Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MIT's Cheetah Robot Runs Untethered

Posted by Soulskill on from the because-skynet-totally-needs-cheetahs-too dept.

An anonymous reader writes: It's easy to make a robot walk, but hard to keep it from falling over. We've seen a number of crazy robot prototypes, but they're usually tethered and/or stuck on a treadmill. Now, researchers from MIT have developed an algorithm that allows their giant robot cheetah to run around outdoors at up to 10mph. They expect the robot to eventually hit speeds of 30mph. "The key to the bounding algorithm is in programming each of the robot's legs to exert a certain amount of force in the split second during which it hits the ground, in order to maintain a given speed: In general, the faster the desired speed, the more force must be applied to propel the robot forward. ... Kim says that by adapting a force-based approach, the cheetah-bot is able to handle rougher terrain, such as bounding across a grassy field." The MIT cheetah-bot also runs on a custom electric motor, which makes it significantly quieter than gas-powered robots. "Our robot can be silent and as efficient as animals. The only things you hear are the feet hitting the ground."

90 comments

  1. Obama is a Police state dictator. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    1984. 2014 is worse. its a silent more deadly and subtle distributed big brother.

    Obama is a plastic dummy who is lord of the Police State USSA.

    You are being watched, sheeple.

    1. Re:Obama is a Police state dictator. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      I love how you are trying to poison the well and make anyone who thinks outside the prescribed box appear tainted before they even comment. Here's a thought though, shut the fuck up with your propaganda you fucking thread shaping troll.

  2. Asian-only team? by loufoque · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Can't the US innovate in one of its most prestigious technology universities without importing researchers from Asia?

    1. Re:Asian-only team? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Apparently not. Yankee stupid, drink all day like Russians. Chinks beat daily by parents, 18 Hr Schools. Motivation!

      Stupid americans.

    2. Re:Asian-only team? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, as the american researchers are too busy visiting the sororities ;)

    3. Re:Asian-only team? by vivian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One of the things that makes US reasearch strong is the ability of it's universities to attract te best and brightest from all around the world. This is nothing new - it has always been thus - though perhals this is incresingly so as the state of secondary education seems to be in decline compared to opter parts of the world.

      When researchers stop coming to the US, the state of
      research there will go into rapid decline.The US isn't alone though - it's the same story in Australia too.

      Given the already established centres for excellence in the US, it's a favoured destination for smart and motivated people from India and Asia, as well as other parts of the world to further their education and opportunities.

      Half the world's population is Asian or India/Bangadesh/Pakistan, so naturally you are going to see many from those regions. Be glad for it - or they would be busy innovationg wherever they came from instead of the US.

    4. Re:Asian-only team? by rioki · · Score: 2

      European researchers work at MIT and nobody beats an eye,
      Asian researchers work at MIT and everybody looses their mind.

    5. Re:Asian-only team? by qbast · · Score: 2

      Just wait until African researcher works at MIT ...

    6. Re:Asian-only team? by amn108 · · Score: 1

      The problem is not imported researchers - minds migrate all the time, and the U.S. just as Europe has not exited forever, having been built on colonized settlements of "imported workforce" which in U.S.' case is England, Netherlands etc. The point I am trying to make is that arguably there is no such thing as Americans, just as there is no such thing as Europeans and even Englishmen etc. It's all a question about how far back you want to track ancestry before you throw it out calling it "imported".

      That said, I personally consider an American a person who has decided in his mind to integrate into a form of American culture (a different thing to label, but nonetheless) and will not consider treason, i.e. selling or giving his work to another country, such as one of his emigrated origin. That obviously is the threat and concern here.

      However, there is another thing - if we consider that formal education and early upbringing makes a person, then one would consider an Asian immigrant who were brought up and schooled in Asia, as an Asian, not an American, even if they have gotten a job and lived their entire grown life in U.S. On the other hand, if we consider the adult life as making a person, then this Asian would indeed be considered an American.

