backtop


Print 15 comment(s) - last by BRB29.. on May 13 at 7:51 AM

Robot could be used to scout or send stranded climbers supplies

While it weighs just a little over a kilogram (~2.2 lb), the newly minted wall-climbing robot exhibits Spiderman-like strength, hauling a load of 7 kilograms (15.4 lb) up steep surfaces.  

Created by researchers at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich (ETH Zürich) -- known abroad as the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology -- the climber bucks the trend of past designs that used gecko-like high-surface-area attractions (via tiny synthetic hair-like setae) to stick to the wall.  Instead, the robot uses a unique tacky adhesive.

The adhesive is heated by resistors to melt, with a melting temperature of 70 degrees Celsius (158 degrees Fahrenheit).  Beyond that point it becomes a liquid, but remains tacky.  The tacky adhesive penetrates cracks and crevices, fixing the robot to the surface.  But when allowed to cool it recedes, freeing the robot foot to take another step.


The resulting climber has tremendous potential for use in mountain or mining rescue operations, either carrying imaging and audio equipment to hunt for lost hikers, or transporting supplies to hikers in difficult to reach areas.  Larger models with improved adhesives could eventually be used to haul down hikers off the cliff face, but even in its current form the bot has a lot of promise.

The robot could also see use hauling light materials in high rise construction, having been tested on wood, plastic, stone and aluminum.

Liyu Wang, one of the robot's designers, told New Scientist, "Our technology uses thermoplastic adhesives, which are much stronger than those used in gecko-type climbing systems.  We are thinking about using this to climb cliffs or other complex natural environments, which no previous climbing technologies can handle."

A paper on the bot was published last month in the peer-reviewed journal IEEE Transactions on Robotics.

Sources: IEEE Transactions on Robotics, New Scientist



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: what about power?
By HostileEffect on 5/9/2013 3:10:35 AM , Rating: 2
I can barely get a cell signal in the Bridgeport mountains in California, IF, I'm on the right hillside with a clear LoS to lower base camp. And this little robot is supposed to get a magic wifi signal on a mountain side. *rolls eyes*. Right.

If someone is so high up on a mountain that a bird can't reach them and roads don't go, then its time to break out a mule team and start hiking. A mule isn't expensive, its expendable, and every step it takes is one less step you have to take with gear and supplies. Should it make the trip up alive, it can carry casualties down, be eaten along the way, etc. Use a donkey, a goat, any load bearer.

Then again, I'm tired, I get up at 3:20AM and that is the two cents from some no body who took a two week animal packers course in some mountains just short of civilization.

If this is a mine, ruble, insert whatever, well, I got nothin for ya and I'm out of neurons for the night.


RE: what about power?
By deksman2 on 5/9/2013 4:44:17 AM , Rating: 2
I wasn't referring to regular wifi...
I was referring to wifi-power transfer.
As for not getting any signals NOW... that's because we use outdated technology, methods of production and inefficient materials.
We already had numerous options for decades to create far superior wifi receivers/transmitters (for both data and energy transfer) such as using synthetic materials with far superior properties that we have the ability to generate in abundance.
The reason you aren't seeing this in the market is because its deemed 'cost prohibitive' (Which has nothing to do with our technological capability of producing superior and far more durable technology sustainably and in abundance).
Cost efficiency = technological inefficiency (because it uses 'cheap' and inefficient materials, outdated methods of production and cuts corners by designing things intentionally to be inferior for the purpose of 'saving costs'.
Its an artificial restriction which we impose on ourselves because we still use a monetary based system (that's incidentally eating itself out of existence as we speak).


RE: what about power?
By amelia321 on 5/9/13, Rating: -1
RE: what about power?
By HostileEffect on 5/10/2013 2:23:22 AM , Rating: 2
Very few people do things by "for the good of all mankind", Star Trek-ish system. I personally want to get into a college or university and get into a computer related field and even though my reasons go beyond money, I still need to be paid for my efforts when I get a better job than the one I have now.

Yes, we have some pretty ridiculous and promising technologies but if its too expensive then it won't sell and you go out of business. If your going to bring up the old government / society feeds, houses, and provides for someone based on what someone else or society thinks the job is worth, well, that simply doesn't fly in reality. Unless you re-engineer humans to behave even more like cattle then it simply won't work by human nature. I know you didn't bring this up but you mentioned that we are sill using a monetary based system and I decided to throw it out there. A monetary system without the backing of physical assets does suck indeed.

The best tech can still be had if you want to pay for it, its just not mass produced because the market isn't there. In a hypothetical future, even if one of these rescue bots was made and worked great, it would cost a nice sum. I would very likely risk my health going up a mountain or into a hazardous environment for even a fraction of this bots cost and it is likely other able bodies will be hired for these kinds of jobs before more expensive robots are bought, but thats just my thinking.

If I make no sense its because I'm dead tired again, woke up at 0330, going to bed now at 2022.


RE: what about power?
By BRB29 on 5/13/2013 7:51:42 AM , Rating: 2
If you missed the point of the this research then here it is

1. Proof of concept that it works
2. The technology is there and available

Problems making it work for its purpose

1. Cost
2. Still not mature enough

What is needed for it to work and have widespread adoption

1. More research and development
2. Parts to manufacture are economical
3. Someone to come along and absorb that R&D cost. That someone will not come along if it they don't see a profitable future.
3b. Government funding


"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki