Slashdot Mirror


Anna Konda, the Robotic Firefighter

Roland Piquepaille writes "In fact, Anna Konda is a robotic fire hose moving like a snake. This robot, which has been developed in Norway by SINTEF, is 3 m long and weighs 70 kg. The snake contains 20 water hydraulic motors that move the robotic joints. And the energy needed to power these motors comes from water pressurized to 100 bars and already available inside the fire hose. This gives enough energy to this water-powered robot to climb up stairs, to lift a car up off the ground or even break through a wall. Very clever design! The designers think that this robot could not only replace humans to fight fires when it's too dangerous for them, but could also be used for subsea operations or explosion prevention. An additional overview contains more details and pictures of this snake robot."

94 comments

  1. Hmph. by Foehg · · Score: 0

    The headline was more exciting when I skimmed it the first time. I thought it was going to be about a robotic snake-shaped gladiator that whipped around like a fire hose.

    Well, I guess saving people is all right too.

    1. Re:Hmph. by Skevin · · Score: 3, Funny

      It was more exciting than that, when I skimmed it the first time and thought it read, "Robotic Anna Kournikova".

      I was going to run out and buy one to, ah, um, improve my tennis game.

      Solomon

      --
      "Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
  2. Cue... by Exsam · · Score: 1

    The next SciFi channel movie.

    --
    "To face death, that's nothing much. But to feel really stupid when you die, well, that would be insufferable."
    1. Re:Cue... by Neko-kun · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean "Live Action Hentai"?

    2. Re:Cue... by Axe+336 · · Score: 1

      "Snake Ex Machina"

      Commercial announcement: "You've seen giant snake movies before, but this time they're not just cold blooded! They're Cold *Scene Flash* As *Scene Flash* Steel!" *Shocking Scene Flash!* SCREAM!!! "This Saturday at 9... Only on Sci-Fi."

  3. Interesting research by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 0, Redundant

    We shall need to wait a few years to see if anything practical comes out of the research.

    1. Re:Interesting research by TripWire · · Score: 0

      I remember thinking the same thing when I saw Anna Konda in the news the first time 2-3 years ago.

    2. Re:Interesting research by Cheapy · · Score: 1

      In what universe is an extra firefighter not practical?

      --
      Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
    3. Re:Interesting research by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1
      In what universe is an extra firefighter not practical?

      In ours, sadly. This thing is a nice concept, but TFA says it needs 100bar water. The normal pressures for firefighting are around 8-20bar, so it'd take specialised pumping equipment and hoses for it to work.

      That's not a showstopper of course, but it'd probably be cheaper just to build a conventional electric robot like Quinetiq's Talon based firefighting bot, which can pull conventional 63mm fire hoses.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  4. *cough* by gardyloo · · Score: 1

    I'll bet there aren't ANY jokes to be made about the second pic of Pål Liljebäck with that impressive thing...

  5. Robotic Snakes on a Plane! by Jboost · · Score: 2, Funny

    Imagine the possibilities!
    We could fight forest fires better

    1. Re:Robotic Snakes on a Plane! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We sould, it'll be interesting if the firefighter unions actually support use of this at all. At some point in the future it just won't make sense to have the number of personnel they have most places.

    2. Re:Robotic Snakes on a Plane! by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1

      AND We can have drinks hooked up on one of these things and have our refreshments crawl to us!

      Or even one hooked with a drainage tube with a slight suction-device, no more restroom breaks!

      The possibilities... endless...



      All I wonder is; will the electronics be able to withstand the temperatures of a fire?

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
  6. Movement by Instine · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is there anywere in either artical that says how it moves forwards? I'm currently making a robot snake of my own, and the rectilinear motion is by far the most difficult part of the physical design. I'm assuming it uses wheel, but can tell from the images.

    Great stuff. It not entirely new though.

    This is my fave out there at the mo. Snake link (click the images for vids)

    --
    Because you can - or because you should?
    1. Re:Movement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you read the articles you will find the answer to your question on what the articles contain.

  7. porn star name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    that's a porn star name if i ever heard one. perhaps a chick with dick performer..

    1. Re:porn star name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aw cmon. Thats some funny shit. Who are the two-year olds marking this stuff offtopic?

  8. Roland the Plogger again - here's the real link by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's the real link to the research. As usual, Roland the Plogger is posting a story from a blog, maximizing ad revenue, and the actual reference has been lost. One would think that Slashdot's "editors" would be wise to this by now, but they still don't get it.

    It;s only a prototype; the water stream that comes out is more like a garden hose than a fire hose.

    1. Re:Roland the Plogger again - here's the real link by anagama · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the good link. I find it unthinkable that an article about such a device would not have a picture.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  9. Wow! Thanks for explaining that one to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd never have figured it out by myself! I bet you're related to Albert Einstein or somebody like that.

  10. 100 bars?! by MArainman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What kind of fire engine puts out 100 bars?? That's 1450 psi! The typical city pumper is designed for 200 psi. Most of the hoses are only rated to a couple hundred. They need to seriously dial down the pressure requirements if this is to be used in any kind of existing firefighting application.

    1. Re:100 bars?! by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 2, Informative

      Go back a bunch of decades, to the "High Pressure Fog" days. Lots of engines produced that pressure, and they used 1" boosters.

      Also, remember that this is a Euro invention. Think it's gonna have a smoothbore? A TFT?

