Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Giant Robotic Jellyfish Unveiled by Researchers

Posted by samzenpus on from the thank-you-science dept.

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water, an anonymous reader writes in with news about a giant robot jellyfish. As if there weren't enough real jellyfish around to trigger our thalassophobia, researchers at Virginia Tech have created Cryo -- an eight-armed autonomous robot that mimics jelly movement with the help of a flexible silicone hat. The man-sized jellybot altogether dwarfs previous efforts, hence the upgrade from small tank to swimming pool for mock field tests. And unlike the passively propelled bots we've seen recently, Cryo runs on batteries, with the researchers hoping to better replicate the energy-efficient nature of jelly movement to eventually increase Cryo's charge cycle to months instead of hours. That's also the reason these robotic jellyfish are getting bigger -- because the larger they are, the further they can go."

43 comments

  1. obl. by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our robotic, aquatic overlords.

    --
    while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    1. Re:obl. by ackthpt · · Score: 2

      I, for one, welcome our robotic, aquatic overlords.

      Admit it, you want to have your brain transplanted into one of these, along with Wi-Fi, and you'll spend the rest of your days happily exploring and blogging about it.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  2. Potential Military..... by MattGWU · · Score: 1

    "NO! I designed the Giant Robotic Jellyfish of Death to help mankind, not destroy it!" --Dr. Death

    --
    "These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based on the order in which I joined" --Homer re:
    1. Re:Potential Military..... by hey! · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of graffiti I once read on the wall of an outhouse at a remote paleontology camp. "INVERTEBRATES RULE!" To which someone else penned the response "Grow yourself a backbone, bozo!"

      There's a definite machismo pecking order in the natural scientists, with the lordly dinosaur men (some of whom are women) on top, with their dirt encrusted pickup trucks with empty beer cans bouncing around in back. I remember one of them at a conference remarking to me after hearing a paper about sticklebacks, "That's natural science nerd-dom for you -- an insignificant little fish!"

      Jellyfish are beautiful creatures, but I'd guess that robotic jellyfish is about as nerdy as it gets. But a GIANT jellyfish robot -- that's something else. One thing about machismo is that size definitely matters.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:Potential Military..... by David+Gould · · Score: 1

      There's a definite machismo pecking order in the natural scientists

      As opposed to the real scientists? *ducks*

      --
      David Gould
      main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
  3. So it Begins by fishbonz · · Score: 1

    Go Go Godzilla!

  4. Jellyfish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With frikkin' LASERS! That's all we need now!

    Bow down, North Korea, to our superior weapons technology!

  5. Re:Oblig Dr. Evil by belthize · · Score: 1

    DARPA is working on it.

  6. Re:Oblig Dr. Evil by simonbp · · Score: 1

    No, that would drain the batteries. Instead they're just going to mount a gun.

  7. Point? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the continual advancement of science, but... why? What useful purpose could a giant, robot jellyfish possibly serve?

    From TFA:

    Potential uses include ocean monitoring

    .. which we already have, and better methods at that.

    perhaps clearing oil spills,

    Again, not a novel concept, and the methods we have in place now (partially thanks to the Deepwater Horizon disaster) seem to work pretty well (since oil tends to sit on the surface of the water, what good would an underwater robot do, anyway?)

    ...the US Navy, which is funding the work, sees an opportunity to recruit jellies for underwater surveillance -- a job the researchers say is suited to their natural-looking disguise.

    Riiiiiight... like a 10-foot diameter silicon disk with a flashy-flashy LED on the top is going to fool anybody...

    Seriously, I think "Because we thought it would be cool, and wanted to prove that we could" would be a more reasonable excuse than the ones posited above.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    1. Re:Point? by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      It's a collection of robot arms with a plastic tablecloth on the top, that's all. At least the other one made claims of running itself on hydrogen for what that was worth, probably not much since you'd be better off using the energy it took to seperate the hydrogen to actually power the thing.

    2. Re:Point? by ikaruga · · Score: 2

      While I agree with you that a Jellyfish robot by itself doesn't seem all that useful, it's important to notice we're talking about an academic project. The system composing technologies, like developed actuators, control algorithms, communication systems, materials, waterproofing, underwater sensors, etc, are what really matters. The Jellyfish robot that is making the news is nothing but an academic testing and benchmark platform for all these "real", useful technologies.

    3. Re:Point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical American conservative moron, afraid of the new.

      Since when does it need a direct use?

