Design Con 2015
Breaking News
Slideshow

DARPA Robotics Challenge: Meet the Robots

6/28/2014 07:00 AM EDT
8 comments
NO RATINGS
More Related Links
View Comments: Threaded | Newest First | Oldest First
KB3001
User Rank
CEO
We need this...
KB3001   6/28/2014 6:43:04 PM
NO RATINGS
With ageing populations, health and independent living applications alone will push for major breakthroughs in robotics.

R_Colin_Johnson
User Rank
Blogger
Re: We need this...
R_Colin_Johnson   6/28/2014 8:50:08 PM
NO RATINGS
Yes DARPA is once again pushing the envelop of technology and with company aflush with cash, like Google snapping up the winner of the preliminary trials, it may not take as long as we think

prabhakar_deosthali
User Rank
CEO
Why communications channel?
prabhakar_deosthali   6/29/2014 6:49:19 AM
NO RATINGS
Why can't a Robot be made which does not need operator commands. It should be able to respond to external stimulus like voice, sound and touch the way a human reacts to the external envoronment.

Thus the robot hsould be able to excute voice commands given to it, or visual signals and touch to negotiate its path and so on.

 

This will eliminate the need for any kind of electrical communications channel betwwen the robot and the operator.

 

Just a layman's doubt!

KB3001
User Rank
CEO
Re: Why communications channel?
KB3001   6/29/2014 11:30:07 AM
NO RATINGS
@prabhakar_deosthali, a lot of it has to do with legal issues such as liability, insurance etc. Giving a robot full autonomy throws all of sorts of legal and ethical problems.

R_Colin_Johnson
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Why communications channel?
R_Colin_Johnson   6/29/2014 12:01:16 PM
NO RATINGS
Yes, there are many legal hurdles to clear--some of them the same or similar to the driverless car--but I predict that by the time the algorithns are up to the the task, the law makers will have come to some sort of agreement with the service providers.

markwdalton
User Rank
Rookie
Re: Why communications channel?
markwdalton   7/3/2014 12:34:47 PM
NO RATINGS
A common reasons for not relying on voice are:

    - Variance in voice recognition (accents, etc.)

    - Issues of interference in the voice (various noises)

    - Distance from the robot (that means a human needs

      to be right next to the robot to be heard).

Remote commands are simpler, easier to have clarity,

simpler to recognize/follow without errors.

 

Think of it has the robot may be in a remote location, and perhaps a hazardous location.  (For example space exploration).  You would want simple commands to input remotely, and you would have intermitent communication issues and longer duration communication issues.   

The robots still need to react to their surroundings.. (Balance, unforseen obstacles, falling, terrain, perhaps even damage like another robot running into them).

DrFPGA
User Rank
Blogger
Degraded Channel
DrFPGA   7/5/2014 6:23:36 PM
NO RATINGS
The idea of the degraded channel is a good one. In the future I want to see the ability for hackers to try and disable or take over the robot via the communications channel. Need security on these designs...

R_Colin_Johnson
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Degraded Channel
R_Colin_Johnson   7/5/2014 9:37:13 PM
NO RATINGS
DrFPGA: Need security on these designs...

I agree. I can't think of anything a hacker would be more interested in controlling than a fully humanoid robot--just for fun or to commit a serious crime like rob a bank!

Most Recent Comments
Flash Poll
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
Top Comments of the Week