Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Swarms Of Tiny Robots To Monitor Water Pollution

Posted by Hemos on from the watching-the-watch dept.

savi writes "The University of Southern California School of Engineering has received a research grant to create swarms of microscopic robots to monitor potentially dangerous microorganisms in the ocean. Basically, nanoscale robots with electrical and mechanical components that can propel themselves, send signals, and do basic computations. "

8 of 182 comments (clear)

  1. But! by 1010011010 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Will the nanoprobes monitor the water supply for pollution by nanoprobes? Huh? Huh?

    --
    Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
  2. Drink the Robots? by gilly_gize · · Score: 5, Funny

    So can you end up drinking the microscopic robots? Couldn't this raise as much protest as floride in the water? (We must protect our precious bodily fluids!)

    Oh well, I suppose I don't have enough iron in my diet anyhow...

  3. Great. by wo1verin3 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just great.

    I give it two weeks before they get in to all the systems, shut down our life support and start calling us ugly bags of mostly water.

    BAH. Where is Wil Wheaton now to save us?

  4. Why bother with the Ocean? by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The worst pollution happens on land, particulary from Ag run-off, and re-irrigation, which draws salts out of soil and makes downstream water unusable. Just look for dead plants or mutated babies and you'll know enough.

    BTW, read in the Sunday paper that Erin Brockovich is on the trail of another suit against PG&E for Chromium 6 in ground water.

    Interested in a history of water use and mis-use? Read Cadillac Desert, by Marc Reisner.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  5. Clustering at a very very small size by Quizme2000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now for those of us that read the Damn article. The ability for the project to suceed on only 1.5 mil is pretty ambitious, the article mentions that they need the software to link together millions of these 'bots via weak radio link, and a mass producing method of creating the other 999,990 units. I would really like to know how they fit a device that transmits a unique indenitifer and a binary digit in an envirment that would seem to distort any type of transmission and amplify electric interfernece.

    --
    "Get them before they get....
  6. Where's the Energy? by klaun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem I've always seen to nanobots is where does such a small device store energy? In looking at various proposals and ideas on how they would work and what they'd do, it seems energy storage is always the missing component. Propulsion, RF transmission, anything involving actuators are all going to be energy-expensive activities, where does the energy come from?

  7. The 'bots aren't real yet. by foo+fighter · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you read the article you will learn that they don't even have a fully functioning prototype yet, and anything they say they are going to do is wild speculation at this point. As are the comments here forcasting ecological disaster or weird effects when ingested.

    Also, from the article, they currently are trying to learn how to control 5-10 robots. They are a long way from learning how to control the millions of robots needed for any monitoring to be effective. The researches said that nanotechnology today is at the same stage of development as the Internet was in the late 1960's.

    I'd say we are a decade or more from seeing any of these things actually released into the wild.

    --
    obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
  8. Old-school nanotech is still the best! by Graff · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm not that big on the mechanical nanotech, we have a long way yet to go before we can duplicate some of the most perfect nanotech systems out there: microorganisms.

    We have the ability right now to craft custom virii and bacteria which can replicate and destroy other creatures. If we want to kill cryptosporidium and giardia (two common water-bourne parasites) then we should find the natural predators of such creatures and turn them to our needs.

    It's similar to the chemical spraying of crops to prevent insects and other pests from destroying harvests. For years we have been laying on the pesticides in order to stop crops from being ruined. Instead of relying on chemicals, we should instead be investing in natural methods of reducing pests, such as the use of preying mantis, ladybugs, egg-laying wasps, and other natural predators.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't think that all chemicals are evil and should be eliminated. I'm a chemist myself. I do believe that we can be much more effective if we cut back on the more toxic chemicals and replace them with more gentle alternatives. Many of the harsher chemicals build up and end up destroying the producing potential of our farmlands.

    --
    Sapere aude!