      I don't think there is one way of looking at this. "importing researchers" is a gross generalization and factors outlined above must be taken into account, in my opinion. Not all imported researchers are alike, and there is no shame admitting that the brain of this or that researcher has been formed elsewhere than U.S. or vice versa.

    7. Re:Asian-only team? by amn108 · · Score: 1

      To follow up on my post above, let us consider Thomas Edison, a famous American inventor and by most accounts, a great person (please, no Tesla-related discussions ;-)

      He is reported to be of Dutch ancestry, but his American/Canadian ancestry goes centuries back, and this makes a good case for simply calling him American on most if not all factors. Simpler put, the man is American without a doubt for most discussion cases and purposes.

      Whether todays "American" researchers like associate professor Kim (presented in the MIT video above) can be considered American, is debatable, and what is more clear is that they are definitely LESS American than Thomas Edison was.

    8. Re:Asian-only team? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      European researchers work at MIT and nobody beats an eye,
      Asian researchers work at MIT and everybody looses their mind.

      Uh, who is "everybody"? Certainly not MIT itself. Stats on their international students show that about 50% of all international students and scholars come from Asia, much more than Europe.

      MIT cares about "diversity" numbers, sure, but they already can claim that they are a "minority majority" campus with over 51% of undergraduates from minorities. So, they'd really have no reason to further inflate the Asian numbers... unless, well, the Asian students were actually more qualified.

      Which means Asian researchers are probably working at MIT because MIT actually is looking for highly qualified people -- and thus, MIT hired/admitted them.

      The only people "losing their mind" are racists, who clearly aren't "everybody." (If they were, MIT wouldn't have such high numbers of minorities in the first place.)

      And why are we discussing this anyway? TFA has a photo of the lab team, which is certainly not all Asian in composition.

    9. Re:Asian-only team? by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Why do we need sneaky, agile robots? It seems we are mindlessly building our overlords. How long before we are trying to stuff brain/brain stem into a robot?

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    10. Re:Asian-only team? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      American passport? American. Simple as that. There's no need to get all racisty on it.

    11. Re:Asian-only team? by ThatsDrDangerToYou · · Score: 1

      European researchers work at MIT and nobody beats an eye, Asian researchers work at MIT and everybody looses their mind.

      One of my favorite (oh sorry, favourite for you spelling challenged Euros :-) .. things about grad school was that our group of friends was from all over the world. I enjoyed being a "minority" white boy.

    12. Re:Asian-only team? by Tyrannicsupremacy · · Score: 1

      Because they're cool!

      --
      http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png
    13. Re:Asian-only team? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never been to Hawaii huh? Get out more it could be good for you.

    14. Re:Asian-only team? by rioki · · Score: 1

      Did you actually read the GP post I was jokingly replying to?

      Can't the US innovate in one of its most prestigious technology universities without importing researchers from Asia?

      Well at least some mods got the joke...

  3. Of course you use force control to run fast. by Animats · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That article is written as if that crowd invented running using force control. Of course you use force control. Everybody in the field knows that by now. I patented that 20 years ago. The Scout II robot at McGill, developed by Prof. Martin Buehler, used that approach. Buehler went on to become the designer of BigDog, but never got much public credit for it and quit to work for iRobot.

    The key to legged running in non-trivial situations is careful management of ground traction. Traction is first priority, then balance, then foot placement. Historically, everybody worried about foot placement first, but that turns out to be backwards. As soon as you get off flat surfaces with good traction, traction control dominates.

    The next unsolved problem in that area is not going fast. It's starting, stopping, and turning fast. Most of the legged robots accelerate very slowly, and don't make abrupt high-speed turns. Big Dog starts by trotting in place, then extending the gait out. Starting fast, stopping fast, and turning fast are all facets of the same problem. You have to take one stride using completely different control algorithms than you use for normal locomotion. That's all I'm going to say about this for now.

    1. Re:Of course you use force control to run fast. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The key to legged running in non-trivial situations is careful management of ground traction. Traction is first priority, then balance, then foot placement. Historically, everybody worried about foot placement first, but that turns out to be backwards. As soon as you get off flat surfaces with good traction, traction control dominates.

