Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cockroach-Like Robot to Help Explain Animal Movement

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the on-all-sixes dept.

neutron_p writes "A cockroach-like robot named RHex is the starting point for a major project to understand animals' most distinguishing trait: how they move without falling over. Researchers from several universities will focus on RHex, a short, six-legged robot that scampers like a cockroach, as a working model of the principles they're seeking to uncover. By tweaking the robot and using it as a physical model, they hope to tease apart the complex neural and muscular networks in insects."

124 comments

  1. Easy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    They don't fall over because they aren't drunk.

    1. Re:Easy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Already been done!

      The best way to study their movement is to mount railguns on them, and fire them at random, confusing the hell out of the little guys...don't believe me?

      http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/205/18/ 1803/i

      Check out the picture!

    2. Re:Easy... by ZeroPost · · Score: 3, Funny

      What they should really study are the effects of falling and intentionally missing, thereby attaining a state of midair suspension.

    3. Re:Easy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you just mail me my free iPod directly? I don't want to click on any links or fill out forms.

      Thank you,
      AC

    4. Re:Easy... by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Railguns are good, but where are the frikken lasers?

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    5. Re:Easy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where would you like it mailed?

    6. Re:Easy... by Ahruman · · Score: 1

      Hey, that's not a railgun, it's a rocket.

  2. How long by Dorsai65 · · Score: 5, Funny

    before one of the humanoid robots tries to squish it?

    --
    --- Asking inconvenient questions for over 30 years...
    1. Re:How long by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Funny

      These will be the only robots to survive a nuclear war.

  3. duh... by niteice · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They don't fall over because they (usually) aren't missing a leg where one is needed for proper balance.

    --
    ROMANES EUNT DOMUS
    1. Re:duh... by Unsichtbarer_Mensch · · Score: 1

      I can also walk without falling over...does this mean I am on a par with cockroaches? Horray!

      --
      Du kan glomma dina ensama stunder, du kan lita paa teknikens under - Wilmer X
  4. I work on this... by feelyoda · · Score: 4, Insightful

    on the perception side...

    While the ability of the bot to go over hard terrain is amazing, the point is that your relinquish direct control.

    The basic problem in perception is dealing with the drastic motions.

    The computer vision methods needed are quite complicated, requiring complimenting sensors like inertial measurement devices. Also extremely wide-angle cameras are excellent because things stay in view, but difficult because the pin-hole model fails.

    Go here for some work that is now a bit dated, from a 180degree camera strapped to rhex:
    http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/projects/buzzard/ rhex/

    --

    Robo-Blogs of the world: UNITE!
    1. Re:I work on this... by feelyoda · · Score: 4, Informative

      also, you can get more info here:
      http://www.rhex.net/

      look for the great video of the tumble from a pile of boulders, which doesn't seem to be a problem.

      I wish I could see ASIMO take a fall like that...and watch the subsequent execution of the grad student who let it happen.

      --

      Robo-Blogs of the world: UNITE!
    2. Re:I work on this... by plebius · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Could it be possible that a computational approach isn't necessarily the way to go?

      See, for example, the work of Mark Tilden

      http://www.exhibitresearch.com/tilden/

      --
      Psychology News
    3. Re:I work on this... by feelyoda · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Could it be possible that a computational approach isn't necessarily the way to go?"

      As Brooks showed, you can get very complicated behavior from reactive or even semi-stateful robots. BUT, I would question the scalability to something more application specific and useful.

      For instance, imagine such a bot making a sandwich, and then cleaning your toilette...

      Also, as some point, you're going to want to give the bot an order, like go from A to B to C then back. Rhex would be unable to do that currently without a very engineered environment, which goes against the entire point of such a bot which moves skillfully in all environments.

      Adding a robust perception loop around the sense-response robot is the way to go, as far as I'm concerned.

      --

      Robo-Blogs of the world: UNITE!
    4. Re:I work on this... by jwgoerlich · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "Adding a robust perception loop around the sense-response robot is the way to go, as far as I'm concerned."

      Agreed. In fact, that was one avenue the BEAM folks and Mark Tilden began exploring. Their take was to develop a solid sense-response sub-layer, and then layer on the computing systems.

      The BEAM name for the architecture was Horse-Rider.

      J Wolfgang Goerlich

    5. Re:I work on this... by celeritas_2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've read something [in Wired probably] about movie makers using evolutionary software to make their creatures walk without having to hard code every movement [think LOTR: kings, the whole orc army was digital for a big chunk of the fight] I for one am not suprised that evolution came up with balance, just a feedback system of a motion dector and legs.