      Nope... it'll be HPF with a 1". Europeans have been begging for a way to bring back HPF for almost a decade... and this might just be a viable way to do it. Expensive as hell, but viable.

      --

      help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

    2. Re:100 bars?! by RoloDMonkey · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you know what you are talking about, but for the clairification of others I will explain. Fire engines pump an enormous volume of water (gpm or gallons per minute), but at relatively low pressure (around 100 psi IIRC). However, that doesn't make this useless. Your average pressure washer works the opposite way, enormous pressure but low gpm. A fire company could buy a unit capable of several thousand psi for around $1,000 at any hardware store. As another poster pointed out, this kind of system can produce a suppression fog, instead of a concentrated stream. Also, the unit would still be useful for venting and exploration. A 5000 psi pressure washer can easily cut through drywall and wood, and given time it can go through concrete, or even metal. In addition, the snake could access small areas, and could stay in a hot area by "sweating." Lastly, this is only a prototype, maybe they will eventually be able to decrease the pressure it needs to work.

      Credentials: I am a former fire dispatcher, and I also used to run a paint store that sold pressure washers.

      --
      Long live the Speaker Bracelet
      Rolo D. Monkey
  11. Re:FP by epp_b · · Score: 4, Funny
    Anna Konda eh? Anaconda, anyone? (Sounds clever to me)
    Thank-you, Captain Obvious! You're a hero for us all!
  12. And Then Again, Maybe Not by MikeyTheK · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's in interesting idea, but it also has the usual drawbacks, namely it is extremely difficult to move 200 feet of 2-1/2" for a team of firefighters when the line is charged - the weight is not the only problem. A charged line is stiff (ha, ha), so moving it arount corners, into rooms, up and down stairs, etc. is very awkward. You can't just drain a line every time you want to move it. It takes too long. So, you normally have to move a line while it's completely empty (called "flaking" the line), then charge it, or after it's charged, fight with the line the whole way. On top of all that, it's very easy to kink or even twist and decouple hose, which is, of course, disasterous. Normally what we do is carry as much line as we think we are going to need to a safe zone of the structure we're fighting, then flake it into big loops right there. That way we have all the hose we need in one place, and we can just extend into the hot zone without kinking, and also dragging the charged line the minimum distance to do the work we are going to do.

    There is also the other problem: We typically charge our lines to the point where the nozzle-man's feet just leave the ground, then we ease back so they are just barely on the ground. This maximizes our flow into the area we are fighting. With a two-person nozzle team that means we have in the neighborhood of 600-700 lbs of ballast to offset the reaction force at the tip (the force of the water exiting the nozzle that is pushing back on it, which would result in the hose flying all over the place otherwise). (The 600-700 lbs is the weight of two firefighters, their bunker gear, air packs, etc.). The robot only weights 70kg, so it won't have nearly the control of the tip, which means that you can't push nearly the water.

    I could see this as a good application when trying to work in a warehouse or supermarket, where the distance from the door is large. However, the device is going to need assistance to move a great distance since the line has to be charged in order for it to function, but if the line is charged it becomes much harder to move the line. That combination seems to defeat the purpose - of keeping firefighters out of harm's way.

    Personally I'm in favor of our current option "b" - trench cut the roof (long cut perpendicular to the path of the fire, in an area we know is good), then drown the cut with water from a ladder pipe, which causes a water curtain - the good part of the building is saved by the water curtain, which means we can fight the remainder from a position of strength.

    --
    Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
    Never forget: 2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.
    1. Re:And Then Again, Maybe Not by idontrtfm · · Score: 3, Informative

      Underwater or space is the most likely place for robotic snakes. I did enough work with them in grad school that I believe weight is going to be a big problem at least during my life time, and certainly during my grad life it was. Researchers very often have pie in the sky stories like this to tell, but I do not think them practical.

      --
      .,|,..,|,..,|,..,|,..,|,.
    2. Re:And Then Again, Maybe Not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with line stiffness I think only applies to fabric hoses. If the 'snake'(as it appears to) had closely spaced joints that are designed to not straighten out under internal pressure, then you could bend it when charged and avoid the moving-line problems. In regard to the ballast question, the article describes the snake 'wrapping around objects to get footing'--this may not always an option, but an interesting solution to this problem.

    3. Re:And Then Again, Maybe Not by GTMoogle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Also, fire fighters generally (I'm guessing) want high pressure and a tight spray so they can hit the base of the fire from a long (safe) distance. This robot could use the water for cooling and stick its nose straight into the fire, and spray from multiple directions at once to cancel most any kick.

      Actually, it's going to have to continously spray water just to move, since having a water return line would be a little silly. I'm really curious if the motors are attached in series or parallel - i.e. does each joint spray a little every movement, or does the nose constantly spray to some degree? Too bad there aren't any pictures I can find.

    4. Re:And Then Again, Maybe Not by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      I don't think 3m is the target length, just a test. Imagine an entire firehose made of a few hundred of these things end to end. It could reach any point in a building *ON ITS OWN*.

    5. Re:And Then Again, Maybe Not by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hey, if they can make a deuce-and-a-half that can get itself up 3 or 4 flights of stairs... I'm all for it. If they can make this thing go *down* a flight of stairs into a basement... I'm all for it.

