8 ms·

Sadly, demining is not this simple or easy. Mine rollers and mine flails like this have been tried and tested since WWI but none have proven completely effecti

by _djo_ 14y ago

Sadly, demining is not this simple or easy. Mine rollers and mine flails like this have been tried and tested since WWI but none have proven completely effective in finding and clearing mines. This is partially because they only work well on totally flat terrain and rapidly lose effectiveness in rougher terrain where a large number of mines are typically buried. In practice, solutions like this achieve only 50-60% effectiveness at clearing minefields, which makes them useless for civilian demining which demands a 99% clearance rate. For that reason there's been a ton of research in this area which has resulted in better demining vehicles and interesting new techniques such as using sniffer dogs or rats to detect the explosives inside landmines. This is especially useful for the numerous plastic-shelled landmines that resist standard detection methods. Using a layered approach with these techniques, civilian demining organisations like Mechem[0] (which pioneered the use of sniffer dogs) are now able to achieve a high enough clearance rate to make areas safe, though the work is expensive and time-consuming. If you support this sort of work, donating money to demining NGOs would be better than funding yet another ineffective mine roller. [0]http://www.mechemdemining.com/ http://www.mechemdemining.com/

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
michaelgrafl 14y ago
That's an informative posting. But does it hurt to get about half the landmines by cheap means and do the rest with more thorough methods? That's not a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely interested.
- Ntrails 14y ago
  The real question is it any cheaper to de-mine 100m^2 with 50 land mines in it, than it is to de-mine the same area with 100. My expectation would say no. This method won't make the land usable safely, so the reality would see a bunch of cheap partial clearances with no real benefit - the areas will still be no go zones.
- jontas 14y ago
  This is a topic I know next to nothing about, but I have two responses for your question: 1. Is it really useful at all to only clear half the landmines? I would assume the area is still too dangerous to be useful even with only 40% of the landmines remaining. 2. Given #1, it would follow that additional (expensive) land mine clearing technologies would always be needed in addition. I don't know how these work or are billed out, but if the cost is per square mile or some similar area-based unit (instead of say, per mine), then clearing out 60% of the landmines first would not affect the supplemental cost. You've still got to cover the same area to catch the other 40%. Anyway, you've had my disclaimer at the top, and I could be totally wrong about this :) Just some thoughts.
  - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
    I'd expect the there would be a search cost, a removal cost and making safe cost. That the search cost would be lower than the removal cost (less skilled, less dangerous). I'd be extremely surprised to find that a commercial clearing of mines for an area with 40 mines was the same cost as clearing that same area with 400 mines. Equally that clearing a double-sized area with 40 mines was the same cost. Either way you'd reduce costs - reducing search area or reducing removal+disposals needed. [fwiw _djo_ intimated that the increased cost to the process of debris removed any utility such devices might have but also suggested that similar devices are in current commercial use]. With a sandy area I'm wondering how well a dragged scarifier like implement would fair.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- _djo_ 14y ago
  That's not a bad question. Thing is the organisations that perform thorough civilian demining already start off with cheaper methods such as mine rollers to get some of the mines, and the ones they use are arguably cheaper to use because they're strong enough to require fewer replacement parts. For instance Mechem has a CASSPIR armoured vehicle with steel wheels that'll happily trundle over anti-personnel mines all day without needing repairs (though anti-tank mines necessitate a wheel change). And as another poster (codebeaker) pointed out, it's also far worse for demining teams to have random shrapnel spread over a minefield, as it makes the job of identifying mines much more difficult. That's one of the reasons why demining teams use systems that are less likely to break and leave pieces on the minefield. So it's unlikely that this product will save any money.
Vivtek 14y ago
The difference is this costs 40 € and can clear a couple of mines for that money. Afghanistan is not exactly rolling in cash, so any cheap improvement is a valuable addition to the toolbox - it provides a way for poor communities to do something while they're waiting for America to donate enough money to clean up their mess. My guess is that demining NGOs will be using something like this soon enough if it proves effective, though, so any donation dollar really is best sent there for maximum effectiveness.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- _djo_ 14y ago
  Demining organisations already use mine rollers in situations where they make sense. As I said, they use a layered approach, with mine-rollers, vehicles, sniffer dogs, etc used as the circumstances require it. The problem with communities doing it themselves is it'll give them a false sense of security about the safety of known minefields. This could potentially increase the number of mine-related injuries because far more people will attempt to live in or traverse known minefields which they wrongly believe to have been cleared yet which still contain roughly half of the original mines.
  - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
    I think you went hyperbolic in your GP post. You said that mine-rollers were "useless" - which they clearly are not if they can clear mines as a first pass (yes given the right terrain).
    - _djo_ 14y ago
      I disagree. I said 'solutions like this', i.e. mine rollers as a single technique, were useless. I stand by that statement because the stats are quite clear on this as even in ideal conditions (which are seldom present) a roller can only be expected to detonate half the mines in an area. In fact in many areas rollers can't be used at all because of the terrain and vegetation, so demining teams use a combination of other techniques. This concept is actually worse than useless because of the debris it scatters across a minefield and the false confidence it provides. While I applaud the designer's attempt to create something useful, his lack of domain knowledge has resulted in a design that doesn't solve the problem and may make things worse. If I come across as bit hyperbolic, it's because I strongly believe that this is a horrible and underreported problem which demands both carefully-considered and effective solutions and acknowledgement of the people whose hard work and sacrifices have made so many places safe again. It seems silly to laud an ineffective design while there are people out there every day clearing landmines with solutions that work.
aidos 14y ago
There was a great Ted Talk on using rats for this a couple of years ago [0]. An interesting discovery is that they're also really good for finding TB. [0] http://www.ted.com/talks/bart_weetjens_how_i_taught_rats_to_sniff_out_land_mines.html http://www.ted.com/talks/bart_weetjens_how_i_taught_rats_to_...
cflee 14y ago
Turns out that the Dutch armed forces agree[1] that it's not so easy either: "The Mine Kafon has just been tested by the Dutch Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit, which has concluded that it is not suitable for mine clearance (which requires a more systematic approach), but at $50 each could be used as a cheap and safe way to identify dangerous areas that need demining." [1]http://australia.icbl.org/index_htm_files/May.pdf http://australia.icbl.org/index_htm_files/May.pdf
- primitur 14y ago
  Not suitable - for military purposes. DEODU is a military organization, and any conclusions it makes must be viewed in that light. Mine-clearing is a war tool as much as it is a peace tool.
  - reitzensteinm 14y ago
    You're getting downvoted because civilian requirements are higher than military. If you manage to clear a field such that there is a single mine in it, it will likely become safer to march through than avoid - there are plenty of other things that can kill you, and they must be triaged in war time. However, if you take that same field after the war is over and put a farmer on it, it's basically a matter of time until he steps on it. His only chance is that an animal blows it up, or the mine is defective. Therefore, if it's not suitable for military clearing, it is even less suitable for civilian purposes (except for figuring out what needs to be cleared, as they say).
    - Confusion 14y ago
      I upvoted you and your parent. His assertion triggered your informative response, which I'd have had to do without otherwise. He wasn't annoying, just wrong, which is entirely acceptable as long as we are civil about it.
    - wtvanhest 14y ago
      While you are probably right about this mine clearing tool, there have been previous examples that show the military’s requirements for particular items are much higher than civilian requirements in times of relative peace. Obviously when there is a world war, requirements go down dramatically to get things done, but when making purchase decisions in time of peace it seems that requirements are very high. Items like devices/vehicles etc. get very expensive and complex. [Added] I’m talking from a US perspective, but it seems plausible that most developed country militaries spend on technology when in time of peace.
primitur 14y ago
Surprise, surprise .. 'authorities' are 'doing it better'. Well, this tech is not for the authorities. Its for children to use to help clear the danger away from their villages. Its a tech that anyone can apply, not just those with access industrialized manufacturing facilities and the 'mine-clearing economy'. 99% clearance rate? I think most villages would be happy with being able to clear a safe path for their kids to walk on, at any rate. This cheap, useful, easy to apply technology allows that to occur. Make 100 of them, let them loose for a few weeks, and suddenly 99% seems a lot more doable with this method than any other - especially for the resource-lacking Afghani villages who are left with the war liability that the imperial, authoritarian states, have given them ..
- _djo_ 14y ago
  What you don't understand is that mined areas are typically marked off, which is why it's children who are most often affected because they're more likely to ignore warning signs. Nonetheless because most people stay away from those areas the risk is lower. When you demine an area, you signal that it's safe for the population to move in, which means that if you haven't actually cleared 99% of the mines you're increasing the possibility of a person stepping on a mine. That's the reason the UN demands such a high clearance rate before an area can be declared safe for humans to live in.
- ms4720 14y ago