      --
      -- Checking emails and kicking cheats `till the day I die.
    6. Re:I work on this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather have seperate robots for sandwich making and toilet cleaning. But at least you got the order right.

    7. Re:I work on this... by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 2, Informative
      The basic problem in perception is dealing with the drastic motions.

      I saw a show on animal channel the other day that was about the fastest runners. Number one was the tiger beetle. What struck me is that the reason it runs in short bursts is that its perception system can't keep up with all the input. So it has to keep stopping to get its bearings. Roaches are very fast too, and they use this same method of short bursts and stops. (which has the added benefit of making them harder to stomp. :)

      Another example of this inability to perceive too much movement input is the funky neck movements many ducks make while moving to hold their eyes still.

    8. Re:I work on this... by rawket.scientist · · Score: 3, Funny

      For instance, imagine such a bot making a sandwich, and then cleaning your toilette...

      And be sure to imagine it completing those actions in exactly that order. No one's been able to teach good kitchen hygiene to cockroaches yet, be they 'bots or bugs.

      --
      John Hancock wuz here.
    9. Re:I work on this... by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why does it have to be either/or?

      Part of repatition training for humans is to transform a computational movement into a reaction movement. If you repeat something enough, it eventually gets hardwired (my lower brain is an FPGA!?!) and you no longer have to think/compute about it.

      I think a "tri-layer" approach is good, with a sense-response layer (step back - ouch, that's hot) deferring to a trained-response layer (walking) then to a computed-response layer (walking over a rock garden). And if you walk over a rock garden often enough, the evolved and successful patterns used get transferred to the trained layer to make it "second nature".

      But I'm just pulling this out of my ass, you'd need to find a hot robot expert to 2nd my opinion...

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    10. Re:I work on this... by feelyoda · · Score: 2, Informative

      actually roaches are probably cleaner than you...

      most poisons work because they touch them, and then clearn their feet constantly...

      that said, they do carry disease

      --

      Robo-Blogs of the world: UNITE!
    11. Re:I work on this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least going from A to B to C and back can also be modelled in a very simple biomimetic way, if you have a look at desert ant homing behaviour.

      This kind of neural network performing path integration was studied in detail (e.g. by Wehner)and is much simpler than a standard engineering solution.

  5. Practical Applications by ScArE2100 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This could have immediate application for the disabled. Imagine a personal moving device like the segway that walks around with technology derived from insects. It'd be pretty cool I'd say.

    Maybe a mars rover that doesn't faller over or get stuck

    There are lots of possible uses of data from this research.

    1. Re:Practical Applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, welcome our disabled cockroach-riding overlords.

    2. Re:Practical Applications by sxtxixtxcxh · · Score: 1

      imagine getting for robotic arms complete with a.i. to assist you in the tedium of daily life surgically implanted and wired to your nervous system...

      such a device would be a good for battling genetically mutated human/arachnids that have been plaguing the cityscape lately...

      --
      for a minute there, i lost myself...
  6. This is good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... for real cockroaches. When Armageddon comes, the cockroaches will have robot versions of themselves for slaves.

    1. Re:This is good news by mblase · · Score: 2

      When Armageddon comes, the cockroaches will have robot versions of themselves for slaves.

      I, for one, welcome our new robotic cockroach overlords.

  7. $30M for more insect robots? Sounds like pork. by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful
    There's way too much work on insect-level locomotion. Brooks was doing this stuff twenty years ago, and took it about as far as it's going to go. Reactive systems reached their ceiling years ago.

    We realy should be doing better than this. We should at least have Aibo-type robots running (or at least trotting) over real terrain by now. It's embarassing.

    The trouble with this insect stuff is that you can do crap work and get published. If you do work on robots that really balance, you look stupid if your control system doesn't work. Everyone can see you failed. With insect robots, failure is less obvious. Some people think this is a feature.

    1. Re:$30M for more insect robots? Sounds like pork. by gl4ss · · Score: 2, Insightful

      cockroaches are basically reactive animals.

      and uh, what is the "we should have.." based on? wishes? according to scifi we should have flying cars, that however doesn't make them technically feasible(or possible at right price) at the moment.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:$30M for more insect robots? Sounds like pork. by Simonetta · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's way too much work on insect-level locomotion.

      First spend tens of million studying insect motion. Then spend hundreds of millions researching motion of higher lifeforms. Then billions to develop a factory manufacturing system to make copies of moving animals.

      Why?

      Every year we generate many millions of the most perfect and adaptive biological being the world have ever seen... babies...humans. Yet most of them get nothing but shit and are doomed to live on a dollar a day for their entire lives.