      There's just a couple of caveats, however -

      1. Typical hose lengths on an engine (in the US, at least) are 150', 200', and 400', made up of either 50' or 100' segments. There's no way in hell the entire length of hose will contain a "snake" exoskel as someone had suggested... meaning you'd probably have several snakes separated by "normal" hose lengths. This stuff needs to fit on the truck, somewhere... and a mere human needs to deploy it WITHOUT a Genie-lift.

      2. The unit only operates when the line is charged. As Mikey said, that means the entire length of the line is rigid; typical fire streams run at +60 psi (plus additional for friction loss and altitude) for a smoothbore, or up to 160 for a "taskforce" (fog) style tip. Such pressures are not condusive to bending. Combined with having a coupling every 50' along the length of the hose, which invariably get snagged on every corner or edge they find... the idea of this device pulling the hose behind it has some serious challenges.

      3. Speaking of bending, it'd be interesting to see how this device would be stored on the truck. A flat-load is probably out of the question... and space on a truck is typically at a premium. I assume the "snake" would retain it's circular cross-section, compared with a typical hose which squashes flat.

      4. Somewhere, there was mention of a camera at the head of the unit. Since your typical CCD is useless in a smoke condition... your starting price for vision is $13k for a bolometer, and that's just the sensor. By the time you've added everything else needed for vision, including the "Motorola Floating Decimal Point", remote-vision will probably top $25k, easily. (And yes, I'm pulling numbers out of my butt. However, your typical bolometer-based TIC will run about $16k-$23k for a hand-held unit, and those are mass-produced. Remove the production volume, separate the sensor from the display by 200', realize that "wireless" is not an option, invent a cabling system that'll withstand 1000+ deg...) I don't see anyone who could afford to run this thing via remote vision.

      5. I *WILL* disagree with Mikey on the Noz-Reaction argument. He's right, but sadly he lives in TFT-land:

      5a. Water weighs 8lbs per gallon; whatever your reaction force is, you need merely have adequate water-weight in the hose on the ground, behind you. (Yes, that description was awful). I weigh 130lbs soaking wet, and can solo a deuce and a half at 170psi with a TFT. Don't ask me to move it while it's flowing water, but once in position... I can solo it without any effort, and maintain control over a 30 degree arc. The trick is to have the line continue *straight* behind you for a few meters, such that the hose jacket takes the compression from the reaction force; meanwhile, residuals keep the jacket from kinking, and mass & ground friction prevent the hose from sliding backwards. It's not appropriate in many places (e.g. if a tight corner is involved), but it's effective in others. Barn fires and corridors, for example :)

      5b. Pressure isn't volume, especially with a Thinker nob. Most thinkers intend 120lbs (or whatever) at the tip, and they clamp anything above that. Remind your guys that the typical Taskforce Tip has Thinker built into it, so the excess pressure is NOT increasing the GPM; you crank it up, the Thinker chokes it down at the bale. Most TFTs don't have a visible control for this device, but many Master devices do. Take a look at the deck gun on your engine - it probably has an adjustable GPM collar. So long as you meet the minimum pressure for the tip, it doesn't matter what pressure you dump into it - if you set the collar at 900 gpm, you'll GET 900 gpm. It won't matter if you're at 130psi or 250psi... you'll get 900gpm. Most TFTs contain this device (it's a selling point), but it's f

      --

      help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

    6. Re:And Then Again, Maybe Not by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, we want low pressure and tight stream... but depending on the tip, higher pressures are needed for proper function.

      Presently, there's two popular tip-types - the TFT (taskforce tip) which has an adjustable "spray" pattern, and the smoothbore, which is actually not a tip at all. It's just a pipe.

      Arguments over which is better have raged on, forever. In either case, though, the goal is to get gallonage onto the heat source. The theory of water as an extinguising agent is fairly simple - we want to stop the chemical reaction by eliminating Heat from the equation. Water is ideal - to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree celcius, it takes 1 calorie. Great! I've got a fire producing 2000 calories of heat per second. That's gonna take a lot of water to mitigate.

      But, there's a trick - we don't want water. We want STEAM. Water needs 1 calorie for that 1 degree, all the way up to 99 degrees. But... to get from 99 to 100 takes... wait for it... 1400 calories. That is a LOT of heat.

      Water doesn't put fires out. Water converting to steam does. That ONE degree shift is what fights the fire. Any water that ends up on the floor is a waste of time.

      The TFT theory is based on surface area; a bunch of droplets will have more exposed surface area than a cylinder ("straight stream") of water, hence will evaporate faster / have a higher conversion rate.

      The smoothbore argument is based on penetration; with a solid ("straight") stream, you know the water is impacting the hot surface pretty hard with some depth of penetration. Since that water will be trapped, its only way "out" is to convert. It has the added advantage of being able to blow holes through things that are in the way... walls, furniture, whatever. Smoothbores are obviously popular with urban companies, like FDNY for example.

      The tight-spray actually isn't that relevent to distance; it's all about NOT screwing up the thermal strata in the room. A smoothbore is ideal for a cooker, since there is almost no drag and (therefore) no venturi effect. A TFT, with all of its droplets, has a lot more cross section - but these droplets create a big venturi as they travel through space. The resulting turbulance can suck the hot stuff above into the cool stuff where we are. That's the argument in the US, anyway. The Europeans see it a completely different way... but their building construction is completely different, also.

      --

      help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

    7. Re:And Then Again, Maybe Not by gtwilliams · · Score: 2, Informative
      to get from 99 to 100 takes... wait for it... 1400 calories. That is a LOT of heat.