  A safe path is 99+% clear, this is not a 99% solution. And please keep in mind human nature, a false sense of security will kill you. If it is a flat out no go zone people will avoid it, if they think it is safe they will find mines on there own. Fear can keep you alive and anything that lessens the fear of the minefield without rendering it safe is a net loss of human life in my opinion.
jonke 14y ago
I agree. Demining for human/civilian is harder than just to clear a way for a military purpose. The thing with projects like this roller is that it actually takes money and time from the things that really work, like sniffer dogs.
- warrenm 14y ago
  it's also deployable by untrained personnel cheaply - as a precursor to more rigorous/"professional" removal, why is it a Bad Thing?
TeMPOraL 14y ago
My favourite solution so far was to use plants that turn red near mines, thus pretty much creating red circles around their location. I read about it few years ago in a science magazine, but somehow the research seems to have died. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demining#Plants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demining#Plants
- _djo_ 14y ago
  Unfortunately Aresa Biodetection, the company behind that, stopped all research into their strain of the thale cress plant for landmine detection. I would guess that they hit a dead-end in their research, perhaps they could not make it reliable enough.
  - lostlogin 14y ago
    Judging by the video, growing anything on that land would be near impossible - it may be that this is often an issue?
  - JoeAltmaier 14y ago
    Maybe they couldn't find a farmer brave enough to seed a minefield?
    - konstruktor 14y ago
      And how do you irrigate and fertilize mined territory in the Afghan desert in a way that's cheaper than actual demining? Walking around with a hose or setting up an irrigation system seems too dangerous (or require partial demining to create footpaths anyway), and using any type of aircraft is expensive.
      - politician 14y ago
        Cactus? The American southwest is largely desert, but there are plants adapted to the low moisture environment.
      - anthonyb 14y ago
Deestan 14y ago
> civilian demining which demands a 99% clearance rate. Is that an actual official classification? It seems a bit low. "There were 1000 mines here, and we found 990 of them. Good enough, I say. Move in, and bring your kids!"
- _djo_ 14y ago
  The actual figure is 99.6%.[0] That's the statistical confidence level for clearance required of contractors and to declare an area safe, because it's impossible to prove beyond any doubt that there is no longer a single mine left in an area. Demining teams still aim for 100% though. For instance, Mechem's sniffer dogs have displayed a 90% success rate on target filters, so statistically having three dogs per team perform cross-checking paths on the field should produce the 99.6% confidence level for the type of mines the dogs can detect. [0]http://www.un.org/Depts/dha/mct/rptwg2.htm http://www.un.org/Depts/dha/mct/rptwg2.htm
  - novaleaf 14y ago
    mad props to you for finding this data and posting it
  - gabemart 14y ago
    >For instance, Mechem's sniffer dogs have displayed a 90% success rate on target filters, so statistically having three dogs per team perform cross-checking paths on the field should produce the 99.6% confidence level for the type of mines the dogs can detect. I know nothing at all about this area, but presumably this only works if the 10% failure rate is random rather than based on some quality of the undetected mines?
    - T-hawk 14y ago
      More generally, that the chance of each dog X failing to detect each mine Y is independent. If it is independent, then you get the (1-P)^3 chance of failure, meaning 0.1% for all three failures if each dog has a 90% chance of succeeding. But of course that isn't true in reality. There will be properties of the mines (burial depth, ground cover, degree of leakage of sniffable explosive material) that affect its chance of being found by all dogs searching for a mine. If you wanted the parent poster's statistical chance, you'd want three 90% ways of detecting mines that are truly independent. Perhaps a dog, and infrared imaging sensitive enough to detect the explosive material (I have no idea if that's possible), and this article's mechanism.
bjoyce1 14y ago
_djo_ I like a lot of what you have to say. I'd also like to know more details around why rougher terrains are a problem? As an idea .. say you had a number of these things, small and heavy with a cheap protected motor and gps guided ... would that have a chance of better clearance? more in the 99% range? I think the solution mentioned in the clip might indicate a starting point. no?
fafner 14y ago
A huge problem is that land mines get unreliable over time and thus a mine flail might hit it but it does not detonate. However it could still go off when handled later. And there are even mines specifically designed to be resistant to mine flails https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAT/6_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAT/6_mine
- ax_ 14y ago
  That's an anti-tank mine. All anti-tank mines are designed to not blow up when people walk on them, only when heavy vehicles drive over them. We're talking about anti-personel mines here. Still, I agree with your first point.
pzaich 14y ago
Here's a link about the mine sniffing rats out of Tanzania developed by APOPO. Supposedly cheaper and more effective than dogs. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/09/07/herorats.detect.landmines/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/09/07/herorats.dete...
haliax 14y ago
If you could build a sufficiently cheap robot capable of navigating rough terrain would that do the trick?

