Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Homebrew Underwater ROV

Posted by timothy on from the blub-blub-blub dept.

Blue-Footed Boobie writes "A very geeky member of TechReport has built himself a homebrew Underwater ROV to use while on vacation. For what they said was 'Version 1', I would have to say the results were great. Full build log, with videos, can be found here. Good job guys! 'Being the geeks that we are, we always come up with some sort of project to bring up to the lake and play with. This year, two weeks before vacation, we decided to build an Underwater ROV. For those not familiar, an ROV is a Remotely Operated Vehicle. Generally "real" ROVs cost anywhere from $8,000 up to Millions of dollars. We had two weeks and a $100 budget. Usually they have high-resolution camera systems and high powered thrusters to maneuver. We had two weeks and a $100 budget.'"

137 comments

  1. How many weeks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    And how much was the budget?

    The writeup doesn't make it clear.

    I read the writeup. But the writeup doesn't make it clear.

    1. Re:How many weeks? by Linus+Torvaalds · · Score: 4, Funny

      They had two weeks and a $100 budget.

    2. Re:How many weeks? by le_jfs · · Score: 1

      I was going to mod you redundant, but I can't since a posted a reply to your post that I would have modded redundant unless I didn't have replied to it.

      --
      main(char O){O++&&(((O-291)*O+27788)*O-868020?1:putchar(O++) )&&main(O);}
    3. Re:How many weeks? by Main+Gauche · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is it unclear that the repetition was probably intentional? Judging by parent's post and its children, I am guessing so.

      Generally "real" ROVs cost anywhere from $8,000 up to Millions of dollars. [On the other hand] We had two weeks and a $100 budget.

      Informative. ...Usually they have high-resolution camera systems and high powered thrusters to maneuver. [On the other hand] We had two weeks and a $100 budget.

      Witty.

      MG

    4. Re:How many weeks? by fredrik70 · · Score: 1

      yeah, got that, but what was their budget?

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
  2. Remote control submarines... by markass530 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As a former submariner I would love to have one to play with, but they seem prohibitively expensive and complicated, wonder if anyone here has experience with one? Then also the thought of loosing one would be nerve racking. Not sure if you could equip a toy with an emergency blow apparatus.

    1. Re:Remote control submarines... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1
      Not sure if you could equip a toy with an emergency blow apparatus.

      Most likely you would have to give it ballast of some kind. How about an automatic release mechanism attached to the ballast attach point? It could be a simple electronic timer driving an electric motor with a pulley. String winds up on the pulley and pulls a pin which releases the ballast.

      Or just operate it with a tether until you are confident it will always come back.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    2. Re:Remote control submarines... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure if you could equip a toy with an emergency blow apparatus.

      Oh, come on. Don't make it so easy...

    3. Re:Remote control submarines... by modecx · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not sure if you could equip a toy with an emergency blow apparatus.

      Sure you could... Heck, McGuyver could do it with a CO2 cartrige, a few pieces of ABC bubblegum, a nail and some weathered rubber bands.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    4. Re:Remote control submarines... by jd · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Seems easy enough. Three ways you could do this:


      1. Motor running to a pin, holding some ballast. You trigger the motor, the motor slides the pin back, the ballast is dropped.
      2. The slightly geekier way would be to hold the ballast in place with electromagnets. The power to the electromagnets goes through a relay, which is held shut by a keepalive signal. Kill the signal (or the signal is lost for some other reason), the relay opens and the ballast is dropped.
      3. The slighty more geeky way would be to have the line running to the submersible corrigated in some way. The line runs through some toothed wheels attached to a motor. If the keepalive is lost (killed or lost signal), the ROV disconnects the control line from the computer and switches on the motor, "climbing" the control line back to the operator.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    5. Re:Remote control submarines... by MeanE · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well I have a friend who does this sort of thing (currently 200k off of Newfoundland I believe), and all the commercial ROV's he has worked with have positive buoyancy, lose power and it floats up.

      It is quite interesting stuff, he works with ones that are just simple cameras, all the way up to larger ones with multiple arms and tool attachments.

    6. Re:Remote control submarines... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      adf

    7. Re:Remote control submarines... by uberdave · · Score: 1

      All submersible ROVs (Remotely Operated vehicles) are tethered. Water absorbs most radio signals and light signals within a few metres. In order to get any sort of decent range (like the 100 ft mentioned in the article) you need a tether or umbilical. It is the UAVs (Underwater Autonomous Vehicles) that might need an emergency blow aparatus.

      --
      "I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
    8. Re:Remote control submarines... by darco · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Not sure if you could equip a toy with an emergency blow apparatus.
      Actually, this is something that I have given a considerable amount of thought to, as I was planning on building something similar in high school.