      Actually, that's too much. The heat of vaporization of water is 539 cal/g at 100 degrees C.
      But, of course, the concept is dead on -- to remove a LOT of heat, turn water to steam.
      --
      Garry Williams
    8. Re:And Then Again, Maybe Not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I wouldn't imagine that this idea would be too difficult to actually test. We already have industrial equipment which is used to produce a steady output of either steam or hot water. Compare how water at ambient temperature works compared to water at 1 or 2 degrees under the local boiling point does. If hot water is actually better, then a person needs to come up with a practical way to heat water at the standpipe or engine. But first you need to know if hot water is significantly better or not.

    9. Re:And Then Again, Maybe Not by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 2, Informative

      Great insight - but there's nothing to test... there are several other ways of bettering the conversion rate without the base temperature being 99deg. And, we wouldn't need to deal with a hose-line that is just below boiling.

      1. Surface area via HPF. High Pressure Fog systems were all the rage a few decades ago, and also in the 1800s (wait long enough, everything comes around again, eh?). The conversion rates are dangerous if the application rate is not properly managed. Likewise, application is dangerous because fog doesn't travel; you physically need to be next to the hot spot. Not only does this expose the human to untenable radiative heat, but the resulting steam production will instantaneously boil any persperation in the shell of his gear, blowing it directly onto his skin underneath. HPF quickly lost appeal in manned application scenarios because humans are not compatible with it; any gear capable of protecting the user from the radiation and resulting steam bath was not and still is not capable of surviving the intense crawl from the front door to the fire room. It certainly will not survive it twice, and neither would the person wearing it after they collapse from heat exhaustion. HPF still has strong promise of making a return, however, because it is perfect for mitigating atmospheric threats (rollover / smoke explosions) without inverting the strata.

      2. Surface area via aeration (Compressed Air Foam). CAF is a low pressure method of placing "bubbles" into the supression agent (water), consisting of a typical Class A foam agent and compressed air injected after the pump. The result is a very fine, uniform foam - like soggy shaving cream, pure surface area and little volume. It also sticks to things, as opposed to ending up on the floor. The surface area allows for an explosive conversion rate, and is dangerous (severe steam burns to the crew) if proper expansion paths are not created to route the steam flow away from the users during application. Application technique is further complicated by needing to close all vent paths after the application is complete. The Class A agent likewise acts as a sofactant, lowering surface tension and allowing penetration which is a huge advantage over HPF... HPF is useless on a burning couch, mattress, or hay bale for example. The stickiness allows it to be used as a heat-conduction insulator for protecting unburned regions, and an IR absorber for slowing flashover. If the compartment can be adequately sealed up, direct application to the heat source is not necessary; the agent can be applied anywhere that the smoke path / IR path will produce an adequate conversion. Unlike HPF or straight water with a TFT, CAF application is not effective at preventing smoke explosions / ignitions (rollover) in the thermal strata... so if one starts while you're under it, you're screwed. CAF is most effective when applied from outside the compartment just before flashover, or can be applied inside the compartment in a post-flashover environment. In short, the more heat and pressure inside the compartment... the better your performance will be. CAF is significantly less effective in open / well ventilated areas, but still beats the snot out of foam or water - with potential conversion rates up to 90+%, as opposed to 3 or 4% with water or foam. Typical kitchen fire with 1200F degrees at the ceiling: 800 gallons of water directly applied to the fire to suppress, 20 minutes for the ambient temperature to drop to 200 degrees. Same fire with CAF: 80 gallons applied to the ceiling (ABOVE the fire, not ON the fire) by users outside the structure. Temp drops to 250 degrees in 45 seconds. After vents are created for the steam to exit, temp drops to 200 in another 7 minutes.

      So, while near-boiling water may add a few points of efficiency to the conversion, it's kinda moot... we've got the efficiency for those cases we can use it. If victims are involved, for example, we cannot use it. We also cannot use it if we'll be sitting the the resulting steam path.

      --

      help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

  13. Firefighting "Snake" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  14. Snakes on a... by niteice · · Score: 1, Funny

    I have HAD it with this motherfucking hose on this motherfucking fire truck!

    --
    ROMANES EUNT DOMUS
  15. Anna Konda Don't Want None... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Less the fire's got buns hun!

    http://www.delaware.org/buns_fire.htm

  16. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news, Japan has spent all their GDP and is taking out loans to buy new firehoses. "We've always wanted to make our films more lifelike. Now we get to make our life like the films. -Pardon me-" [turns on spaceship and eight firehoses are activated].

    1. Re:In other news... by sanman2 · · Score: 1

      Was that a tentacle joke?

  17. sssss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm assuming from your post that your "robot snake" is made of toilet paper tubes and matchbox cars.

    Try not to make stuff up unless you have some vague idea of what you are talking about.

    1. Re:sssss by Instine · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Urm? Right. Well actually I am making a snake. Its on my desk. I'm using Oopic-r for the brain and building my own desing for the body, curently using 8 servos, 50 universal joints and one range finder. What I hope to do, is solve the rectalinear motion issue by using a derivitive of real snakes own process, which is a longditudinal wave of flexing rib muscles, which creates a "slip and grip" tranfer of force and motion via the belly scales. Though this tends only to be used by larger constrictors.

      Try not to make assumptions regarding posts and their posters on the basis of their literacy skills. Ever. It makes you look foolish in the long run.