      Pardon my ignorant question, but how is it a problem to have traction control? Wouldn't it be enough to glue traction strips to the feet or something?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Of course you use force control to run fast. by Splab · · Score: 1

      Try it and go run on a wet grassfield; should be obvious enough...

    3. Re:Of course you use force control to run fast. by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Funnily enough, those issues are the ones that the article is actually about:

      “Most robots are sluggish and heavy, and thus they cannot control force in high-speed situations,” Kim says. “That’s what makes the MIT cheetah so special: You can actually control the force profile for a very short period of time, followed by a hefty impact with the ground, which makes it more stable, agile, and dynamic.”

      Kim says what makes the robot so dynamic is a custom-designed, high-torque-density electric motor, designed by Jeffrey Lang, the Vitesse Professor of Electrical Engineering at MIT. These motors are controlled by amplifiers designed by David Otten, a principal research engineer in MIT’s Research Laboratory of Electronics. The combination of such special electric motors and custom-designed, bio-inspired legs allow force control on the ground without relying on delicate force sensors on the feet.

      Kim and his colleagues — research scientist Hae-Won Park and graduate student Meng Yee Chuah — will present details of the bounding algorithm this month at the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems in Chicago.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    4. Re:Of course you use force control to run fast. by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Actually the first thing you need is a giant plastic ball. Let your robot run inside the ball like a hamster. Then you don't have to worry about half of this stuff.

    5. Re:Of course you use force control to run fast. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Pardon my ignorant question, but how is it a problem to have traction control? Wouldn't it be enough to glue traction strips to the feet or something?

      Real animals have traction control.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Of course you use force control to run fast. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the first thing you need is a giant plastic ball. Let your robot run inside the ball like a hamster.

      Hamster balls have terrible problems climbing stairs. Wheel (or ball) locomotion is great for robots and engineered systems: rotary actuators are easy to build, few moving parts, control is simple, and they "coast" for free, especially if you have a road- or rail-way. They do have limitations, mostly related to terrain: they have trouble with steps; they have trouble with voids or gaps. Legged locomotion is a lot harder engineering problem, but it does mean that your robot can probably go to all the places you can go yourself.

    7. Re:Of course you use force control to run fast. by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 2

      MIT news always gives the impression they invented something new. I remember a couple of years ago when NPR did a story about some MIT students launching a weather balloon with a camera attached and took pictures from the edge of space. They even went as far as suggesting that one day NASA could use this technology to perform experiments cheaper.

      I was taken aback by this announcement, since:

      1) Who hasn't launched a weather balloon with a camera attached?

      2) (The thing that really made me laugh) I was waiting for the weather to become favorable for our research gondola to be launched at NASA's balloon facility.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    8. Re:Of course you use force control to run fast. by Animats · · Score: 2

      Pardon my ignorant question, but how is it a problem to have traction control? Wouldn't it be enough to glue traction strips to the feet or something?

      That's like wearing shoes with golf spikes all the time.

      Traction control for feet does roughly the same thing as automotive traction control for cars. The basic idea is to keep the sideways force below the break-loose point. This is the down force on the wheel times the coefficient of friction.

      For car wheels, the down force is mostly constant. For a legged robot, it changes throughout the ground contact phase So the side force has to be actively controlled and changed throughout the ground contact. It's also necessary to compensate for leg angle.

      Legs have an additional option. If a leg has three joints, you can adjust the angle at which the contact force is applied. This is a big win on hills.

      I used to work on this stuff in the mid-1990s, but nobody was interested in building legged robots back then. It could be used for animation, but it was overkill for games. I never expected that DARPA would spend $120 million on BigDog. Robotics projects in the 1990s were tiny.

    9. Re:Of course you use force control to run fast. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2) (The thing that really made me laugh) I was waiting for the weather to become favorable for our research gondola to be launched at NASA's balloon facility.