      The mechanism would use a standard CO2 cylinder, the kind that is usually punctured with a needle and used to power pellet guns, air dusters, etc. Except instead of puncturing it with a pin (which sounded a bit too complex and prone to failure), it would be punctured using an electronically-detonated mild explosive charge. (With a explosive power similar to that of a black cat, if you are familiar with those types of fireworks).

      The CO2 cylinder would be mounted in a small double-capped PVC pipe, with a brass nozzle attached to the cap on the business end of the CO2 cylinder. A tube would be connected to the brass nozzle, which would then be connected to the ballast tanks. The CO2 cylinder would be permanently attached to the opposite side of the PVC with some sort of epoxy. The mild explosive would be detonated using a rocketry igniter.

      Remember, this thing is the "oh shit" scenario, so you want to make sure that this thing is gonna definitely work, and you only need it to work once. It doesn't need to be reusable, you would replace it after using it.

      When a suitable electronic pulse is sent to the device(~6 volts), the explosive charge would detnoate, rupturing the CO2 canister and releasing the CO2 into the tube attached to the nozzle. The tube would be connected to the ballast, and thus the balast would be purged and the vehicle would surface.

      Having actually never built one of these things there are a few potential issues:

      1) The CO2 that is going to be released is going to be very cold. It is possible that it could freeze the water on contact and jam, which could cause the purge to fail and the vehicle to not immediately surface. (I believe a similar problem also caused the loss of a US nuclear submarine)
      2) Puncturing the business-end of the CO2 cylinder with a mild explosive charge may prove to be more difficult than I initially anticipated. I'm sure this could be corrected with experimentation.

      Anyway... yeah, fun thought experiment from back in high-school. Shame I never got enough people interested to actually attempt it.
      --
      — darco
    9. Re:Remote control submarines... by brainburger · · Score: 1

      Why not just pull the cable?

    10. Re:Remote control submarines... by surprise_audit · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The mechanism would use a standard CO2 cylinder, the kind that is usually punctured with a needle and used to power pellet guns, air dusters, etc.

      Try googling for "paintball cannon". I won't post links, but there are some detailed instructions for building a paintball cannon. The part relevant to you would be the gas release from the airchamber. Homebrew cannon often use a lawn sprinkler valve. The air chamber could be charged from a regular air compressor, but some of them use the CO2 bulb screw-in fittings. You'd have the airchamber connected by sprinkler valve to the ballast chamber. Crack the valve, the ballast blows.

    11. Re:Remote control submarines... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The electromagnet way was used in the submarine that reached the lowest point in the ocean. It's good thinking.

    12. Re:Remote control submarines... by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 1

      Not sure if you could equip a toy with an emergency blow apparatus.

      What about a sex toy?

    13. Re:Remote control submarines... by kennykb · · Score: 1

      Mightn't it be easier to adapt the ordnance from an automobile airbag? That's a similar case of "must definitely work and needs to work only once."

    14. Re:Remote control submarines... by smugfunt · · Score: 1
      When a suitable electronic pulse is sent to the device(~6 volts), the explosive charge would detnoate, rupturing the CO2 canister and releasing the CO2 into the tube attached to the nozzle.
      How about just using an explosive to blow the water out of the bottom of a tube sealed at the top? You might not need the CO2 canister at all.
    15. Re:Remote control submarines... by TheHawke · · Score: 2

      Make it easier, instead of cobbling a balloon kit together, go get a inflatable life jacket (type I or II USCG) and hook it into the ROV with something to pull the release cord. Something goes wrong, the tube's inflated and the ROV rises to the surface.

      Odds are that the umbilical will get fouled and will have to be cut to free the unit so consider a simple set of shears with a high-tension spring to deal with the cord in case something should happen.

      --
      First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
    16. Re:Remote control submarines... by JVert · · Score: 1

      Kill switch on electricity lost is good but if you have a mechanical failure where you still have power available there could be a problem. If the lake is deep enough you may drop too deep where the air inside the sub is too pressurized to float even when the ballast is released.

      If you use a cO2 cartrige that had the firing ping energized with magnetics, you would definatly have enough lifting power for any reasonable depth, just need a heavy balloon or parachute.

      I'd like to see some sort of mechanical switch that engages on pressure depth. If you wander off too deep, the pressure would free the firing pin and you float up.

      In the end bring a fishing pole, if you are trying to match 2 weeks and $100 just keep a line on it and have some fins that pull the sub upwards when you pull on the string.

    17. Re:Remote control submarines... by crashfrog · · Score: 1

      If the lake is deep enough you may drop too deep where the air inside the sub is too pressurized to float even when the ballast is released.

      A good point; the solution would be to use a buoyant liquid, like diesel fuel, instead of air. Cheap and effective.

      --
      I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
      If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
    18. Re:Remote control submarines... by darco · · Score: 1

      The goal is to purge the ballast tanks, this means we have to fill them with some sort of gas to force the water out. An explosion alone will not achieve this goal.