      --
      Because you can - or because you should?
    2. Re:sssss by Teach · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Try not to make assumptions regarding posts and their posters on the basis of their literacy skills.

      Hate to burst your bubble, but this Internet of ours is primarily a textual medium. As far as extrinsic ethos goes, your literacy skills are all you've got. We have literally no other way to judge you as a rhetor.

      You're welcome to protest that such things shouldn't be important. But they are. Sorry.

      --
      Graham "Teach" Mitchell, computer science teacher, Leander HS
    3. Re:sssss by Instine · · Score: 1

      Hate to burst your bubble, but this Internet of ours is primarily a textual medium.

      Well I hate to pop yours, but I actually access the text content of the web via a screen reader, so, text is not the primary medium for all users. Nor is it the only medium for most. But this is not my point. My point is that a wise reader (IMO) assesses the value of comment not on the style of its writing, nor on the accuracy of its execution as a piece of prose, but rather on the merit of its content when regarded conceptually. Einstein was a terrible speller (hence my name). Should GR and SR have been dismissed because of pedantic grammar Nazis regarding his work as 'childish'? (as was implied about my post - dispite me actually knowing a great deal about snakes and snake robots).

      No. Literacy is not equatable to intelligence or knowledge. We as humans (most of us at least) have amazing powers of error correction. Thus if I spell speech 'speach', it may give rise to an easy op. for a jibe, but anyone reading will still understand what I've said.

      So I strongly disagree with your assertion that this Internet of ours is primarily a textual medium.. It is a collection of mixed media for the storage, retrieval and presentation of information. And 'We have literally no other way to judge you as a rhetor' is not true either. As I have described, we can correct the errrors made in text to see passed such inaccuracies, and then judge on induction, argument, empirical evidence and other such 'deeper' indications of true merit.

      I feel my point is proven by this distraction from the topic at hand. i.e. robot snakes. Let me know if you want to know more about them.

      BTW this is not meant as a flame/troll. I feel rather strongly about this sub thread's topic. Anyone truly interested in this "literacy [!]= merit of putative argument" please read up about dyslexia. I personally have an IQ similar to that of Einstein in abstract reasoning, but the 'Reading Age' of a 10 year old. Neurodivercity is a reality for more than 10% of web users. So dismissing us would be more foolish than dismissing Firefox users 2 years ago. Or Safari users now. ---rant ends---

      --
      Because you can - or because you should?
    4. Re:sssss by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should have considered the links provided by the original poster before launching on your rant. Teach limited himself to talking about extrinsic ethos, which is how a communicator establishes credibility apart from the content of his argument. Your rebuttal basically amounts to saying that the internal logic of an argument is also important. That is known as intrinsic logos, and it was never denied.

      Clearly Einstein was worthy of our attention regardless of how poor his grammar may have been. Yet if he was here today as one pseudonymous Slashdot poster among thousands, his ability to make his quality thoughts stand out would be hampered by his limited communication skills. This is simply a reality of the medium, though one would hope that the quality of his ideas would overcome this limitation.

      So the main point here is not that poorly written comments are worthless, but rather that realistically such comments must overcome their stylistic weaknesses in order to be heard.

    5. Re:sssss by Instine · · Score: 1

      I understand your argument, and the perceived relevance of Teach's - I simply don't agree with it, as it is presented as absolutist. You can not be so absolutist about language, in any meaningful way. Reading some Wittgenstein may convince Teach of this if he feels my protestations incredible. The Tractatus Philisophicus being a good, if heavy going start.

      to quote Teach "We have literally no other way to judge you as a rhetor."

      This is not true. Is it? (read back for context of quote)

      You seem to concede this yourself by saying "though one would hope that the quality of his [Einstein's] ideas would overcome this limitation.". i.e. the quality of Einstein's ideas is another way to judge him (and anyone for that matter) as a "rhetor". One erroneously denied by Teach.

      If you truly "hope" this to be the case, promoting the absolutism that Teach has, is rather counter productive, isn't it?

      Just like inaccuracy of syntax, superficiality is inevitable, to a degree. It doesn't mean we should aim towards it. Maybe then we'd have managed to talk on topic (re snakes) for a little longer...?

      --
      Because you can - or because you should?
    6. Re:sssss by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 1

      I am more inclined to consider and respect the opinions of someone who is able to express their views consisely and eloquently. I don't believe that this is merely a superficial preference. A well worded and well structured argument typically reflects the application of intelligence and careful reasoning, so I will judge such writing to be more worthy of my attention.

      The quality of a person's ideas provides a way to judge him as a thinker. The presentation of those ideas - structure, grammar, spelling - is the only way to judge the person as a rhetor. I am defining a rhetor as an eloquent communicator.

      These two abilities (to think and to communicate) can be considered as two separate axes. It is possible to be be high on either axis and low on the other, as in the example of Einstein. However, there is generally a strong correlation between the two. A poorly written opinion must overcome two obstacles in order to be heard: First, the impression that the author is careless or foolish, and second, the higher level of mental work required to decipher the author's intended meaning. Anyone wishing to be heard would be wise not to create such obstacles.

      Incidentally, I find this discussion vastly more interesting than robotic snakes.

    7. Re:sssss by Instine · · Score: 1

      Three points:

      "The presentation of those ideas - structure, grammar, spelling - is the only way to judge the person as a rhetor. I am defining a rhetor as an eloquent communicator."
      In which case you've been arguing a tautology all this time. Mechanicaly and determanistically regurgitating logical and linguistic vocabulary. Which goes little way to solving anything. But I refute this, as a rhetor of nonsense, is of no merit as a rhetor, in my mind.