by _djo_ 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

michaelgrafl 14y ago

That's an informative posting. But does it hurt to get about half the landmines by cheap means and do the rest with more thorough methods? That's not a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely interested.

Ntrails 14y ago
The real question is it any cheaper to de-mine 100m^2 with 50 land mines in it, than it is to de-mine the same area with 100. My expectation would say no. This method won't make the land usable safely, so the reality would see a bunch of cheap partial clearances with no real benefit - the areas will still be no go zones.
jontas 14y ago
This is a topic I know next to nothing about, but I have two responses for your question: 1. Is it really useful at all to only clear half the landmines? I would assume the area is still too dangerous to be useful even with only 40% of the landmines remaining. 2. Given #1, it would follow that additional (expensive) land mine clearing technologies would always be needed in addition. I don't know how these work or are billed out, but if the cost is per square mile or some similar area-based unit (instead of say, per mine), then clearing out 60% of the landmines first would not affect the supplemental cost. You've still got to cover the same area to catch the other 40%. Anyway, you've had my disclaimer at the top, and I could be totally wrong about this :) Just some thoughts.
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  I'd expect the there would be a search cost, a removal cost and making safe cost. That the search cost would be lower than the removal cost (less skilled, less dangerous). I'd be extremely surprised to find that a commercial clearing of mines for an area with 40 mines was the same cost as clearing that same area with 400 mines. Equally that clearing a double-sized area with 40 mines was the same cost. Either way you'd reduce costs - reducing search area or reducing removal+disposals needed. [fwiw _djo_ intimated that the increased cost to the process of debris removed any utility such devices might have but also suggested that similar devices are in current commercial use]. With a sandy area I'm wondering how well a dragged scarifier like implement would fair.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
_djo_ 14y ago
That's not a bad question. Thing is the organisations that perform thorough civilian demining already start off with cheaper methods such as mine rollers to get some of the mines, and the ones they use are arguably cheaper to use because they're strong enough to require fewer replacement parts. For instance Mechem has a CASSPIR armoured vehicle with steel wheels that'll happily trundle over anti-personnel mines all day without needing repairs (though anti-tank mines necessitate a wheel change). And as another poster (codebeaker) pointed out, it's also far worse for demining teams to have random shrapnel spread over a minefield, as it makes the job of identifying mines much more difficult. That's one of the reasons why demining teams use systems that are less likely to break and leave pieces on the minefield. So it's unlikely that this product will save any money.

Vivtek 14y ago

The difference is this costs 40 € and can clear a couple of mines for that money. Afghanistan is not exactly rolling in cash, so any cheap improvement is a valuable addition to the toolbox - it provides a way for poor communities to do something while they're waiting for America to donate enough money to clean up their mess. My guess is that demining NGOs will be using something like this soon enough if it proves effective, though, so any donation dollar really is best sent there for maximum effectiveness.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
_djo_ 14y ago
Demining organisations already use mine rollers in situations where they make sense. As I said, they use a layered approach, with mine-rollers, vehicles, sniffer dogs, etc used as the circumstances require it. The problem with communities doing it themselves is it'll give them a false sense of security about the safety of known minefields. This could potentially increase the number of mine-related injuries because far more people will attempt to live in or traverse known minefields which they wrongly believe to have been cleared yet which still contain roughly half of the original mines.
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  I think you went hyperbolic in your GP post. You said that mine-rollers were "useless" - which they clearly are not if they can clear mines as a first pass (yes given the right terrain).
  - _djo_ 14y ago
    I disagree. I said 'solutions like this', i.e. mine rollers as a single technique, were useless. I stand by that statement because the stats are quite clear on this as even in ideal conditions (which are seldom present) a roller can only be expected to detonate half the mines in an area. In fact in many areas rollers can't be used at all because of the terrain and vegetation, so demining teams use a combination of other techniques. This concept is actually worse than useless because of the debris it scatters across a minefield and the false confidence it provides. While I applaud the designer's attempt to create something useful, his lack of domain knowledge has resulted in a design that doesn't solve the problem and may make things worse. If I come across as bit hyperbolic, it's because I strongly believe that this is a horrible and underreported problem which demands both carefully-considered and effective solutions and acknowledgement of the people whose hard work and sacrifices have made so many places safe again. It seems silly to laud an ineffective design while there are people out there every day clearing landmines with solutions that work.

