3 ms·
> 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.
by 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.