of their time moving long distances. If you are targeting a drop in replacement for a human w
by jjk166 2y ago
Battery density is only an issue if these things are spending most of their time moving long distances. If you are targeting a drop in replacement for a human worker who is spending most of their time at a workstation, it can be plugged in while working. Even in a scenario where the robot can not be connected to power while working, that's easily solved with redundancy - get two robots, one works while the other charges. Obviously better battery life is a nice to have, but it's not an impediment to large scale adoption the way other big robotics problems are.
- robotresearcher 2y ago> easily solved with redundancy - get two robots. Yay, twice as expensive. And power tethers on robots suck so hard. Try it sometime, you’ll hate it.
- jjk166 2y agoAnd how much more expensive is the twice as efficient power system that hasn't been developed yet? Nearly all robots in actual use have tethers, it's really not a big concern. Further there are other methods of providing power, such as induction. For any situation where long range mobility is really a concern, you probably don't want a humanoid robot to begin with.
- jvanderbot 2y agoA problem that can be solved by spending 2x is not the type of fundamental problem I'm referring to (easily solved by "Funding" or otherwise known as a system design constraint and part of everyday engineering albeit very difficult and skillful engineering) The leaps that would be required to make a mannequin with motors intelligently interact with crowds (in groups no less) at a publicity event cannot be solved with 2x funding jumps, and I'm arguing they are largely perception-, sensing-, mapping- and self-modelling- based.