aidos 14y ago

There was a great Ted Talk on using rats for this a couple of years ago [0]. An interesting discovery is that they're also really good for finding TB. [0] http://www.ted.com/talks/bart_weetjens_how_i_taught_rats_to_sniff_out_land_mines.html http://www.ted.com/talks/bart_weetjens_how_i_taught_rats_to_...

cflee 14y ago

Turns out that the Dutch armed forces agree[1] that it's not so easy either: "The Mine Kafon has just been tested by the Dutch Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit, which has concluded that it is not suitable for mine clearance (which requires a more systematic approach), but at $50 each could be used as a cheap and safe way to identify dangerous areas that need demining." [1]http://australia.icbl.org/index_htm_files/May.pdf http://australia.icbl.org/index_htm_files/May.pdf

primitur 14y ago
Not suitable - for military purposes. DEODU is a military organization, and any conclusions it makes must be viewed in that light. Mine-clearing is a war tool as much as it is a peace tool.
- reitzensteinm 14y ago
  You're getting downvoted because civilian requirements are higher than military. If you manage to clear a field such that there is a single mine in it, it will likely become safer to march through than avoid - there are plenty of other things that can kill you, and they must be triaged in war time. However, if you take that same field after the war is over and put a farmer on it, it's basically a matter of time until he steps on it. His only chance is that an animal blows it up, or the mine is defective. Therefore, if it's not suitable for military clearing, it is even less suitable for civilian purposes (except for figuring out what needs to be cleared, as they say).
  - Confusion 14y ago
    I upvoted you and your parent. His assertion triggered your informative response, which I'd have had to do without otherwise. He wasn't annoying, just wrong, which is entirely acceptable as long as we are civil about it.
  - wtvanhest 14y ago
    While you are probably right about this mine clearing tool, there have been previous examples that show the military’s requirements for particular items are much higher than civilian requirements in times of relative peace. Obviously when there is a world war, requirements go down dramatically to get things done, but when making purchase decisions in time of peace it seems that requirements are very high. Items like devices/vehicles etc. get very expensive and complex. [Added] I’m talking from a US perspective, but it seems plausible that most developed country militaries spend on technology when in time of peace.

primitur 14y ago

Surprise, surprise .. 'authorities' are 'doing it better'. Well, this tech is not for the authorities. Its for children to use to help clear the danger away from their villages. Its a tech that anyone can apply, not just those with access industrialized manufacturing facilities and the 'mine-clearing economy'. 99% clearance rate? I think most villages would be happy with being able to clear a safe path for their kids to walk on, at any rate. This cheap, useful, easy to apply technology allows that to occur. Make 100 of them, let them loose for a few weeks, and suddenly 99% seems a lot more doable with this method than any other - especially for the resource-lacking Afghani villages who are left with the war liability that the imperial, authoritarian states, have given them ..

_djo_ 14y ago
What you don't understand is that mined areas are typically marked off, which is why it's children who are most often affected because they're more likely to ignore warning signs. Nonetheless because most people stay away from those areas the risk is lower. When you demine an area, you signal that it's safe for the population to move in, which means that if you haven't actually cleared 99% of the mines you're increasing the possibility of a person stepping on a mine. That's the reason the UN demands such a high clearance rate before an area can be declared safe for humans to live in.
ms4720 14y ago
A safe path is 99+% clear, this is not a 99% solution. And please keep in mind human nature, a false sense of security will kill you. If it is a flat out no go zone people will avoid it, if they think it is safe they will find mines on there own. Fear can keep you alive and anything that lessens the fear of the minefield without rendering it safe is a net loss of human life in my opinion.

jonke 14y ago

I agree. Demining for human/civilian is harder than just to clear a way for a military purpose. The thing with projects like this roller is that it actually takes money and time from the things that really work, like sniffer dogs.

warrenm 14y ago
it's also deployable by untrained personnel cheaply - as a precursor to more rigorous/"professional" removal, why is it a Bad Thing?