      What's the difficulty in using a big balloon (or 4 blimps) to "launch" a rocket though? This chart:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_orbital_energy#Tangential_velocities_at_altitude

      Says we need 30MJ/kg for low earth orbit if I'm reading it right. If a balloon can haul you up 10-20km on the cheap (a big if, I know), why not? To reword my question, how much of that is pure lift vs the delta V needed to not intersect the ground on the way down?

      And a bonus question for the mathematically OCD, how much energy is wasted in a rocket vs using that fuel in a hot air balloon? I assume the slowness of the balloon ascent means a longer exposure to the frigid air and the larger surface area a greater loss of heat (and thus lift), intuitively it seems viable. Maybe I should submit that to XKCD :)

    10. Re:Of course you use force control to run fast. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snakes don't have problems with stairs, or climbing trees, or swimming, not sure about backing up (but I think they could if they coordinated movements properly)...again, it's more engineering than rotary...might be less than legs...

    11. Re:Of course you use force control to run fast. by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      I'm not a rocket scientist so I wouldn't know. ;)

      Operationally you have have several things working against you:

      1. Lift capacity of the balloon will limit the total weight of both your payload and rocket.

      2. Weather conditions have to be right for launch. The favorable weather conditions for balloon launches are more restrictive than rocket launches.The balloon is HUGE and you will want little to no surface winds below 100ft. If there is a little wind (slight breeze is more accurate), you need to have it blowing away from structures and towards the safety corridor.

      3. Even if the surface conditions are right, you're most certainly limited to two brief periods during the year called "turnaround". This is when the jet stream is changing direction and the high altitude winds are the slowest. Why? Well you can't have the balloon or it's launch platform begin decent over populated areas (if you wanted to reuse the launch platform). If you don't care about recovery, you could plan to have the balloon go over water outside of turnaround but the speed and direction of the gondola could make reaching your desired orbit somewhat complicated.

      I think at least for the short term. It's more reliable to just launch from the ground and because of the labor costs of everyone waiting for favorable balloon conditions probably slightly cheaper too. Especially when you'll have to use balloon control and launch people on the ground as well as rocket control and launch personnel at float. It's easy to focus on the rocket fuel costs and not consider the helium, gondola, balloon, balloon launch costs (labor) in the first phase.

      I know there are people working on this. I'm not one of them.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    12. Re:Of course you use force control to run fast. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the reply to my AC inquiry. I was assuming a hot air style balloon, so Helium wouldn't come into it and the fuel to heat it would either have been ground based (pre-heat) or otherwise much reduced but lets call that an even swap. It seems like a disposable balloon rig would be cheaper than a disposable rocket booster rig, etc so I guess it comes down to "aiming" or course correcting from 20km up (21km is the record FYI) + wind drift vs a ground station.

      The authorities in my area would look most unfavorably on trying any of this, but if not, I'd try launching a multiple weather balloon rig (with hydrogen/helium) with a beefy model rocket on it. Recovery might be a problem, since it's ocean for a thousand miles in any direction...

    13. Re:Of course you use force control to run fast. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      thanks

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  4. What? by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

    Weight/Inertia... This is MIT?

  5. Military turn on by seoras · · Score: 1

    I can just see the military getting hot and excited about a battle field robot that can run as fast as a cheetah, jump over obstacles, with either a bomb strapped to it's back or a gun of sorts.
    Who's funding these guys?
    It's great technology but I don't think I'm being too cynical in struggling to imagine any practical applications outside of defence.
    Robot greyhound races?

    1. Re:Military turn on by gnupun · · Score: 1

      Robot greyhound races?

      What's going to take/give delivery to uber/drone delivery services? A cheetah.

    2. Re:Military turn on by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      They don't give a rats ass about business, or employee's. So WTF do they care about taxes?

    3. Re: Military turn on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TFA tells you who is funding them... DARPA.

    4. Re:Military turn on by seoras · · Score: 1

      Delivery service won't work, someone will throw themselves under the dog and then get a slick lawyer.
      Amazon's safer in the sky and knows it. ...and it's funded by DARPA, I stopped reading when I got to the video.
      So it is military backed.