      With advancements, you often only find the usages long after it has been invented/discovered.

      We can do something we couldn't do before. (Have a jellyfish robot.) That is always of use.

      Also: *Because we can, bitch!*

    4. Re:Point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another question I have is: How well will this glob of plastic hold up when run over by a super tanker, container ship or any ship or even small boat? Maybe get caught up in trawler nets or drift nets?
      Is this just going to wind up adding more plastic junk in to the ocean? http://5gyres.org/

    5. Re:Point? by David+Gould · · Score: 2

      If you RTFS, you might notice that it mentions "replicat[ing] the energy-efficient nature of jelly movement". Any task that's useful to perform in water can be done better by making the vehicle more energy-efficient. Other properties of the design will no doubt make it more suitable for some tasks than for others. That'll all shake out as the technology becomes available to designers of machines for all sorts of purposes. Adding another mode of locomotion to the toolkit available to such designers can only be useful.

      --
      David Gould
      main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
    6. Re:Point? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'm a bit surprised they aren't using this as an opportunity to try and find a way to use ocean currents for a power source, as we do with tidal generators; i.e., as the machine sinks, turbines spin and generate power that it can use to push itself back up towards the surface.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    7. Re:Point? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      The system composing technologies, like developed actuators, control algorithms, communication systems, materials, waterproofing, underwater sensors, etc, are what really matters.

      Perhaps, but couldn't they have just tested those technologies on an existing and proven useful platform?

      Just seems to me like a waste of tax dollars, so a handful of academics can say, "dude, check out the cool toy we built!"

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    8. Re:Point? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 0

      Typical American conservative moron, afraid of the new.

      Typical moron in general, making assumptions based on what must be a lack of reading comprehension skills.

      Since when does it need a direct use?

      Since I'm paying for it.

      With advancements, you often only find the usages long after it has been invented/discovered.

      Yea, just look at how long it took for someone to find a practical application for direct current generation, atom-splitting, aircraft, internal combustion, etc. /sarc

      We can do something we couldn't do before. (Have a jellyfish robot.) That is always of use.

      Proven wrong by a sitcom:

      Barney: "New is always better."

      Ted: "Really? Waitress, what's your oldest bottle of scotch?"

      Waitress: "80 year old Glenlivet, excellent vintage."

      Ted: "And your newest?"

      Waitress: "... Gary's Grape Scotch.... Don't let it touch your skin."

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    9. Re:Point? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Best rationale posited thus far.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    10. Re:Point? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      That would be great if there were useful things that can be done at jellyfish speeds (very slow), at jellyfish accuracy (very low) with jellyfish carrying capacities (almost zero). Basically jellyfish are floaters with some capacity to regulate their depth in the water. They are almost neutrally buoyant so it takes very little energy. A robot has much more mass and density so would still take considerable energy to move.

    11. Re:Point? by HiThere · · Score: 2

      I question that a robot inherently has a high density. (FWIW, I believe that even a ship is lighter than water.)

      The important thing here is that it can adjust it's depth in the water in an energy efficient manner. This would seem tailor made to trace the flow of ocean currents at varying depths. But they need to get the efficiency up a bit. I don't think a few months is sufficient...not for the use-case I'm imagining. And it would need to rise to the surface occasionally to transmit to a receiver (possibly a satellite) what it's position was, and anything else it was monitoring.

      That said, this is just the first idea off the top of my head. There are probably other uses. Many of them would probably require a longer explanation, i.e. be more specialized, and not obvious why they were important to those outside whatever field they applied to.

      For that matter, do you remember how long everyone considered the laser a remarkable tool that had no uses? (I think it was over a decade.) This is not only less remarkable, it also has a couple of plausible uses...once it's a bit more developed.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    12. Re:Point? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      But they need to get the efficiency up a bit. I don't think a few months is sufficient...

      Cryo runs on batteries, with the researchers hoping to better replicate the energy-efficient nature of jelly movement to eventually increase Cryo's charge cycle to months instead of hours.

      It looks like the researchers have even further to go than you thought as they haven't even broken the one day barrier.

      The difference between lasers is that it is quite easy to see the possibilities of concentrating light into a small area and the work it could so. It can be extrapolated from what can be done with a mirror. I find it much more difficult to see how moving like a jellyfish is all that useful except in very limited instances like ocean studies. For example, they mention spill cleanup; much too slow and too little power.

    13. Re:Point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a school, not a government-run project. I suspect the only dollars being wasted are in the form of student loans, which will have to be paid back even if the earth falls into the sun.

