Slashdot Mirror
Hydrodemolition Robot Crushes With Water
Roland Piquepaille writes "In 'Robot pummels roads with water', the Augusta Chronicle says that a hydrodemolition robot is going to restore seven bridges in Georgia. "It's a robot that destroys everything in its path with a crushing stream of water 15 times more powerful than a jackhammer. The robot looks like a street cleaner machine on steroids and is expected to begin use August 1 to resurface seven bridges on Gordon Highway from Walton Way to the bridge at the South Carolina state line." This kind of robot needs only two workers to operate it, instead of 15 workers for a jackhammer, is less noisy and more gentle for the foundations. You'll find more details in this summary."
Folks who've never lived in a desert don't seem to understand how valuable water is in some parts of the country. While the article mentions that they water is reclaimed later by workers, in someplace like Utah or Arizona, I'm sure thousands of gallons are lost through evaporation before that can happen.
Mad Software: Rantings on Developing So
I remember way back when I heard of something very similar, except it was a type of "saw" where extreme water pressure was used to cut wood (and possibly other objects) nicely in half. Apparently it can be quite a nice cut, without the friction-burn of metal blades.
However, that is in an environment where the water can be recycled to a good extent as the machine runs... where does this machine get water from, and how many PSI is it dishing out? I'd assume that it requires close proximity to a good source of water, either a fire hydrant or (preferably), a lake/river/etc - as it probably shoots out a lot of water in order to achieve the correct pressure.
I was going to re-read the article and double-check, but the blink tag at the end of the linked tech review just about blinded me.
What do we do with the poeple who are replced with automation?
The normal response is there will be 15 people working for the company that makes the automated product, but thats not true.
If I created a device that flips burgers, and cost less then maintaining a staff, people will buy it, and it will replaces millions of workes, far more then it would take to build the things.
I'm not saying we shouldn't automate, I'm just asking what do we do as our jobs per person keeps declining?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Very good point. Here in Colorado we've been in mild-to-severe drought for several years, but this spring/summer seems to be returning to normal.
There is nothing like driving by an empty lake bed, or not seeing a blue sky for 2 months through all the smoke of forrest fires, that makes you truly appriciate water.
On the subject, in the dorms there were always people who would go turn on the shower and then go take a 10 minute crap while the water was running... or leave the sink full blast while brushing their teeth. I wanted to kill them.
The problem is even worse in rural/flat areas where water is taken from pumps. The water table is very easily depleted and will take decades to replenish.
no comment
I think one day being employed is gonna feel like a scramble to stay ahead of some impending hyper-mechanization boom. yeah, it's been happening for at least a hundred or so years with basic, non-skilled labor, but what about highly skilled labor? what's going to happen with a robot can take orders from management to design applications faster and better than a human?
Whoever posted the article seems to have misinterpreted what the article said. The article says:
"One hydrodemolition robot does the work of 15 jackhammers." "Requires only about two workers to supervise it instead of 15 jackhammer workers."
Specifically, since the robot can do the work of 15 jackhammers, you don't need those 15 jackhammer workers operating the 15 jackhammers (i.e., one worker per jackhammer), and can instead rely on the (about) two robot supervisors.
The statement on slashdot: "This kind of robot needs only two workers to operate it, instead of 15 workers for a jackhammer" incorrectly states that 15 workers are for *a* jackhammer. It could more accurately state: "This kind of robot needs only two workers to operate it, instead of 15 workers for *15* jackhammer*s whose work is performed by the one robot*"
Alright, I'm sure someone has the answer to this... what makes this thing a 'robot' as opposed to say... just a big fscking tool?
I mean, it still takes to people to operate it, so it's by no means autonomous.
As0k
Self improvement is masturbation... therefore masturbation is self improvement...*zip*