    5. Re:Military turn on by philip.paradis · · Score: 1

      As part of Mr. Lee's good neighbor policy, all Rat Things are programmed never to break the sound barrier in a populated area. But Fido's in too much of a hurry to worry about the good neighbor policy. Jack the sound barrier. Bring the noise.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    6. Re:Military turn on by avgjoe62 · · Score: 1

      it's funded by DARPA,

      Welcome to the internet...

      stopped reading when I got to the video.

      I certainly hope so...

      --

      How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

    7. Re:Military turn on by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Search and rescue. Getting video into dangerous places better than the current wheeled "robots" (really remote control). Video patrol of just about anyplace - constrained environment like a mall, open environment like hiking trails in a park.

      But what you really want is a smarter dog, not a robot.

  6. A video that doesn't play on mobile devices by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 0

    Their robot may be stat of the art, but their website sure isn't.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re: A video that doesn't play on mobile devices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worked fine on mine.

  7. Excellent by mentil · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now all they need are robotic gazelles. Its silent electric motor lets it sneak up on its prey on the robo-savannah, consuming its delicious battery juices so it can live another day.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But do robotic cheetahs dream of electric gazelles?

  8. Implementation Fail by camperdave · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If this is an implementation of a cheetah's running locomotion, it is a complete fail.
    - When running, a cheetah's spine flexes. Not this robot.
    - When running, a cheetah's hind legs land in front of its forelegs. Not this robot.
    - When running, a cheetah's legs land with a full pacing stagger, ie left first then right. The feet on this robot land simultaneously.

    Check out a real cheetah running. It's like they didn't do any research at all.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Implementation Fail by ctid · · Score: 1

      I like the way you took the trouble to find a video of a cheetah running, but didn't bother to read the first paragraph after the MIT video.

      --
      Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
    2. Re:Implementation Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also: hip and shoulder joints far too low on the torso; legs too short; didn't see anything worth calling claws on the feet; no tail; evident lack of desire/ability to kill and eat gazelles... may as well just call this the dachsund and be done with it.

    3. Re:Implementation Fail by Friend+of+Nature · · Score: 1

      Yes, it looks more like a bounding pig than a cheetah. But the jumping is pretty cool.

    4. Re:Implementation Fail by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If this is an implementation of a cheetah's running locomotion

      It's not...

      it is a complete fail.

      ...so it's not.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    5. Re:Implementation Fail by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's because the robot's not galloping, it's bounding. It's a completely different gait.

      Believe it or not, people who study animal locomotion do actually do research on animal locomotion.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    6. Re:Implementation Fail by Rashdot · · Score: 2

      So they should rename it to cheatah?

      --
      This is not the sig you're looking for.
    7. Re:Implementation Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How do I requirements management? Holy shit Batman! Let me finish your list for you:

      -When running, a cheetah has a beating heart. Not this robot.
      -When running, a cheetah has breathing lungs. Not this robot.
      -When running, a cheetah has "sense and avoid" capability. Not this robot.

      "It's like they didn't do any research at all."
      Your suggestions aren't even unreasonable but your conclusion is total bullshit!

      Their biggest accomplishment IMHO was coming to a reasonable combination of design compromises to allow them to make this thing untethered and battery powered. Tethered robots are interesting as research tools but I generally don't consider them mature vehicles capable of autonomy until they are efficient enough to "cut the cord".

      Adding degrees of freedom(DoF) would have almost certainly increased the total vehicle mass reducing battery life and increasing the power demands on their high-torque power-density electric-motor joint-concept(which is what is allowing them to go untethered).

      Further, controlling the inverse kinematics of additional DoF would have increased the weight and power requirements of the onboard computer processing. Can you justify the added value the additional DoF/longer lever arms on the hind quarters would provide to the computer science research being conducted to justify the added costs of tether related mobility reduction?

      You've committed the "perfect solution fallacy". Please write "perfect is the enemy of good enough" 1000x before you cost your employer a lot of money.

    8. Re:Implementation Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure why you got tagged as a troll because your observations are spot on, the thing runs (and jumps) like a sheep and not at all like a cheetah.

