4 ms·

I don't use fabric softener, but that's a solved problem. The laundry machine I have takes both laundry detergent and, if I used it, fabric softener and dispens

by blagie 2y ago

I don't use fabric softener, but that's a solved problem. The laundry machine I have takes both laundry detergent and, if I used it, fabric softener and dispenses those by itself. Actuators, competently designed, won't break when torque gets too high: 1) The control system can handle this, trivially. 2) The mechanical linkage can be designed to limit torque. At some point, it should slip. 3) Forces out-of-axis should not be transferred to the actuator The kleptocracy is more a function of rent-seeking city living. Even a little ways out, into the suburbs, things are very different. Rural, and space is virtually free.

GistNoesis 2y ago
>Actuators, competently designed, won't break when torque gets too high The mechanical part of robotics is quite challenging. Because of the overhangs, 6DOF arms usually are bulky to be able provide useful force. Alternatively too strong industrial robots are unsafe to operate near humans even if compliant. But most probably even robot building startup can't even attempt it. (They are not looking for mechanical engineer in their job listing, so probably they don't design the robot arm themselves). If you don't design the robot arm yourself, then you only have the option of which off the shelf actuators to pick. Usually they are weak and expensive. And how to integrate them while staying in specs. For manipulation sensory input is very useful, but if the API of your robot arm doesn't provide the feedback you do with what you have. When forces are weak closed-controlled loop system don't flex and can know their position, when things flex and deform, it allows to have lighter arms, but the robot can't know it's internal state. Here they close the loop via visual feedback, so knowing position exactly is not so important : humans have shitty repeatability but handle folding the laundry quite well. But shitty robot arms are not very useful and also need the same motors and controls that good robot arms, so you might as well make your task easier and develop your robot with expensive arms first so prices converge towards expensive robot arms, and the economics equations of this market (high R&D cost, low sell volume) are geared not for home applications but industrial control which usually necessitate maintenance operations on the robots themselves. What's even worse for the business model, is that once you have spend money to gather data and build a dataset to teach your neural networks, then your competitors only have to copy, vertically integrate, improve, scale and grab the money pot. One of home robotics main obstacle is a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem where no one wants to front the costs of building the datasets, front the costs of cheap actuators, front the costs of cheap prototypes so everyone reinvents their own solution which can't solve the economic equation.
- blagie 2y ago
  Good point. When I was younger, I'd have argued the collective action problem is just a matter of time and development, but I've now seen dozens of technologies stalled out. I firmly believe it's the reason we don't have flying cars. I can sketch out all the pieces needed to get there, which in the simplest-to-explain version consist of a few regulatory changes, an autogyro, a control system, and some infrastructure, but those few changes easily add up to an obscene amount of money. Once invested, the next competitor can do almost the same thing almost out of a garage. Lots of medical technologies too. And medical systemic changes. Education too.

by blagie 2y ago

GistNoesis 2y ago

>Actuators, competently designed, won't break when torque gets too high The mechanical part of robotics is quite challenging. Because of the overhangs, 6DOF arms usually are bulky to be able provide useful force. Alternatively too strong industrial robots are unsafe to operate near humans even if compliant. But most probably even robot building startup can't even attempt it. (They are not looking for mechanical engineer in their job listing, so probably they don't design the robot arm themselves). If you don't design the robot arm yourself, then you only have the option of which off the shelf actuators to pick. Usually they are weak and expensive. And how to integrate them while staying in specs. For manipulation sensory input is very useful, but if the API of your robot arm doesn't provide the feedback you do with what you have. When forces are weak closed-controlled loop system don't flex and can know their position, when things flex and deform, it allows to have lighter arms, but the robot can't know it's internal state. Here they close the loop via visual feedback, so knowing position exactly is not so important : humans have shitty repeatability but handle folding the laundry quite well. But shitty robot arms are not very useful and also need the same motors and controls that good robot arms, so you might as well make your task easier and develop your robot with expensive arms first so prices converge towards expensive robot arms, and the economics equations of this market (high R&D cost, low sell volume) are geared not for home applications but industrial control which usually necessitate maintenance operations on the robots themselves. What's even worse for the business model, is that once you have spend money to gather data and build a dataset to teach your neural networks, then your competitors only have to copy, vertically integrate, improve, scale and grab the money pot. One of home robotics main obstacle is a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem where no one wants to front the costs of building the datasets, front the costs of cheap actuators, front the costs of cheap prototypes so everyone reinvents their own solution which can't solve the economic equation.

blagie 2y ago
Good point. When I was younger, I'd have argued the collective action problem is just a matter of time and development, but I've now seen dozens of technologies stalled out. I firmly believe it's the reason we don't have flying cars. I can sketch out all the pieces needed to get there, which in the simplest-to-explain version consist of a few regulatory changes, an autogyro, a control system, and some infrastructure, but those few changes easily add up to an obscene amount of money. Once invested, the next competitor can do almost the same thing almost out of a garage. Lots of medical technologies too. And medical systemic changes. Education too.