      --
      — darco
    19. Re:Remote control submarines... by darco · · Score: 1

      This is not a balloon system, it is an emergency ballast tank purge. Under nominal operation, the ballast tanks would be used control the ability to sink/rise, using a mechanism to electronically flood/purge the tanks. This is an entirely separate system than the emergency purge mechanism, which would only be used in the event of some sort of catastrophic failure.

      At least, that was how I designed it.

      --
      — darco
    20. Re:Remote control submarines... by darco · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it would. This would also fix the whole freezing problem. However, that stuff is quite volatile, and would react much more explosively than a punctured CO2 cylinder. Without very careful testing, it would likely cause a catastrophic underwater explosion which would result in the loss of the vehicle

      --
      — darco
    21. Re:Remote control submarines... by jalspach · · Score: 1

      While not as cool as the one in this article and probably not quite what the former submariner is looking for...My 5yo son and I have fun with the RC submarine we picked up at Walmart for $19.99.
      Once you get it properly balanced, it is just slightly positively buoyant. This means that you have to always provide downward thrust to keep it submerged but it also means that you are less likely to lose it.
      For $20 it is fairly sturdy and gives you full control:
      forward/reverse,
      left/right
      submerge/surface
      All using 3 or 4 thrusters. 3 or 4 because I do not remember if left/right are one reversable or two independent thrusters. Submerge/surface uses one reversable as does (obviously) the main prop. This was $ well spent.

    22. Re:Remote control submarines... by softweyr · · Score: 1
      Some remote control submarines are wildly expensive, others are not. See HobbyTron for the $20 "zip zap" of radio control submarines, for instance.

      A quick google for "remote control submarine" will get you a lot of relevant links. A scale model may not be what you're looking for, but it will get you a lot of useful information on what you can do, and where to start.

    23. Re:Remote control submarines... by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
      Forget the life vest - the guy's a loony... What would that cost anyway??

      From reading about one paintball cannon, the vc tubing is good for over 100psi, and the sprinkler valve is good for maybe 120psi. I believe some sprinkler valves are operated by 12v solenoids, so if you can get 12v down to your ROV, you're cooking. One site I looked at was http://corin.com/bill/paintball/aircannon/. He put a bicycle valve on one end of the airchanber, then pressurised it using a bicycle pump. Same could be achieved with a 12v car-lighter powered compressor.

    24. Re:Remote control submarines... by markass530 · · Score: 1

      for the record, McGuyver is the coolest TV Series ever, and I'm not gay or anything, but if I was, Richard Dean Anderson would be my kinda guy.

    25. Re:Remote control submarines... by blueman747 · · Score: 1

      I have designed ROVs (I was involved in the design of JASON, the robot that discovered the Titanic) and I have designed AUVs (Autonomous Underwater Vehicles.) Here is how we provide for emergency recovery. For Tethered vehicles like an ROV, you pull on the cable to recover it. For AUV's with no cable attached, you make your vehicle neutrally bouyant or slightly negatively bouyant with a drop weight attached. The dropweight is held in place by a "burn wire". To release the dropweight you run current through the burn wire. It burns and releases the dropweight. The vehicle then floats to the surface.

    26. Re:Remote control submarines... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that there is anything wrong with that ...

  3. Not as impressive without the thrusters. by Gen.+Rasputin+X · · Score: 1

    Quite interesting, though I'd have been a bit more impressed if they'd managed to install some better controls on it.

    1. Re:Not as impressive without the thrusters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      dude, you can't have everything, after all, they only had two weeks and a $100 budget.

      (new slashdot meme +5 points)

    2. Re:Not as impressive without the thrusters. by Blue-Footed+Boobie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, version two will have full thruster controls and a much better camera.

      --
      DAMN YOU OCTODOG! DAMN YOU TO HELL!
    3. Re:Not as impressive without the thrusters. by rthille · · Score: 1

      I was going to post an intelligent reply to this, but I only had two weeks and $100.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
  4. So.. by thjayoromanov · · Score: 1

    Titanic anyone?

    1. Re:So.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you see Last Mysteries of the Titanic on Discovery channel? I believe those "xBot" ROVs have a 12 hour battery, lights, color camera, and additional analog and digital I/O channels. In the market of ROVs, they're pretty affordable. I believe under $20,000.

    2. Re:So.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they only had two weeks and a $100 budget...

  5. They call themselves geeks? by Linus+Torvaalds · · Score: 1

    Real geeks know that versioning starts before 1.0 :)

  6. Karl ROV by dotslashdot · · Score: 0

    I'll bet Karl ROV wishes he was underwater. God knows I do.