      Why spend billions to create synthetic robotic psuedo lifeforms when the actual humans themselves are so absurdly cheap, Cost next to nothing, and are self-replicating? Give 'em burgers, Allah, and heroin; they'll do whatever you need...you don't need to spend billions creating robots. Not today, not in the 21st century, not on earth.

    3. Re:$30M for more insect robots? Sounds like pork. by cubicledrone · · Score: 1

      We realy should be doing better than this. We should at least have Aibo-type robots running (or at least trotting) over real terrain by now. It's embarassing.

      Yeah, well, that's what happens when ever widening management ass settles into that molded executive chair. Unless there's tall dollars in it, nobody gives a shit, which explains the general fuckitude of everything worthwhile in society.

      There are great things that could be done that will make absolutely NO MONEY but nobody will do them because they have to pay for their statement purchases.

      The fact that people would buy a vehicle to make a "statement" just about perfectly describes everything that is wrong with current society.

      --
      Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
    4. Re:$30M for more insect robots? Sounds like pork. by Indras · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Brooks was doing this stuff twenty years ago, and took it about as far as it's going to go.

      Yes, how insightful. Everything that could ever be discovered in this particular field has been. It's time to close the books on this forever. Every time I hear this kind of comment, it sets off my "idiot" alarm.

      My favorite was from my professor in Applied Electricity. We were in the second week, going over Ohm's Law, I asked how the equations worked when the resistance dropped to zero, like in a superconductor. He said that it was impossible to have no resistance in a wire, "super" conductors cannot exist. (He even used his fingers to make quotation marks in the air when he said "super," because he'd never heard the word before). This was two months ago.

      Basically, any time you think that any single topic has been completely explored, and there's nothing left to learn is probably when you're the most wrong. It's the sign of a closed mind, you might as well sell everything, quit your job, and move into a cabin in the mountains, you're definitely not going to contribute any more to society.

      Until I see a robot that is entirely indistinguishable from a real insect, there's still more left to explore. In fact, even then, there's more left to do, like miniaturization, self-replication, and so on ad infinitum.

      --
      The speed of time is one second per second.
    5. Re:$30M for more insect robots? Sounds like pork. by jamesh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why spend billions to create synthetic robotic psuedo lifeforms when the actual humans themselves are so absurdly cheap

      Because if you send them to another planet they'll either explode (no atmosphere) or disolve (corrosive atmosphere).

      And if you put them in spacesuits and send them there, they won't necessarily do what you tell them to.

    6. Re:$30M for more insect robots? Sounds like pork. by maxpublic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      you're definitely not going to contribute any more to society.

      Riiight. As if contributing to society is what we should all be striving for, sacrificing self-interest on the altar of saintly altruism. They teach you that crap in school nowadays?

      In any event, our friend here might be 'contributing to society' by pointing out that the $30 million dollars could be better spent elsewhere. Especially if it's $30 million in TAX dollars, in which case I agree with him.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    7. Re:$30M for more insect robots? Sounds like pork. by mollymoo · · Score: 0
      My favorite was from my professor in Applied Electricity. We were in the second week, going over Ohm's Law, I asked how the equations worked when the resistance dropped to zero, like in a superconductor. He said that it was impossible to have no resistance in a wire, "super" conductors cannot exist. (He even used his fingers to make quotation marks in the air when he said "super," because he'd never heard the word before). This was two months ago.

      As you're in your know-it-all phase, show me a material which exhibits zero resistance. Not one which breaks Ohm's law or one with almost zero resistance mind. I want zero resistance.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    8. Re:$30M for more insect robots? Sounds like pork. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The robot versions of the humans you're talking about won't beat us up and steal our lunch money - hooray for science!

    9. Re:$30M for more insect robots? Sounds like pork. by reg106 · · Score: 1

      From Wikipedia,

      Superconductivity is a phenomenon occurring in certain materials at low temperatures, characterised by the complete absence of electrical resistance and the damping of the interior magnetic field (the Meissner effect.)
      ..and...
      Experiments have in fact demonstrated that currents in superconducting rings persist for years without any measurable degradation.

      That seems pretty close to zero.

    10. Re:$30M for more insect robots? Sounds like pork. by CGP314 · · Score: 2, Informative

      People don't explode in a vacuum


      -Colin

  8. Super movie by Hao+Wu · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Giant Robot Bug attacks giant Real Bug. All Tokyo in massive danger while scintist strugle to predict desrutuctive insect battle.

    --
    I suggest you read Slashdot
  9. Yes but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    How long does it live if you lop off its head?