      "A poorly written opinion must overcome two obstacles in order to be heard: First, the impression that the author is careless or foolish," This is precisely the prejudiced ignorance I would like to see lessened, not encouraged. Saying, such ignorance is inevitable, is careless in itself. Ironically the accusation being levelled at me, when such erroneous opinions are formed of me. I think you accept this is not so. So please don't perpetuate this misconception.

      "Anyone wishing to be heard would be wise not to create such obstacles."
      Please read about dyslexia. If you were mindful of it, you would be as embarrassed to say this to me, as you would "you would be wise to walk up those stairs" to a wheelchair user.

      And anyway, snakes are cool ;)

      --
      Because you can - or because you should?
    8. Re:sssss by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 1

      You refute my tautology? :)

      I meant no offense towards you, and I apologize for implying that you should simply overcome your dyslexia. I didn't mean to communicate that, but I can see now how it sounded that way. It seems to me that you have done very well with communicating clearly in our discussion, so I wasn't directing that comment at you personally.

      I enjoy language. I enjoy thinking about it, dissecting it, and attempting to use it well. I see that many people today don't care for language, and can be extremely lazy and thoughtless in how they present their thoughts. This is especially true in internet forums.

      I have grown impatient about this and I tend to disregard people who write as if they can't be bothered to make their words presentable before carelessly spewing them out. In most cases, it really is carelessness, but as you've pointed out there are exceptions, and so there is always the risk of misjudging. This risk is insignificant when I'm scanning through 30 pages of slashdot comments, because I'm probably just wasting time anyway. If we met in person or we were having a longer interaction (such as this discussion), then I would be much more careful about judging, and your intelligence would easily shine through any grammatical nitpicks I might have. It certainly has done so today.

      I will seek to learn from this and to be less quick to judge. Thanks for an enjoyable discussion!

    9. Re:sssss by Instine · · Score: 1

      And thank you :)

      --
      Because you can - or because you should?
  18. Her greatest nemesis? by mazarin5 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Her greatest nemesis: Flameosapien!

    --
    Fnord.
  19. Re:And Then Again, Maybe Yes by arthurpaliden · · Score: 2, Informative

    Keep the hose partially charged when moving, to stop kinking, then max the pressure when you get it in position. This would be a great asset when fighting shipboard fires where you do not have the optional advantage of fighting the fire from outside the structure.

  20. Anna Konda's next role... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With a description like "a robotic fire hose moving like a snake"
    can this device's next role be anything but...

    "Anna Konda, the Robotic Porn Star"

  21. Evil Applications by walnutmon · · Score: 2, Funny

    The robot war had been lost... We destroyed unmanned aircraft, and beat back the evil spider bots... But these damn snakes kept crushing our skulls and spraying water all over our carcasses, making them wet.

    --
    You take it, I don't want it...
  22. hmmm.. by macadamia_harold · · Score: 0, Redundant

    In fact, Anna Konda is a robotic fire hose moving like a snake.

    Is there any chance that these will be available, on say, planes?

  23. Red Dwarf reference by Salsaman · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hmmm...this looks like the kind of handy tool Kryten would be able to attach to his "groinal socket".

  24. what about a a self stiffening hose? by spineboy · · Score: 1

    make a hose that can stiffen and hold its bent/curved shape when under pressure? That way you could use existing building structural components to "brace" the hose

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
  25. Of course they get it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The blog of 'Roland' earns them a very tidy sum.

    It amazes me that guys like you can't see the obvious: why else would every single submission by 'Roland' get plastered on Slashdot? Why else the earlier submission of the same article (from the original sources, no less) by other submitters is always ignored?

    'Roland' is just an extension of Slashdot's marketing machine. How can you imagine otherwise?

    1. Re:Of course they get it! by GTMoogle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm not denying there's a conspiracy, but this specifically has been answered before - at the times at which roland submits stories, very few other people are also submitting. I think it was zonk that usually used posted them, which happened because he was the only /. staff working at that time. /. does little editing, which everyone knows, so they don't hunt down the orignal source, they just take what they get. Roland just happens to gank some interesting stuff and probably submits en masse.

      The question is, why didn't YOU submit this story first? :) Slashdot doesn't really have much to gain by squelching people who provide good stories, regardless of how much they're gaming the system for their own profit. Roland just happens to be a poor info source, but no one gave a better one or he wouldn't get posted so much.

      There's certainly room for improvement, but Cmdr Taco himself pointed out that there's no good reason to assume a conspiracy in this case, just blind chance. (Roland wasn't even in the top 10 of people who got their stories submitted at the time, but everyone noticed because he's one of the more annoying. And some people scream about it, which gets more attention.)

  26. Translation of Norwegian Dagbladet.no article by ThJ · · Score: 4, Informative
    Here's my translation of the Norwegian Dagbladet.no article.

    The Worlds Most Sophisticated Firehose

    (Dagbladet.no): Tenk deg en situasjon hvor du er innestengt som følge av brann, snøras eller jordskjelv, og det er for farlig for hjelpemannskapet å gå inn og redde deg. Det er da Snakefighteren Anna Konda kommer glidende inn, på skrå sidelengs som en ørkenslange.