  7. Obviously by eclectro · · Score: 0, Offtopic


    He built an underwater ROV because that's where all the girls are.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    1. Re:Obviously by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
      He built an underwater ROV because that's where all the girls are.

      The good parts of the girls, yeah.

  8. Important questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many weeks? And what was the budget?

    1. Re:Important questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good question, I guess we will never know.

  9. Obviously by Osmosis_Garett · · Score: 2, Funny

    He built an underwater ROV and posted the pictures inline so that he could find the server after the slashdotting that is on the way.

  10. no sandwich tech here by milktoastman · · Score: 0, Troll

    Despite the word associative and pun-potent subject matter, I'm amazed these guys pulled this off with no "sandwich" technology. And we're talking maritime wafer bits, not BLTs. I think you all knew that, though. Just I'm glad weto these guys did NOT build a manned vehicle, because the sand kick up was really going to cinch the grit malange. You don't want to be down there for that, orange sand or not (sand is rarely orange, so it's generally a moot point...a sterile, non-flora supporting moot point). We're done getting sick off the ocean's Grade 5 flooring in my house. Kids, out with the burnt ends!

    1. Re:no sandwich tech here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I am also hopped up on speed so I know exactly what you're talking about!

    2. Re:no sandwich tech here by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Whoever modded this interesting probably just plain didn't understand it and wanted to try and appear intelligent. In reality, the parent post makes no sense whatsoever -- it's output I would expect from a bot.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    3. Re:no sandwich tech here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read that post, and at the end, had to read it again. It still didn't make any sense. But I take the generous view that perhaps the poster knows what s/he's talking about. I have no idea, and little inclination to look it up.

    4. Re:no sandwich tech here by milktoastman · · Score: 1

      Assume nothing. Especially caloric-chromic wishes.

    5. Re:no sandwich tech here by milktoastman · · Score: 1

      Not bot. You is bot. Me no bot. Me swear. Me not just auto replying to your use of phrase word "bot." Me swear. Now seriously, guy. What would it take to convince you I'm not a bot?

  11. ROV, Without the R or O or the V by obidonn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hmm, it seems like it's actually a frame with a camera inside it, that they sink and lift up. Which means it's not really Remotely Operated or a Vehicle. But really nice footage! Bluegill and perch have very cool coloring. And from growing up in Indiana I can tell you their heads even after being severed will continue gasping for air up to half an hour.

    1. Re:ROV, Without the R or O or the V by obidonn · · Score: 1

      Erm. I mean gasping for water. Or just doing that fish mouth thing. In any case it's not a pretty sight. And then my dad moved on to the clipboard style - where a live fish was fileted with its tail pinned down.

    2. Re:ROV, Without the R or O or the V by el_benito · · Score: 1
      And from growing up in Indiana I can tell you their heads even after being severed will continue gasping for air up to half an hour.

      +1 INFORMATIVE!

      /removes Indiana from list of places to raise children

      --
      http://liquidben.com - Aspiring to an 'under construction' gif
  12. ballast of some kind by infonography · · Score: 2, Funny

    Could something like AOL CDs or SCO lawsuits work?

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
    1. Re:ballast of some kind by EvanED · · Score: 1

      AOL CDs would work, but you'd need a lot of them. CDs sink, but not very fast. It took a couple seconds from being inserted into a tub of water for my experimental CD to drop a couple inches to the bottom.

      On the other hand, while I don't have any to try, I have a strong feeling that the SCO lawsuits would float. Actually, I suspect they would not just float out of the pond/lake/etc. but also up into the upper atmosphere because of the quantity of hot air contained within.

    2. Re:ballast of some kind by EvanED · · Score: 1

      In retrospect I think that experiment I did sheds no light on it. I think I just made the traditional "heavy objects fall faster" mistake, just shifted so that "heavy" was "less bouyant" and "fall" was "sink." At the time I was thinking that would make a difference, but falling is really just sinking through air, so I don't think it actually would.

      Still, CDs aren't very dense.

    3. Re:ballast of some kind by Rob_Warwick · · Score: 2, Funny

      SCO lawsuits?

      Everyone knows those have no weight to them.

    4. Re:ballast of some kind by The+Tyrant · · Score: 1

      Technically heavy objects do fall faster, but they have to be very heavy indeed (small moon or bigger).

  13. Re:perhaps that was sarcasm? by milktoastman · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think this AC was just joking about the repetitive mentioning of the time and budget constraints in the article summary. Or call it a troll, if you will. Usually that's what anonymous cowards are doing. Probably, he/she WAS just joking about the repetititive mentioning of the time and budget constraints in the article summary. Again, just joking about the repetititive mentioning of the time and budget constrainst in the article summary.

  14. What ir Remotely operated here by threaded · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This looks like a camera that has been waterproofed and fitted in a frame. Where're the thrusters, the variable balance tanks, grippers, torpedoes.