  10. Forget moving like a cockroach... by MooseByte · · Score: 2, Funny


    I want to see robots that *survive* like a cockroach.

    Well, until they turn evil anyway.

    1. Re:Forget moving like a cockroach... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      I can do them for you.

      they wont be moving though, but they're surviving in mint condition without using any energy!

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  11. distinguishing traits by 6169 · · Score: 1

    major project to understand animals' most distinguishing trait: how they move without falling over.

    And I always thought it was the fact that they demonstrated life. Boy have I been misled!

  12. Hannibal and Attila? by BrewerDude · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Does anyone know how this differs from the insect-like robots (like Hannibal and Attilla) developed by Rod Brooks' group in the MIT AI Lab? It's been a while since I took his class, but I remember that they found that remarkably simple distributed control systems could be used to generate adaptive legged locomation patterns without requiring complex centralized control.

    1. Re:Hannibal and Attila? by Xerotope · · Score: 1

      RHex breaks all records for robot speed over extremely rough terrain, and is easily the fastest legged robot over flat terrain. It also makes for a really fun remote controlled vehicle. You get it going, in a running gait, and there are actually times when it is completely airborne.

  13. No! by TimothyTimothyTimoth · · Score: 1

    I move alone.

    --
    It doesn't matter which ape activates the Monolith
    1. Re:No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why does "lone roach" never seem to match up to "lone wolf"?

  14. Straight up by CrazyJim0 · · Score: 1

    I want a camera system that digitizes real life into a 3d world inside the computer.

    www.geocities.com/James_Sager_PA

    --
    God spoke to me
    1. Re:Straight up by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Given that the pr0n applications for such a device are endless, it shouldn't be too far away.

  15. RHex Web Page by bluewee · · Score: 2, Informative

    RHex Page

    --
    [blue] - The Ministry of Information approved this message...
    1. Re:RHex Web Page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thanks for the link, although your post is marked as redundant, I liked the papers that their main site had, and annoyed that the slashdot editors didn't include it.

    2. Re:RHex Web Page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THanks there are movies here too.

  16. Here's why insects move around fast.. by floridagators1 · · Score: 0

    they hope to tease apart the complex neural and muscular networks in insects It's so they don't get fucking squashed.. It's not rocket science..

  17. yay for RHex by JoelMeow · · Score: 0, Redundant

    RHex has been around for a while now. Check out rhex.org for more recent work, and some cool movies of it in action.

  18. Rodney Brooks said it best by lawpoop · · Score: 4, Informative
    When an ant walks, it's falling over all the time. The trick is that it catches itself with its legs.

    You can get a load of his work from the documentary Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control.

    --
    Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
    -- Pablo Picasso
    1. Re:Rodney Brooks said it best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't walking at all, they're flying!

      "Flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
      Douglas Adams

  19. I keep telling people... by lifeblender · · Score: 1

    ... but no one listens. This technology is old, incredibly old in the scheme of computer science and electrical engineering. Rodney Brooks, MIT, Rodney Brooks! Okay, I'm okay. It was on the cover of Popular Science, for crying out loud.

    --
    Playing pornographics games during the day is evil! Play at night!
    1. Re:I keep telling people... by feelyoda · · Score: 1

      "This technology is old, incredibly old in the scheme of computer science and electrical engineering. Rodney Brooks, MIT, Rodney Brooks! Okay, I'm okay. It was on the cover of Popular Science, for crying out loud."

      well, so was computer chess, but we see news in AI about it.
      The point is that Robotics is a field, and reactive robots, subsumption architecture, and such are sub-fields.
      Hearing news about the latest instance is perfectly legitimate.

      --

      Robo-Blogs of the world: UNITE!
    2. Re:I keep telling people... by lifeblender · · Score: 1

      I guess so. I keep seeing the same 'new ideas' brought up in response, though, which I guess is what ticked me off. The moment Rodney Brooks' work became widely known, I suggested we send a fleet of autonomous robots with cameras to Mars, with a remote-controlled robot left at base to go after anything that looks interesting.

      Basically, it would be the same mission as what has now been done, but with a lot more video feed, and maybe a few other basic readings of the terrain. Heck, if they're solar powered, we can keep the buggers running for a long time.

      But that was back when I was in high school (eight years ago). Maybe I'm just dissappointed that nobody seems to be using such useful technology already. Perhaps there are issues, but Brooks' early robots were built with off-the-shelf parts. I can't help but wonder why MIT's robot lab hasn't gotten more attention.

      --
      Playing pornographics games during the day is evil! Play at night!
  20. Not my style, thanks! by Trillan · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Just looking at the URL, "amercock.html"... I don't think that's my style of pr0n...