    (Dagbladet.no): Imagine a situation where you're trapped due to a fire, snow avalaunch or earthquake, and it's too dangerous for the rescue crew to enter to save you. That's when the Snakefighter Anna Konda comes gliding in, sideways like a desert snake.

    Hun er verdens sterkeste og mest avanserte brannslange, ifølge SINTEF-forskerne Pål Liljebäck og Øyvind Stavdal som har utviklet henne.

    She's the world's strongest and most advanced firehose, according to SINTEF researchers Pål Liljebäck and Øyvind Stavdal, who developed her.

    En Anakonda av metall, smidig, sterk og smart, inspirert av naturen selv. Hun kommer hun seg frem gjennom alt slags terreng, og har sanser som en vanlig slange ikke har.

    An Anaconda of metal, agile, strong and smart, inspired by nature itself. She moves through all kinds of terrain, and has senses that a regular snake lacks.

    Hun kan heve hodet og sprute vann, slå gjennom vegger med en slagkraft på 700 kg i tyngdefeltet, løfte vekk objekter for å frigjøre fastklemte dyr eller mennesker og bringe gassmasker. Ved hjelp av infrarødt kamera, ultralyd og sensorer skal hun kunne finne kropper og kartlegge et område.

    She can lift her head and spray water, break down walls with a gravity of 700 kg, lift away objects to free trapped animals or people, and bring gas masks. With an infrared camera, ultrasound and sensors, she'll be able to find bodies and map an area.

    - Snakefighteren representerer en ny æra i brannslukning, sier Pål Liljebäck ved SINTEFs avdeling for anvendt kybernetikk til Dagbladet.no.

    - The Snakefighter represents a new era in fire extinguishing, says Pål Liljebäck at SINTEF's department for applied cybernetics to Dagbladet.no.

    Han presiserer at slangen er et verktøy, ikke en erstatning for brannfolk, for hun er ikke skapt for å dra med seg objekter.

    He notes that the snake is a tool, not a replacement for fire crews, since she wasn't created for towing objects.

    Vannhydraulikk

    Anna Konda drives av vannhydraulikk, som er nærmest et ikke-eksisterende fagfelt i dag, ifølge de to forskerne. Det vil si at det er vannkraft som driver musklene til den tre meter lange, 16 cm i diameter tjukke og 70 kilo tunge slangen. På et brannåsted kan hun tilkobles en brannslange. Er det snakk om en sammenrast bygning, kan hun ha en innebygget dieselmotor og ha med eget vann. Hun beveger seg med en hastighet på 20 - 30 cm i sekundet, men målet er en fart på en meter i sekundet.

    Anna Konda is powered by water hydraulics, a virtually non-existing field today, according to the two scientists. This means that water power is powering the "muscles" of the 3 meter long, 16 cm in diameter thick and 70 kg heavy snake. In a fire location she can be connected to a firehose. In the case of a collapsed building, she can carry her own diesel engine and her own water. She moves with a speed of 20 - 30 cm per second, but the goal is a speed of 1 meter per second.

    Slangen skal dels fjernstyres, dels ta egne avgjørelser. Hun bruker så kompliserte bevegelser at hun selv må greie føle seg frem i terrenget og beregne hvordan hun skal ta seg frem. Men en operatør skal kunne gi overordnede instrukser.

    The snake will partly be remote controlled, partly make her own decisions. She uses such complex movements that she has to feel herself through the terrain and calc

  27. Want pictures? by scdeimos · · Score: 4, Informative

    Due to the complete lack of pictures in the source article, here's some for your appetite...

    Anna Konda in action (JPEG, 844x453)

    Close-up of a segment (JPEG, 280x210)

    1. Re:Want pictures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't look very heat resistant. I assume it's got some sort of external fire retardant fitting which is both time consuming and akward to put on and remove, making quick maintinance near impossible. No, I didn't read the article.

  28. Thanks by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Its nice to hear from people who actually know their stuff. I can't think of any other forum where that can happen.

    1. Re:Thanks by dangitman · · Score: 1
      I can't think of any other forum where that can happen.

      Why not? It's possible in almost any forum. I didn't realize that "most forums" banned people with knowledge from posting.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    2. Re:Thanks by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      A lot of forums are either too narrow (which means you don't go visit them unless you're already in the trade or are seeking specific knowledge) or don't have the same volume as /. (posts and readers)

      I think that's where some of the draw of /. comes from. There's a wide selection of technology being discussed (some days) along with readers of a wide background. When those two things mix, sometimes you get knowledgeable comments.

      It ain't perfect, but it works most of the time. And sometimes you learn things that have no practical value in a personal sense, but are still interesting.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
  29. Alternate uses. by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Would any ladies in the Slashdot community care to comment on other applications of this robotic snake?

    1. Re:Alternate uses. by celardore · · Score: 1

      There are ladies on Slashdot?

    2. Re:Alternate uses. by freemywrld · · Score: 1
      Would any ladies in the Slashdot community care to comment on other applications of this robotic snake?

      Husband replacement?
      • Washes the dishes
      • Gets to those hard to reach places
      • Will never need Viagra
  30. on planes, perhaps? by Migraineman · · Score: 1

    If you're gonna have snakes, you must have planes, too.

    1. Re:on planes, perhaps? by rawmule · · Score: 2, Funny

      Get this muthafuckin' robotic firehose off my muthafuckin' plane!