    --

    threadeds blog

    1. Re:What ir Remotely operated here by uberdave · · Score: 1

      Where're the thrusters, the variable balance tanks, grippers, torpedoes.

      Give the guys a break. They only had two weeks and a $100 budget. They spent most of their budget on pvc piping.

      --
      "I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
    2. Re:What ir Remotely operated here by threaded · · Score: 1

      Hey, it's the girlfriends house, couldn't they have "recovered" some pvc piping from the cellar?

      "Washing machine will be working again soon hon, honest."

      --

      threadeds blog

    3. Re:What ir Remotely operated here by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1

      They used the money for the torpedoes to fit lasers on the heads of the frikken sharks.

  15. Imagine by blueh1ro · · Score: 1

    The implications for amateur researchers, or even just regular fish and Game employees. Sheesh for 100 bucks you could afford to lose one now and then. I would also imagine that fish hatcheries would find this tech interesting.

    Maybe I'm just behind the times. The videos kept making me think of the "Titanic" video from National Geographic, I thought it was the coolest thing when I was a kid. Someday when I have 100 dollars to spare I will have to make one of these things.

    Awesome ideas guys!!!

  16. Lets see... by markass530 · · Score: 1

    Tie a 5lb weight to a $15 underwater disposable camera. Attach Rope. Could have done this with 85 less dollars, and in 20 minutes instead of two weeks.

    1. Re:Lets see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you take the photo how, exactly?

    2. Re:Lets see... by markass530 · · Score: 1

      hmm I guess I hadn't gotten that far but then again, 20 minutes, 15 bucks.

    3. Re:Lets see... by JollyTX · · Score: 1

      Let's see you do it then. Please post pictures and videos of the result!

      It's easy to bitch and complain about creative things that other people are doing. It's a whole different thing to actually get around to doing something yourself.

      --
      Can you hear me, Major Tom? I'm not the man they think I am at home...
    4. Re:Lets see... by Glonoinha · · Score: 1

      Wait for the customer to recognize the issue and call it a bug, offer to fix it in ROV-XP (due to be out in about two weeks, at a cost of about $100) - but you have to get this release out the door because marketing says so.

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
    5. Re:Lets see... by Knight2K · · Score: 1

      There are many reasons that their approach is better than the one you posit. The most important is that they actually have a platform to continue to make improvements. They figured out how to make the electronics replacable and how to construct a tether for power. They are also on their way to having adjustable buoyancy.

      Other posters have pointed out that submersible motors can be had relatively inexpensively. Next summer, they could spend another $100-200 and get thrusters installed. Or install pumps to control the ballast. They could install microphones or get a better camera. Heck, with something like this, they could inspect boat hulls underwater and make enough cash to make improvements.

      I figure you are probably just trolling, but it seems worthwhile to point out that this thing has a lot of potential.

      --
      ======
      In X-Windows the client serves YOU!
    6. Re:Lets see... by markass530 · · Score: 1

      Point taken, but I still say at least an effort could have been made for some propulsion.

  17. Re:perhaps that was sarcasm? by loqi · · Score: 1

    I'd like to very seriously point out that you repeated yourself.

    --
    If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
  18. Stand and deliver, robot style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That's pretty cool, but this story about four underpriviledged high school kids from Arizona and their ROV is worth a read. With little funding and experience, they take on college students and, well, you'll see...

    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.04/robot.htm l

    1. Re:Stand and deliver, robot style by imidan · · Score: 1

      Great link. Thanks.

    2. Re:Stand and deliver, robot style by flynnternet · · Score: 2, Informative

      This story is a must read. Their teachers are doGz...

      score 0 my ass, ModUp!

      --
      ----------

      I'd buy That (sig) for a Dollar...

    3. Re:Stand and deliver, robot style by WebCrapper · · Score: 1

      Due to the military, I went to about a dozen schools (military and civilian) and not 1 of them had anything remotely close to this. The most I ever saw was an automotive class or an after/before school choir...

      Kids have everything these days. I still wonder through the toy store drooling at some of the toys kids have the option of getting, not to mention watching the little things run around calling their moms names without getting beat like I did. BLAH!

    4. Re:Stand and deliver, robot style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting anonymously since I'm posting from a semi-public computer.

      I emailed one of the teachers, offering to contribute toward the college fund for the four kids. As it turns out, they're doing OK--80k in the fund, two full-ride offers, one half-ride, and one already in a post-secondary instutution!

  19. Besides time and money... by TheStonepedo · · Score: 0, Troll

    they neglected to thank the midget in thier cooler, Lil' Oscar, who so kindly carried their rope.

    --
    I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
  20. Ah yes, but... by jd · · Score: 2, Funny

    Complex geeks start before i1.0! And as for quaternion geeks...

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  21. wifi? by tiredwired · · Score: 0, Troll

    How about just using a wifi webcam and a long stick?