    Apparently amercocks are only 1-1.5" long. I saw much bigger overseas on my last vacation...

  21. Huh? by bobobobo · · Score: 4, Funny
    how they move without falling over.

    Because they have six legs? Am I missing something here?

    1. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pish-posh, It must be because they have an anti-fall-over-shield that allows them to move around without falling over. Scientists hope to use this to allow drunks get home and the possibility of generating an "anti-foot-in-mouth" shield that protects men, as well as bush from themselves...

  22. RHex is also cool because it swims by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I discovered this by reading the story about RHex here.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  23. Biggest application: NASA by mblase · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's way too much work on insect-level locomotion. Brooks was doing this stuff twenty years ago, and took it about as far as it's going to go.

    I don't think that's true. There was an article in Discover a month or two ago (can't find it online, sorry, but I believe it parallels the linked article) where a researcher was trying to tease more information out of a cockroach's walk, discovering that it doesn't actually use a three-feet-down-all-the-time approach but wobbles side to side, remaining dynamically stable as it walks. This is not what you might intuit by simply watching insects walk.

    As for "too much" being done, I must disagree. Walking robots aren't as good as they can be or it'd be perfected by now. Wheels are faster, but only over ideal terrain; complicated terrain that would confound the best wheels can often be navigated by legged animals. NASA's interplanetary rovers all use wheels, and all of them eventually encounter situations where they're useless, so if they could deploy a robot lander that could walk effectively (and efficiently), it'd be of tremendous value to them.

    1. Re:Biggest application: NASA by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A lot of work in the walking robot field is going into dynamic stability - at least in U.S. academia. The various bipedal robots produced by the Japanese corporate world (Asimo, for example) are all statically stable - meaning that the center of mass is always kept directly over the support base. If you watch videos of those robots carefully, you'll see that this is the case.

      Animals don't work like that. In fact, human walking gait is often described as continually falling forward, saved only by the swinging foot meeting the ground before you face-plant. As for insects, some gaits are statically stable simply by virtue of having so many legs, but the info posted by the parent concerning cockroaches using dynamic stability in tripod gait is really interesting.

    2. Re:Biggest application: NASA by awtbfb · · Score: 2, Insightful


      ... robot lander that could walk effectively (and efficiently)...

      Efficiency is the crux of the problem. Legs are incredibly inefficient compared to wheels and until the on-board power problem is handled in an acceptable manner, you won't see a lot of legged robots too far away from an outlet.

      Having said that, this is where RHEX shines. Since the legs spin like wheels they have a real advantage compared to traditional walking robots in power savings. As an aside, the thing also moves pretty fast. Again, an advantage over most walking robots and a lot like a wheel oriented solution.

      Oh yeah, kids and dogs love it too. It was like the pied piper at a demo day earlier this summer.

    3. Re:Biggest application: NASA by bar-agent · · Score: 2, Funny

      I know why the Japanese are designing robots with static stability. See, it all comes down to anime.

      Giant robots are masters of martial arts action. The key to most martial arts is keeping balanced at all times. So to built giant martial arts robots, the Japanese are specializing in static stability.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    4. Re:Biggest application: NASA by Animats · · Score: 1
      discovering that it doesn't actually use a three-feet-down-all-the-time approach but wobbles side to side, remaining dynamically stable as it walks. This is not what you might intuit by simply watching insects walk.

      That's not a new result. Full, at Berkeley, discovered that a decade ago. I once went up to his lab to see the cockroach treadmill.

      Cockroaches appear to run on their hind legs. It's not clear, though, whether the stability comes from active control or from planing on a boundary layer in air. For insect-scale locomotion, surface tension and aerodynamics dominate inertia.

    5. Re:Biggest application: NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh, mastering only *static* stability wouldn't make a good martial artist. Well, maybe a sumo, but kung-fu-style action ain't static.

    6. Re:Biggest application: NASA by $raim_n_reezn! · · Score: 1

      The Discover article is here http://www.discover.com/issues/jul-04/departments/ biomechanics-of-cockroaches/ Reg required though.

      --
      All straight things must come to a bend
    7. Re:Biggest application: NASA by PreDefined · · Score: 1

      In fact, human walking gait is often described as continually falling forward, saved only by the swinging foot meeting the ground before you face-plant. As is most evident when watching babies starting to walk. :)

  24. More on Bob Full by jwgoerlich · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is really old news. RHex has been around for at least a few years now.

    Bob Full is one of the lead scientists on the RHex project. His biomimetic approach is amazing. See the following link for one of his lectures.

    Robert Full: "Bipedal bugs, galloping ghosts and gripping geckos: BioInspiration for Rapid Running Robots"
    http://www.princeton.edu/WebMedia/lectures/

    J Wolfgang Goerlich

    1. Re:More on Bob Full by MrEd · · Score: 2, Informative
      Definitely old news, the legs on RHex have evolved a long way from the 'bar' style shown on the article photo.

      The new, new, new design is now a semicircular length of rubber-treaded fibreglass, which means they have spring to them. In fact when one leg finally snaps they have to replace all six as the robot depends on them to be balanced in stiffness.

      Using these legs they get some great dynamic stability as shown in 'turbo mode' and other showoff moves plus pronking, etc.


      The coolest are the round legs with the adjustable radius - stand up, sit down, roll, jump...

      --

      Wah!

  25. Re:Cockroaches and robots by XaviorPenguin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "
    Is it because if they use cockroaches not many people will yell at them for animal cruelty, because cockroaches are "evil"?
    "

    Why do you think that the show FearFactor can get away with doing the Cockroach bit on national TV?

    My opinion only, if scientists have studied that we can balance ourselves with only 2 feet and while walking, with one foot up and one foot on the ground, why can't they apply that information to insects?

    --
    Friends help you move...
    REAL Friends help you move dead bodies... ^_^
  26. I'm more interested in how a Slinky walks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ...without falling over. After all, it's bipedal locomotion without any complex computer intelligence.

  27. Obviously the first winner of... by gardyloo · · Score: 1

    The DARPA Grand Challenge.

    Didja notice in the "slowmo_great_bound_small.avi" movie how Rhex was running away from that dude? It's 'cause it just kicked him in the nads. Hard.

  28. eekk! by Chuck+Bucket · · Score: 1

    the thought of a small army of those running amuk is frightening. Still, it seems a strange way for science to go: use robots to explain nature. Seems backwards, but cool if it works.

    CB$@#

    --
    free ipod and free gmail!
  29. Starcraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Remember the guy that goes in that cyborg device after having his body destroyed by the zerg (OK, look, it's been a while since I played starcraft)? Maybe we can do the same for paraplegics or something?

    Rock on!

  30. dude i can tell you how they move without falling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    over right now.

    when they get near falling over they put a leg out.

  31. most important feature by kxmas · · Score: 5, Funny

    Will it flip on its back when runs out of batteries?

  32. cockroach to explain animal movement by SimonInOz · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well heck they certainly explain some movement.

    When my wife sees one of those little buggers she runs away - she hates them.

    --
    "Cats like plain crisps"
  33. Not the only people doing this sort of thing by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Informative

    Read about competitive work here.

  34. the robots are a foot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ROBOT in time square?
    oh nooooooooooooooooooooooooo

  35. robots in space? by Simonetta · · Score: 0

    Why spend billions to create synthetic robotic psuedo lifeforms when the actual humans themselves are so absurdly cheap
    Because if you send them to another planet they'll either explode (no atmosphere) or disolve (corrosive atmosphere).

    Nobody's going to be sending anybody to other planets (outside of few stunts like the moon landings of the 1970s).

    The only countries that have the technology and government structures to do anything even remotely like that are the USA, Russia, and China. Russia's broke, China's poor, and the USA's racking up huge unpayable deficits in order to pursue hopeless military adventures. All three will see their economies decline at the same time that global environmental catastrophies begin to happen in the mid-21st century.
    This 'colonies of humans in space' stuff is just science fiction from the mid 20th century. Hollywood stuff. Slashdotters are the last people in the world that still take it seriously.

    1. Re:robots in space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Nobody's going to be sending anybody to other planets (outside of few stunts like the moon landings of the 1970s).

      Yes, that's pretty much his point. It costs a huge amount to send a human onto another planet, so we can and do use robots. And I hardly think anyone predicting global environmental catastrophies in forty years should be making potshots at others for making broad predictions based on a little data and a lot of guesswork.

    2. Re:robots in space? by Simonetta · · Score: 1

      It costs a huge amount to send a human onto another planet, so we can and do use robots.

      Many people miss the point in the humans vs. robots in space debate. The underlining point is that there is no sense in spending tons of money to put anything on other planets. We have other more urgent priorities here. Interplanetary exploration is, deserves to be, and will remain science fiction for another 200-300 years. The initial space explorations of the 1960s were a historical fluke that is unlikely to be repeated or expanded for a LONG time to come.