    14. Re:Point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read the article? This is funded by the US Navy.

    15. Re:Point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that even a ship is lighter than water.)

      which is lighter? a kilo of water or a kilo of ship?

      I think Archimedes might say that a ship must be lighter than the weight of the water it displaces in order to float.

    16. Re:Point? by Sigg3.net · · Score: 1

      It makes for a great Bluetooth range extender. But without Bluetooth it's practically useless.

      --
      Defining Statistics and Social Research
  8. Next up.... by EricTheGreen · · Score: 1

    ....giant squid. And if there's any justice in this world, Dave Gibbons will be the lead visual designer on them.

  9. Re:Robotic Jellyfish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you ever seen a black guy swim? Me neither.

    Yes but he was eluding police so that doesn't count.

  10. Giant Robotic Jellyfish by Tarlus · · Score: 1

    That would be an awesome band name.

    --
    /* No Comment */
    1. Re:Giant Robotic Jellyfish by fishbonz · · Score: 1

      It might also be an awesome porn movie name if your into that kinda thing

  11. Expensive snack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long before it becomes sperm whale lunch?

  12. Solar Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make it solar powered, thing could go forever!

    1. Re:Solar Power by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Make it solar powered, thing could go forever!

      Yeah, until some shark took a bite out of it.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:Solar Power by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Solar power doesn't work well at any depth. (I doubt that it would be practical 10 m. down, much less 300 m.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  13. Re:Oblig Dr. Evil by camperdave · · Score: 1

    Come on! It's a jellyfish. If you're going to arm it, arm it with stingers.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  14. eaten by OlRickDawson · · Score: 2

    From what I've read, it looks like they want it to look more and more like a Jellyfish. I wonder how they will keep it from getting eaten?

    --
    Ol' Rick Dawson had a farm EIEIO
  15. Thanks for posting by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    Dear Everyone-that-wants-to-post-something,

    Vimeo sucks balls. Please stop.

    You might as well just stream it off your desktop. No, wait, you might have taken that suggestion seriously. That was a joke, that's probably the only video service that would actually suck worse than Vimeo.

    Thanks,
    -Styopa

    --
    -Styopa
  16. I, for one... by PuddleBoy · · Score: 1

    Welcome our new Giant Robot Jellyfish Overloads and... oh never mind

  17. It's not I folks: It's Jeremiah Cornelius... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THIS is why he's doing it & proof of it, here -> http://interviews.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3585927&cid=43295193 when others pointed out Jeremiah Cornelius forgot to submit one of the "first post spams" (masquerading as myself, by posting as AC & using some old posts of mine or other b.s. he put up), & JC mistakenly submitted one of the impersonations of myself as his registered 'luser' name here on /. forums.

    Pretty pitiful actually, but like every up to no good idiot does? He screwed up & submitted it under his registered 'luser' name here, instead of his ac submittals he's been doing.

    * Jeremiah Cornelius: DO YOURSELF, and the rest of us, A GIANT FAVOR MAN: Seek professional psychiatric help!

    (Since Jeremiah Cornelius obviously can't get over the fact he made a spelling error on what it is HE ALLEGEDLY DID FOR A LIVING? That's not MY fault... it's HIS!)

    APK

    P.S.=> I seriously must have dusted JC (in his mind @ least) for his BAD spelling error & it "got his goat"...

    I.E.-> Catching what he claimed to do as a job, for YEARS he left "PENETRATION" (correct) spelled as "PENTRATION" (incorrect) on his resume on LinkedIn & I pointed it out as he & his friends trolled me as usual (webmistressrachel, gmhowell, & crew (probably ALL JC no doubt using alterate emails or TOR to do it as a possible - I've caught "them & theirs" doing it before, ala Barbara, not Barbie = TomHudson (same person))).

    So THAT is what has gotten his goat in a technical debate & his "geek angst" could only come up with *trying* to "impersonate me" in every news thread on /. for the month of March 2013 so far!

    (Just to attempt to 'discredit me' as a spammer here obviously)

    Doing so, by posting that "$10,000 challenge" &/or reposts of my old posts on hosts file value to end users into EVERY SINGLE NEWS ARTICLE POSTED on /. ...

    It's all I can think of that *might* cause such a mentally troubled 'reaction' like the Jeremiah Cornelius is doing & there's NO QUESTION he's the one doing this spamming of nearly every posted article masquerading as myself...!

    ... apk