TeMPOraL 14y ago

My favourite solution so far was to use plants that turn red near mines, thus pretty much creating red circles around their location. I read about it few years ago in a science magazine, but somehow the research seems to have died. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demining#Plants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demining#Plants

_djo_ 14y ago
Unfortunately Aresa Biodetection, the company behind that, stopped all research into their strain of the thale cress plant for landmine detection. I would guess that they hit a dead-end in their research, perhaps they could not make it reliable enough.
- lostlogin 14y ago
  Judging by the video, growing anything on that land would be near impossible - it may be that this is often an issue?
- JoeAltmaier 14y ago
  Maybe they couldn't find a farmer brave enough to seed a minefield?
  - konstruktor 14y ago
    And how do you irrigate and fertilize mined territory in the Afghan desert in a way that's cheaper than actual demining? Walking around with a hose or setting up an irrigation system seems too dangerous (or require partial demining to create footpaths anyway), and using any type of aircraft is expensive.
    - politician 14y ago
      Cactus? The American southwest is largely desert, but there are plants adapted to the low moisture environment.
    - anthonyb 14y ago

Deestan 14y ago

> civilian demining which demands a 99% clearance rate. Is that an actual official classification? It seems a bit low. "There were 1000 mines here, and we found 990 of them. Good enough, I say. Move in, and bring your kids!"

_djo_ 14y ago
The actual figure is 99.6%.[0] That's the statistical confidence level for clearance required of contractors and to declare an area safe, because it's impossible to prove beyond any doubt that there is no longer a single mine left in an area. Demining teams still aim for 100% though. For instance, Mechem's sniffer dogs have displayed a 90% success rate on target filters, so statistically having three dogs per team perform cross-checking paths on the field should produce the 99.6% confidence level for the type of mines the dogs can detect. [0]http://www.un.org/Depts/dha/mct/rptwg2.htm http://www.un.org/Depts/dha/mct/rptwg2.htm
- novaleaf 14y ago
  mad props to you for finding this data and posting it
- gabemart 14y ago
  >For instance, Mechem's sniffer dogs have displayed a 90% success rate on target filters, so statistically having three dogs per team perform cross-checking paths on the field should produce the 99.6% confidence level for the type of mines the dogs can detect. I know nothing at all about this area, but presumably this only works if the 10% failure rate is random rather than based on some quality of the undetected mines?
  - T-hawk 14y ago
    More generally, that the chance of each dog X failing to detect each mine Y is independent. If it is independent, then you get the (1-P)^3 chance of failure, meaning 0.1% for all three failures if each dog has a 90% chance of succeeding. But of course that isn't true in reality. There will be properties of the mines (burial depth, ground cover, degree of leakage of sniffable explosive material) that affect its chance of being found by all dogs searching for a mine. If you wanted the parent poster's statistical chance, you'd want three 90% ways of detecting mines that are truly independent. Perhaps a dog, and infrared imaging sensitive enough to detect the explosive material (I have no idea if that's possible), and this article's mechanism.

bjoyce1 14y ago

_djo_ I like a lot of what you have to say. I'd also like to know more details around why rougher terrains are a problem? As an idea .. say you had a number of these things, small and heavy with a cheap protected motor and gps guided ... would that have a chance of better clearance? more in the 99% range? I think the solution mentioned in the clip might indicate a starting point. no?

fafner 14y ago

A huge problem is that land mines get unreliable over time and thus a mine flail might hit it but it does not detonate. However it could still go off when handled later. And there are even mines specifically designed to be resistant to mine flails https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAT/6_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAT/6_mine

ax_ 14y ago
That's an anti-tank mine. All anti-tank mines are designed to not blow up when people walk on them, only when heavy vehicles drive over them. We're talking about anti-personel mines here. Still, I agree with your first point.

pzaich 14y ago

Here's a link about the mine sniffing rats out of Tanzania developed by APOPO. Supposedly cheaper and more effective than dogs. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/09/07/herorats.detect.landmines/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/09/07/herorats.dete...

haliax 14y ago

If you could build a sufficiently cheap robot capable of navigating rough terrain would that do the trick?