      I hardly think anyone predicting global environmental catastrophies in forty years should be making potshots at others for making broad predictions based on a little data and a lot of guesswork.
      The environmental catastrophies of the 2050-2100 era are not based on little data and lots of guesswork. They are based on real science, proven and repeatable. The spin that this is all guesswork and junk-science is generated by people who much to lose if the steps necessary to minimize the effects are begun now. It won't change the fact that these events will happen.

  36. Not a chance by lmuk · · Score: 3, Funny


    I've seen Robot Wars and the walkers never stand a chance...

  37. Incredible by jeffkjo1 · · Score: 1

    A cockroach-like robot named RHex is the starting point for a major project to understand animals' most distinguishing trait: how they move without falling over.

    I'm truly amazed, that with all the modern science we have today, that we don't know the answer to this question. I'm not trying to troll, I truly am amazed. We can fly to the moon and back, but something that seems this simple is really incredibly complicated. Wow.

    1. Re:Incredible by achurch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm truly amazed, that with all the modern science we have today, that we don't know the answer to this question.

      And we still may not be getting it. All they've built is a robot that coincidentally can also move without falling over--there's nothing (at least as far as I can tell from the article) to say that it works the same way real insects do.

      In all fairness, though, the question "how do animals move" is probably less important than "how can we get robots to move". While learning how the biological systems work can certainly provide insight, we don't have to exactly replicate those systems in mechanical robots, and in fact the optimal movement system for a robot may be different from that for an animal. It's sort of like emulating hardware: if you wanted to you could emulate a CPU down to the logic-gate level, but it's much more efficient to just re-interpret instructions into equivalent operations on the host CPU.

  38. Metamods... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I encourage metamods to read the article and hover over the links to see if this was really off topic.

  39. Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had a wind-up cockroach that could do exactly the same thing a decade ago.

    And it didn't use any electricity.

    Viva La Clockwork!

  40. Circular argument by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1, Insightful
    The summary implies that the people who built this robot don't understand how a cockroach works, however they managed to build a roboroach and by studying the roboroach they will gain an understanding of how real roaches work.

    Now surely the geniuses behind this would have had to understand the workings of a cockroach to build a reasonable model of one that gives them a reasonable simulation. In this case, they already understand the roach mechanics well and studying the roboroach won't tell them an awful lot.

    If one starts from the premise that they know very little about the roach (and will hence learn a lot), then likely their robo simulation is not very good and they will learn bullshit (eg. "we found that the roach works by moving its muscle here", but the roach does not have a muscle there).

    I'm getting all tied up writing this but surely other folks see this as a circular argument.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  41. Cockroach-eating robo??? by Rengi_Neer · · Score: 0

    Hummmmmmm! I wonder if that fly-eating robot will munch on crunchy cockroaches too....

  42. BEAM dead? by LinuxInDallas · · Score: 2

    Whatever happened to BEAM robotics? Anyone involved with that? I first heard about it on a Science Channel robotics series and it seemed interesting. I have been to the main page by the inventor Mark Tilden but I have seen nothing new in the past couple years. Does anyone know if this area of research has died off?

  43. Please learn how to make links. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Please learn how to make links.
    <a href="http://www.rhex.net/">more info</a>
    (without any spaces put there by Slashdot) yields: more info

    If that's too much typing for you,
    <URL:http://www.rhex.net/>
    (without any spaces put there by Slashdot) yields: http://www.rhex.net/
    1. Re:Please learn how to make links. by feelyoda · · Score: 1

      no shit...

      i think exposing short links for transparency works better in short posts. Considering the domain is exposed anyway...

      on my blog, the hundreds of links are all brightly colored words for yah :)

      --

      Robo-Blogs of the world: UNITE!
  44. Please learn how to make links. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Please learn how to make links.
    <a href="http://www.exhibitresearch.com/tilden/">t he work of Mark Tilden</a>
    (without any spaces put there by Slashdot) yields: the work of Mark Tilden

    If that's too much typing for you,
    <URL:http://www.exhibitresearch.com/tilden/>
    (without the ";" added by Slashdot) yields: http://www.exhibitresearch.com/tilden/
  45. Please learn how to make links. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Please learn how to make links.
    <a href="http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/projects/buzzard/r hex/">some work that is now a bit dated</a>
    (without any spaces put there by Slashdot) yields: some work that is now a bit dated

    If that's too much typing for you,
    <URL:http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/projects/buzzard/rh ex/>
    (without any spaces put there by Slashdot) yields: http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/projects/buzzard/rhex/
  46. Re:eekk!.... ..speaking of gmail by zxnos · · Score: 1

    http://isnoop.net/gmailomatic.php your welcome

    --
    always mosh clockwise
  47. When insect technologies collide... by Mulletproof · · Score: 1

    Cockroach-Like Robot to Help Explain Animal Movement ...Not to be turned loose around the new Fly Eating Robot

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
  48. What do you mean, Slashdot bastards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you mean with Cockroach-Like Robot? I am not going to explain anything to you BIOGEEKS!