  31. Ann Coulter? by sweetnjguy29 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Oh wait, thats the fire breathing mindless snake.

  32. Other snake 'bots by HoneyBeeSpace · · Score: 3, Informative

    For some other snake robots, check out these links:

    http://www.snakerobots.com/

    http://arctangent.8k.com/snake/snakemain.htm

  33. Robotic snakes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I for one would like to welcome our robotic snake overlords....

    no hang on - that one's been done to death...

  34. Re:FP by ClamIAm · · Score: 1

    Only on Slashdot is the first post modded Redundant...

  35. define primary for me? by way2trivial · · Score: 1

    not to pick a snit.. but please defend your statement this Internet of ours is primarily a textual medium

    do you mean internet, or WWW? (one is a subset of the other)

    in terms of data volume, I doubt the majority of the bits are for plain old ascii..
    I bet reading all text on the internet RIGHT NOW would take less time than studying EVERY picture available or watch EVERY video available.

    I personally think of it as more along the lines of a communications medium.

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    1. Re:define primary for me? by Teach · · Score: 1

      Your point is taken; to be clear, I should have said 'web' rather than 'Internet'. That shows you I've been hanging around my students too long.

      I disagree with your other assertion, however. I suspect that reading all of the text on the Internet would take much longer than similarly consuming the binary content, even if you were to factor in how much more quickly we can read.

      Project Gutenberg alone contains 18,000 books. If we assume that each book contains just the equivalent of 150 "pages", that's 2.7 million pages. Now, you may read faster than I do, but it takes me about an hour to read fifty pages in your average novel. So, finishing off just the text available at that single site would take me 54,000 hours (non-stop for over six years).

      YouTube, on the other hand, boasts "millions" of streaming movies. If we give a generous estimate of four minutes per clip, then watching two million videos would take me over 130,000 hours, or nearly twice as long.

      Now, how many other sites like YouTube are there out there, with original content not duplicated by YouTube? MySpace? A dozen more?

      On the other hand, how many large primarily-text sites are there with original content? The Wikipedia, usenet archives on Google, everything2, IMDb, Slashdot, thousands of bloggers, hundreds of newspapers and magazines, etc.

      My blog alone would take require more than 500 pages if you were keen to print it out.

      I believe that even if you added in the time to look at every image on Flickr for 20 seconds, listen to every song available on iTunes, and watch every movie (including porn) ever sold in DVD form (and thus available on some irc channel somewhere), that reading all the text on the Internet would still take longer by a factor of ten.

      Anyone want to try to make a more accurate estimate?

      --
      Graham "Teach" Mitchell, computer science teacher, Leander HS
    2. Re:define primary for me? by Baddas · · Score: 1

      Factor in the density of media: you can fairly well assimilate a 2mb photo in a second or two.

      High-definition video is similarly large, at least 14MB/second

      Textual data, even at very high rates of speed, is only going to average maybe 5kb/s IF you include side channels like font, size, weight, italics, etc

      For most people, assimilating plain ascii at rates greater than 5kb/min would be very hard.

  36. Afraid by hritcu · · Score: 2, Funny

    Great ... but what about the many people who are afraid of snakes? How is the anna konda going to help them overcoming their fear? Hssssssssssssss ...

    --
    If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough. (Alan Kay)
  37. What you talkin' bout, Animats? by rolandog · · Score: 1

    I ain't no plogger. Just a polymer engineer with a taste for code.

  38. Reminds me of... by ModernGeek · · Score: 1

    ...This Cartoon. Seems like Fire/EMS are the only fields in America where pride is still a part of the job. How is this machine supposed to cut holes in roofs, pull people out of homes, pull people out of cars without breaking their necks, and ventilate a house? Not a firefighter if it can't do all that and more :P

    --
    Sig: I stole this sig.
  39. Had to do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our new robotic firefighting overlords!

  40. Robotic Snakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this mean we'll see Robotic Snakes on a Plane next?

  41. Anime Reference by chiao · · Score: 1

    Anyone remember the self-assembling, fire-fighting tube / triangle things in Metropolis? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis_(2001_film )

  42. Roland's comments are not quite as well received. by TerminalSpin · · Score: 1

    Funny how Roland's comments are usually modded -1, whereas he gets all his submissions accepted. See http://slashdot.org/~Roland+Piquepaille/

    Perhaps Slashdot's editors like his, um, "writing style" better than the rest of us.

    Anyone up to writing a Firefox plugin to filter the Piquepaillespam out of Slashdot?every story he submits

    --
    :wq
  43. Re:Roland's comments are not quite as well receive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  44. But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Does it run Python?

  45. What are the odds??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow - how's that for a freaky coincidence?

    What are the chances of there being two users with a name like "Roland Piquepaille"?!!

  46. Re:FP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I actually didn't catch that until the post.

    :(

  47. more like a squirt gun... by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    http://www.sintef.com/upload/IKT/9023/AnnaKonda.jp g

    One of those really powerful supersoaker squirt guns, but a squirt gun nonetheless.

    The segements don't appear to have enough space inside to pass a decent-sized hose, nor room for a valve to control that much water and as is pointed out in another thread, the force of the water leaving a decent size hose would move this thing out of position anyway.

    It seemed like a good idea. Now I'm not so sure it's practical.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
  48. Kool-aid by Karthikkito · · Score: 1

    Why does this remind me of the kool-aid pitcher?

  49. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well I, for one, welcome our new Robotic Snake overlords.