  22. To read about real ROVs... by flyingsquid · · Score: 1

    I'd recommend picking up a copy of _Ship of Gold on the Deep Blue Sea_ (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/037 5703373/qid=1122792507/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_sbs_1/103 -2472859-5055837?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). It's a very cool story about a very geeky engineer who decides to find and salvage a ship sunk in two miles of water, carrying half a billion dollars in gold, using an ROV.

    1. Re:To read about real ROVs... by anagama · · Score: 3, Informative


      I picked up a copy of "Build Your Own Underwater Robot" some years ago at the Monteray Bay Aquarium. It contains many designs for ROVs built with stuff you can get at Home Depot.

      isbn: 0-9681610-0-6

      Google Search for the lazy.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  23. Does wifi work underwater? by MAdMaxOr · · Score: 1

    Maybe someone will enlighten me.

    1. Re:Does wifi work underwater? by bassgoonist · · Score: 1

      eer, I'd image it does...its radio signals right. Submarine radios work underwater right? I'd image it would work, just probably not very deep.

      --
      You can tell I'm an aries because of my ram.
    2. Re:Does wifi work underwater? by grozzie2 · · Score: 1
      If you've ever watched a submarine movie, they always seem to have to surface to send a signal, gotta get the antenna above the water.

      As my second point of reference, I have a friend/client that operates his business from a 116 foot boat. About once a year, one of the notebooks on board gets dropped in the water. I can say quite definitevly that the wifi does not work when the notebook is under water.

    3. Re:Does wifi work underwater? by TheTimoo · · Score: 1

      From my limited knowledge of everything, I think that the submarines have to resurface to transmit because the signal gets bounced of off the watersurface. If they wanted to transmit to another submarine that might work, even when completely submerged.
      Anybody more knowledgable care to explain ?

      --
      "Be careful or be roadkill" - Calvin
    4. Re:Does wifi work underwater? by gladmac · · Score: 1

      The range would be uselessly limited.

      As noted by sibling post, subs surface to use radio. They can however receive communication while submerged, through an extremely long wave length. Don't have the details on those systems though.

    5. Re:Does wifi work underwater? by ki4iib · · Score: 1

      Basically, submarines use a few different radio systems, but the one you're talking about is ULF - Ultra Low Frequency. You're talking radio frequencies measured in hertz, not kilohertz (MF), and definitely not megahertz(H/V/UHF, etc). Basically they trail a giant antenna behind them in the water; one of Tom Clancy's favorite tricks is to have the antenna get fouled, but anyways, I digress. The land-based equivalent is a giant antenna farm that's actually physically coupled into the earth. this is rough and sketchy, but it's the basic idea. 73

    6. Re:Does wifi work underwater? by imidan · · Score: 1
      Submarines can surface for routine communications and such, but if they're deeply submerged, we can still communicate with them in the extremely low frequency and ultra low frequency bands. The low frequency waves are much better at penetrating seawater than higher frequencies.

      Here is a bit of a writeup.

      Still, since wi-fi operates in the GHz range, your useful communication depth would be quite limited.

    7. Re:Does wifi work underwater? by Mechcozmo · · Score: 1

      Basically, it is 1 character every 30 seconds for ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) connections. Usually just a message to the sub to surface. ULF is fast enough for bare text, but has a shorter range. A submarine must come to periscope depth (to raise comm. antennae) to do any useful communication.

    8. Re:Does wifi work underwater? by krunk4ever · · Score: 1

      not sure if u were trying to be funny here:

      I can say quite definitevly that the wifi does not work when the notebook is under water.

      but i truly doubt a notebook works underwater, not to mention the wifi. though a waterproof notebook would be interesting.

      --
      HD Trailers
    9. Re:Does wifi work underwater? by brainburger · · Score: 1

      gee, perhaps the other poster didn't know that water is bad for notebooks? Thanks for setting him straight on that one ;-)

    10. Re:Does wifi work underwater? by timhillu03 · · Score: 1

      well, you could receive underwater, but not transmit so easily. using an ELF (extremely low frequency), transmissions can go several hundred feet deep with very low signal loss. you wouldn't be able to transmit from an ROV because the ELF transmitters need to be quite large, making a portable one unfeasible.

      also, ELFs wouldn't provide a very fast connection, as they operate at 300Hz and below. compare this to the 2.4GHz frequency that is commonly used for wireless internet accesss.

      i guess if you didn't need to go so deep, you could increase the frequency, which would help on the bandwidth and size of transmitter issues. for example, in WWII, i believe u-boats were communicated to using the 15-30kHz frequency, and submarines were able to receive at depths of up to 30m. they still weren't able to transmit from underwater on those frequencies though.

      does anybody have a contact in the navy who's not afraid to leak this kind of stuff? i'm kind of curious as to how far this kind of stuff has advanced.