    9. Re:Implementation Fail by avgjoe62 · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not, people who study animal locomotion do actually do research on animal locomotion.

      Wouldn't copying from an actual animal be considered cheetah-ing?

      Thank you! I'll be here all week. Try the veal... and don't forget to tip your waitress!

      --

      How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

    10. Re:Implementation Fail by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      Also, it's made out of metal, a real cheetah is made out of meat, it's like they totally didn't try at all. They need to have their funding removed immediately.

    11. Re:Implementation Fail by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they could DRESS UP the robot in meat? . . . . no, that's been done.

    12. Re:Implementation Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha, ha, ha... no. This robot is from the MIT biomimetics lab. Copying an animal is what they do.

    13. Re:Implementation Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -When running, a cheetah has a beating heart. Not this robot.
      -When running, a cheetah has breathing lungs. Not this robot.

      Neither of which has anything to do with locomotion.

      -When running, a cheetah has "sense and avoid" capability. Not this robot.

      Well, not sure how it jumped the wall obstacle without a sense and avoid, unless they just put the wall at the point where the robot was pre-programmed to jump, and said "Abracadabra".

  9. Terminator cheetah by stone_horse · · Score: 1

    we're all doomed

  10. Why legs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not roll like Droideka? Have one spring for jumping over obstacles.

  11. But the question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So how long until I can commute to work on a 4 legged motorbike style vehicle?

    1. Re:But the question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You keep holding your breath for that one, I'll rather wait for the flying cars

  12. Duh by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    In general, the faster the desired speed, the more force must be applied to propel the robot forward.

    I could've told 'em that.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Duh by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but you probably would have told them the wrong thing. You don't need the force to push you forward, you need to push down. I was watching a show the other day where they discussed how they train runners to get faster. You need to hit your feet down on the ground as hard as you can, and then you will go further on each stride and keep the momentum going. Only at the start do you need to push forward with the force.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  13. Of course you use force control to run fast. by Rollgunner · · Score: 1

    Starting fast, stopping fast, and turning fast are all facets of the same problem.

    Reminds me of the old joke: I'm an excellent driver. I only have three problems : Starting, Stopping and Turning.

  14. Fahrenheit 451? by Albinoman · · Score: 1

    It's like someone read Fahrenheit 451 and thought, "I could make a mechanical hound!" A few years ago I remember they made a fuel cell that could run on meat as well. Add a good gas chromatography and they'll have a viscious man eating robot dog!

    1. Re:Fahrenheit 451? by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Why would a viscious man want to eat a robot dog?

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    2. Re:Fahrenheit 451? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would a viscious man want to eat a robot dog?

      The minerals would be a solid reason.

  15. uncany? by typo-lfm · · Score: 1

    Somehow this robot doesn't seem as creepy as the "big dog" we have seen so much of.

  16. Nobody escapes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    from the mechanical hound.

  17. action 52 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just hope they don't figure out the jump glitch, they'll become invincible!

  18. Not a cheetah by Cytotoxic · · Score: 2

    Exceptionally cool and really fast legged robot. I really liked the ability to alter its gait to bound over an obstacle.

    But the defining characteristic of cheetah locomotion is not just the 70mph speed. It is the use of a long, flexible, back to power and lengthen the stride. This bot has a completely inflexible body and is solely powered via the leg joints. Not very cheetah-like. More like a sheep.

    But sheep-bot is just not very cool. And if I had built the thing, I would have named it a cheetah robot too. Or maybe Mechanical Hound or Robot 451.

  19. MIT please use native speakers in promo videos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The guys in the video are clearly experts in their field but I feel their place should be answering an interviewer's questions and not promoting their product (at least not in english). It's perfectly OK for them to speak in their native language and have subtitles, but having them speak English in a promo video just distracts from the true message the video should send.

  20. Too much choice? by nashv · · Score: 0

    As a scientific programmer, I beginning to see a 'too much choice' scenario. There is now Rust, Dart, Julia, Swift, Go in the 'immature' languages scene, and Python, Ruby, Java, C# etc. in the mature language scene.