  49. Political Science by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Funny

    We might finally learn where all these politicans come from, by studying cockroaches and other vermin.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  50. fear the roaches! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so they are doing fear factor in the cyber world now eh

  51. Yes, that is my most distinguishing trait! by bedford · · Score: 2, Funny

    Animals' most distinguishing trait is that they don't fall over? You gotta admit that's a little funny. "Hi, I'm Greg, an animal, and my most distinguishing trait is that I don't fall over".

    Anyway, I just got a kick out of that. I'm sure once I read on, the point will be well made.

    1. Re:Yes, that is my most distinguishing trait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually an animal's most distinguishing trait is the ability to right itself after it falls over. Animals fall over all the time, and it's usually quite humourous for some reason.

  52. Most japanese bipeds use ZMP, not static stability by chr1973 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I know for certain that not all japanese bipeds use static stability. Bipeds from Honda and Sony (and most of them IMHO) use something called zero moment point (ZMP). The japanese biped robot WL-10RD used this as early as in 1984. Here's a reference I just found: ZERO-MOMENT POINT THIRTY FIVE YEARS OF ITS LIFE by Vukobratovic and Borovac. Should be good since Vukobratovic introduced the concept in the 70s. PS. I did my PhD thesis on control and balance of legged locomotion.

  53. No... iterative improvement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not a circular. It's iterative improvement... maybe you'd call it a spiral.

    You start with your best understanding of roaches walk. Then you build a model using that understanding and see how well it works. It probably won't work very well at first... you missed a few features of the roach that were important. Now you have two ways to find those things... you can go back and observe the roaches, or you can try and figure out what to add to your model to fix whatever problem it's having and then see if there's something like that in the roach. Eventually you get a model of roaches walking and you understand what's essential for that.

    Now you try to figure out more. Maybe you make the roach climb an incline and then make your model climb an incline. And perhaps, again, you model doesn't work so well. So again you figure what the roach has that your model needs to pull this off. Then you try climbing over a rock. Then you try giving it a puff of wind to knock it off balance and see how it recovers. Then...

    Eventually, you've figured out which features of the roach contribute to which abilities and how all those features interact. And then you UNDERSTAND how roaches walk. And presumably, that understanding leads to an ability to design robots that walk well.

  54. Looks like a reject from robotwars by tod_miller · · Score: 1

    I couldn't find the article but I read that as well as cat brains they have piped wires into a cockroach brain and have suceeded in a RC cockroach, that can carry a small camera, great for earthquake rescue, or running it through cheerleader changing rooms...

    That bio/mech device that was implanted into neo in the matrix, imagine something similar, but a bio animal which really is a bug. in both senses.

    or even reptilious: cute Gecko in lew of real cockraoch article

    Have fun

    --
    #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
  55. Re:Most japanese bipeds use ZMP, not static stabil by Dachannien · · Score: 1

    I guess my terminology was poorly chosen, my being acquainted with the field but not an expert within it. In any case, I had more in mind robots wherein the center of pressure is not always within the support polygon (and for some robots, almost never is). The MIT Leg Lab has several examples, and in any case, this is in stark contrast to the equilibrium methods used in any of the Honda or Sony robots I've seen so far.

  56. Comming in 2005 from Tokyo! by Brad1138 · · Score: 1

    Cochroach vs MechaCochroach!

    --
    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
  57. finally by cockroach2 · · Score: 1

    i've been looking for a robot-me for ages :)

    1. Re:finally by Schreckgestalt · · Score: 1

      yeah, maybe a robot sysadmin wouldn't mess things up the way you do!

  58. meanwhile... by Llewyn · · Score: 1

    meanwhile, the japanese national science foundation works to develop a giant robotic shoe...

  59. Hey! That was my follow-up comment yesterday! by francisew · · Score: 1

    That's my girlfriends lab, I posted that yesterday!

    Why did I get a +2 comment rating, and have someone else get a full frickin' article post? Argh. (here's me being disgruntled)

    By the way, they have already been slashdotted in the past http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/1 2/0156220&tid=126&tid=14, and you didn't mention that it's built at McGill. You could also have included the McGill ARL website link http://www.cim.mcgill.ca/~arlweb/Welcome.html. They love getting slashdotted ;) [not quite true]. Poor Danny (the sysadmin).

    Read my comment from yesterday! http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=122038&cid=102 66261