    11. Re:Does wifi work underwater? by theborg1of4 · · Score: 1

      This is just off the top of my head, and the details might be a little off:

      High frequency radio waves don't travel well underwater, either from above or within the medium. Submarines typically trail very long antenna wires to retrieve simple codegroup messages via ELF (Extremely Low Frequency, only a few hertz but with a wavelength hundreds of km long) radio, which can penetrate to the service depth of any current submarine. The US Navy maintains (or used to maintain, I don't know for sure) two large arrays in Wisconsin and I think Michigan to communicate with their submarine fleet around the world. The one-way message (three or four characters) can often tell them to surface to receive a more detailed message; usually it's just translated to a pre-determined set of instructions so the submarine can stay deep.

      A submarine has radio antennas in its sonar mast for normal HF communications when it's near the surface (say less than sixty feet), and they can deploy things like antenna buoys to stay a bit deeper.

      Most ROVs, for this reason, require a tether for communications. It's usually either electrical wire, but some of the newer ones use fibre optics to transmit more bandwidth (for video feeds and manipulator controls, for example).

  24. ROV DOA? by bassgoonist · · Score: 1

    "The page you requested cannot be displayed because the user is over their daily bandwidth utilization" Ha...maybe they should use the ROV to host their pics

    --
    You can tell I'm an aries because of my ram.
  25. They built a waterproof box and dragged it around. by ibeleo · · Score: 1
    Ours isn't a true ROV because we didn't have the time/budget to do Thrusters. So, we call ours a Towed Remote Observation Vehicle or tROV
    Nothing to see here - well maybe the paint job?
  26. Brick on a string by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hah... give me a few cents and a spare few seconds. I'll give you a R.O.V.

    I'll even take that $100 of you too.

  27. Fish? Gasping for air? by uberdave · · Score: 1

    IANAI (I am not an ichthyologist), but I think the fish would be gasping for water, not air.

    --
    "I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
  28. Re:perhaps that was sarcasm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whily you were repetetivley mentioning your repetetive mentions on Slashdot, I was repetetivley riding your momma. I had a $100 budget. I built an ROV with the change. In just two weeks. For $100. inclunding riding your momma. Repetetivley.

  29. No sound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    They didn't think sound was important. Perhaps not in a man-made lake in Florida, but the the sea and natural lakes are noisy places.

    When scuba diving we'd rather dive on a reef than over flat sand. If you could not see the bottom we'd often just dunk out heads in the water to listen for reef noises (lots of clicking etc).

  30. Re: Prohibitively Expensive and Complicated ROVs by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 3, Funny
    As a former submariner I would love to have one to play with, but they seem prohibitively expensive and complicated [...]
    My understanding, based on what I read somewhere, is that it's possible to build one yourself if you have two weeks and a $100 budget.
    --
    Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
  31. Mirrors? by rudydog · · Score: 0

    Any mirrors of the video any where?

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

      This is Felix from TR, java's currently sleeping till @least 9am, keep your undies on and wait for more mirrors. on a different note, 11 days to do a sexy paint job because the company we had ordered the waterproof connectors from didnt bother to say that the pins & sockets arent included. all in all, im very happy with how our project went, and plan on making further moddifications towards propulsion and other electronics.

  32. We're building one by dj245 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Maine Maritime Academy is building a small rover too. Someone on the team had the brilliant idea to use sump pumps for propulsion- they're submersible, they're 12v, and they take the saltwater ok. We're working with our Marine Science and Marine Bio majors and lend them the rover whenever they want it. Currently its running off a tether but hopefully we can get some sort of remote control soon. Waterproofing the batteries seems to be the hardest problem, although various Junkyard Wars shows would have me believe otherwise. This is all mostly for a Society of navel and marine engineers contest every year.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    1. Re:We're building one by DiamondGeezer · · Score: 1

      This is all mostly for a Society of navel and marine engineers contest every year.

      They have engineers for navels now? Man, that's specialised!

      Coming soon on National Geographic! Navel engineers investigate "The Secret of the Blue Lint"

      --
      Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
    2. Re:We're building one by ToteAdler · · Score: 1

      Actually, just clarifing a few things: 1) We have a primary version built, but its pretty much a proto-type, working on next gen version now. Hopefuly we'll get some of our new ideas implemented this year. 2) The Marine Science department has there own ROV that we played around with once or twice to get ideas from. There's was a commercialy built/sold version that has a fancy video camera. 3) The contest is for MATE not SNAME. Its just pretty much the SNAME section who has been working on it. Similar circles. 4) We havn't been able to participate in the actual competion so far. We have had observers at one a few years ago, but most of us (or all depending on who's participating) are at sea during the competition :-( We're working on our own web site that will be up this year hopefuly.