    None of the new languages though are being developed with a a definite specific goal or enhancement. They are hardly ever 'feature-complete', in the sense that they are multi-purpose, cross-platform, with good standardized development tools on all platforms.
    Almost feels like they are being developed 'cause we can.'

    It leads to a lot of divided effort writing libraries and packages for so many languages. I for one am happy the Apple won't open-source Swift.

    It would be better to simply enhance something like Python with JIT and integration into the browser etc. Attempts are being made, I know, but they aren't progressing early fast enough to be useful.

    --
    Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
  21. universities cost needs to come down the forerns by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    universities cost needs to come down the Foreigner are not locked into loans like the USC are.

  22. Are you secretly a non-robotic gazelle? by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Now all they need are robotic gazelles.

    That sounds like something a gazelle might say.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  23. Hate the name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is no cheetah. 10 mph makes this more of a pig.
    I hate the name smart car too. The smart car has no smarts. It's more of a small car.

  24. the real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does MIT cheetah Dream of Electric Sheep?

  25. Yes.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But will it suck your dick?

  26. When Can I get mine by Parts09 · · Score: 1

    I want my own stealth killing cheetah since I can't have the real thing. Less chance of them turning on their owners and eating them...

    Until the robot uprising happens that is. I bow down to you my Cheetah overlords!

    --
    My opinions are completely my own and do not reflect those of any entity I may be associated with - including the voices
  27. Too much choice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a scientific programmer, I beginning to see a 'too much choice' scenario. There is now Rust, Dart, Julia, Swift, Go in the 'immature' languages scene, and Python, Ruby, Java, C# etc. in the mature language scene.

    None of the new languages though are being developed with a a definite specific goal or enhancement. They are hardly ever 'feature-complete', in the sense that they are multi-purpose, cross-platform, with good standardized development tools on all platforms.
    Almost feels like they are being developed 'cause we can.'

    It leads to a lot of divided effort writing libraries and packages for so many languages. I for one am happy the Apple won't open-source Swift.

    It would be better to simply enhance something like Python with JIT and integration into the browser etc. Attempts are being made, I know, but they aren't progressing early fast enough to be useful.

    Why does this comment belong in this thread? It's nothing to do with the MIT Cheetah...

  28. Mr. Burns by ArcadeMan · · Score: 0

    Release the mechanical hounds.

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  29. oblig. by seven+of+five · · Score: 2

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

  30. blah, blah, blah, scary black man... by publiclurker · · Score: 0

    Can't you trailer trash come up with some new tricks to amuse your betters?

  31. Been there done that. by digitalPhant0m · · Score: 2

    Hasn't this already been accomplished a few years ago. Boston Dynamics has been doing this for awhile.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  32. Quiet Robot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do they want to make the robot more quiet? I want to be able to hear them when they are coming after me.

  33. Of course you use force control to run fast. by Onnimikki · · Score: 1

    The Scout II robot galloping work was improved upon with the PAW system. Even the PAW galloping trials (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRLJB3glQjQ) predates the Cheetah by eight years.

  34. What about this is newsworthy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does MIT constantly get into the news for doing such obvious things? It is as if the real research they are conducting is in how to get press attention for repeating the work of others and promoting the obvious. This was done by Boston Dynamics long ago, although they were a little more realistic about naming their robots... this one looks and runs more like a pug than a cheetah.

  35. He doesn't have very good hearing... by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    "Our robot can be silent and as efficient as animals. The only things you hear are the feet hitting the ground."

    He doesn't have very good hearing. Real animals can be a lot quieter than his motors. His robots are making sounds - he just isn't hearing them.

    Furthermore his future goal of 30 mph is pretty slow. I have dogs that run twice that. Real cheetahs run almost three times that.

    Not to diss his achievements with his robots but he should stop spinning the PR so hard. Exaggeration isn't necessary.

  36. Baaah! by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1

    Watching the last few seconds of the video all I could think was:

    Cover it in wool and you've built something an android might dream of....

    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.