    3. Re:We're building one by stienman · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that sump pumps are designed for intermittent use. You may have some reliability issues if you use them at a duty cycle that is more than 5% or so.

      Good luck, sounds like fun!

      -Adam

    4. Re:We're building one by Undefined+Parameter · · Score: 1

      Keep the tether, or be prepared to include triple-redundancy on multiple systems. The last thing you want is a technical failure to result in the complete loss of your ROV.

      ~UP

      --
      Eat the Path.
  33. WikiWiki by pooly7 · · Score: 1

    Was it me, or Wikipedia wasn't answering ? Did you attempt to slashdot it ???

  34. mirrors anyone? by krunk4ever · · Score: 1

    seems the site has been slashdotted. well, not the site itself, but the user hosted his images/videos on his adelphia account and it's been blocked for bandwidth reasons.

    --
    HD Trailers
  35. Definitely not a ROV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work for an organization doing underwater archaeological research, and I have to say that there's nothing particularly special about a homemade waterproofed towed camera (the story title is hugely misleading - the system in question has no components that would make it qualify as a ROV). Our underwater technician has build several such towed systems out of plastic tubing, scrap metal and other junk. They're pretty useful for quickly checking out large areas (to complement sidescan sonar imagery, for example), but they're nowhere close to an actual ROV (which we use for actual wreck investigation).

  36. But the important questions... by PhotoGuy · · Score: 1

    How much time did you have, and what was your budget?

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
  37. wahhh by iLeader · · Score: 1

    that guy at the end of their thread called us vultures ;(

  38. Yes, but does it run Linux? by Clay1039 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, so this is cool and everything...

    But does it run Linux?

  39. Re:perhaps that was sarcasm? by Woy · · Score: 1

    You know guys, I think there was a duped sentence in the blurb.

    --
    "If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
  40. I call bullshit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Being the geeks that we are, we always come up with some sort of project to bring up to the lake and play with.

    Geeks are lucky if they make it to a bathtub, much less a lake. This person is an imposter.

  41. wow, thanks! MOD UP! by subtropolis · · Score: 1

    What a brilliant article. Made my sunday morning.

    --
    "Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
  42. Enough already! by rlp · · Score: 1

    I'm really tired of hearing about Bush's campaign advisor ... oh! ... never mind ...

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
  43. Electromagnets for holding ballast by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    The slightly geekier way would be to hold the ballast in place with electromagnets.

    Be sure to bring many spares, You will drop a bunch just during "normal" dive preparations. I would consider a manual locking mechanism that is disengaged just before the dive begins. Also be sure to train any divers or swimmers to *never* go under the vehicle.

  44. Emergency blow apparatus not enough by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    An emergency blow apparatus is probably not enough. You may also need to detach the umbilical.

  45. There were geeks before computers by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    Real geeks know that versioning starts before 1.0 :)

    There were geeks before computers. They were generally more proficient than computer geeks and went through fewer revisions. Their gizmos got by with Mark 2, Mark 3, ..., A1, A2, ..., etc.

  46. No, they are gasping for air ... by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    IANAI (I am not an ichthyologist), but I think the fish would be gasping for water, not air.

    No, they are gasping for air. Water is just a delivery vehicle for the air.

  47. Back Up!! by Blue-Footed+Boobie · · Score: 1
    Both the Images and Videos are back up!!

    Thanks to PhotoJerk.Com for the space!

    --
    DAMN YOU OCTODOG! DAMN YOU TO HELL!
  48. Concisely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wifi is 2.4Ghz, same as microwaves. Microwaves work by heating the water in food. Heating = energy getting absorbed = not transmitting. Therefore wifi doesn't work underwater.

    Might be a good experiment though, if someone has an AP with an antenna they can submerse. Or just combine a laptop, a waterproof box and a swimming pool.

  49. Sure it is by bluGill · · Score: 1

    Read the article. It is a Towable Remote Observation vehicle. Not to be confused with the Remotely Operated Vehicle.

    1. Re:Sure it is by Blue-Footed+Boobie · · Score: 1

      I'm glad some people rtfa.

      --
      DAMN YOU OCTODOG! DAMN YOU TO HELL!
  50. Homebrewed ROV - not impressed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know of one 'computer consultant' who is making an ROV.

    He's a coke user who has spent almost a year to 'convert' 4 freebsd boxes to Debian Linux. The FreeBSD boxes are running apache/postgresql/PHP/Sendmail/Cyrus and $30,000 in 'consulting fees' later the job STILL isn't done.

    In short, I'm not impressed.

  51. Build Log with pictures in PDF format by GroundWire · · Score: 1

    Better late than never.. From the discussion thread, he just re-posted his pictures and the build log in PDF format. - Joel

  52. Did anyone read that as by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hebrew ROV?

    Maybe it's just me then.

  53. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion