Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Underwater Vehicle Uses a Balloon To Dart Like an Octopus

Posted by timothy on from the in-like-a-lion-out-like-an-octopus dept.

Zothecula writes When you inflate a balloon and then release it without tying the valve shut, it certainly shoots away quickly. Octopi utilize the same basic principle, although they suck in and then rapidly expel water. An international team of scientists have now replicated that system in a soft-bodied miniature underwater vehicle, which could pave the way for very quickly-accelerating full-size submersibles.

73 comments

  1. octopi? by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

    Octopi? Pull the other one. Or the other other one. Or the other other one. Or the alternate other one. Or the other one. Or the other one. Or the other one.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re: octopi? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 3, Informative

      This. Octopus is Greek, not Latin. Despite what Merriam-Webster might say, the plural is octopuses or octopodes, not octopi.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    2. Re: octopi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Octopus is English, derived from Greek. All three plurals are in current use, and it is usage, not etymology, that defines what is "correct".

    3. Re: octopi? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Octopus is English from Greek extraction. Octopi is usually accepted and since English is by consensus rather than ordained by some authority all are valid.

    4. Re: octopi? by TheMathemagician · · Score: 3, Informative

      Octopi is based on the mistaken assumption that octopus is a second declension Latin noun. It is simply wrong. Octopuses is the correct English plural.

    5. Re: octopi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      English is by consensus

      No it isn't.

    6. Re: octopi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And hippopotomi is NOT the plural of hippopotamus, which is also from Greek rather than Latin. Unless you're a pretentious ignoramus.

      The plural is either the English-derived hippopotamuses, or a Greek-derived form such as hippoipotamus (horses of river) or hippopotamodes (horse of rivers) or hippoipotamodes (horses of rivers).

    7. Re: octopi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your assertion is based on the presumption that etymology defines correctness. You are simply wrong.

      Adults (without learning disabilities, brain damage, etc.) don't go around speaking their native language wrongly. They way a language is used in practice is, by definition, the correct use of it, and if there is more than one plural in use then they are all correct.

    8. Re: octopi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always favoured hippospotamus, just because it sounds right.

    9. Re: octopi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They way a language is used in practice is, by definition, the correct use of it

      Are they?

    10. Re: octopi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      English is by consensus

      No it isn't.

      Yes it is. Who's with me?

    11. Re: octopi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "isn't" is a perfect example of "by consensus".

    12. Re: octopi? by Drethon · · Score: 1

      I'm hoping the GP was sarcasm...

    13. Re: octopi? by Immerman · · Score: 2

      I really don't think it is - because they're exactly right. Not that one person's abuse changes anything, but as a certain abuse becomes common usage it simultaneously becomes correct. Such is the nature of a living language - the ultimate authority on correctness is the common usage. As an example I give you "ain't" - long demonized, but finally granted a place in all the reputable dictionaries. About time too - amn't just doesn't flow off the tongue. Or my own use above of the word "they" as a gender non-specifc singular pronoun. Still not a settled issue, but it has become far more broadly accepted over the past several years, while the various proposed alternatives such as 'te' adopted from other languages have mostly fallen into disuse.

      Now, I can quite agree on fighting against the weakening of the language - my own pet peeve is the repurposing of relatively unique words such as "cool" or "awesome" into generic concepts that already have many synonyms, creating a hole in the language where clarity is no longer readily possible. How many intensifiers and synonyms for sex do we really need? But English is a trade tongue, a bastard language from the very beginning, making it even more inconsistent and fluid than most. Personally I'd much prefer we moved towards correcting the inconsistencies: mouses, gooses, etc., but failing that a little more random flavor doesn't acually damage the language much, and pluralization by "us"->"i" at least follows a form already in use in other words. Better than "mice", and I'd really rather not have to teach gradeschoolers greek, latin, etc. so that they can pluralize "properly".

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    14. Re: octopi? by Buchenskjoll · · Score: 1

      If it is indeed so, then "then" and "than" are completely interchangable judging from internet use.

      --
      -- Make America hate again!
    15. Re: octopi? by moondo · · Score: 1

      Regardless of whether it is octopi or octopuses, I took a look at the design and I conclude that it needs more tentacles to really live up to its name.

    16. Re: octopi? by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Actually it entered the language from Latin, which itself adopted the word from Greek, so either form could be considered technically correct, or would you have us trace the etymology of every word in the language back to its very first usage in something like its modern form? I'll warn you now that hat will wreak utter havoc on pluralization rules.

      Regardless of where the word came from we're not speaking Greek, or Latin, we're speaking English, a bastard trade tongue that's been in heavy flux since before it was given a name. The "proper" pluralization is to use either the standard-rule "hippopotamuses", the less common but still in use rule "hippopotami". No matter which you choose it's still superior to the historically arbitrary "mice" or "geese", which follow no common rule at all and require us all to waste mind-space on linguistic trivia.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    17. Re: octopi? by maroberts · · Score: 1

      I always favoured hippospotamus, just because it sounds right.

      That would be the lesser polka dotted hippospotamus, would it?

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    18. Re: octopi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the potamus bit is silent...see how you fell for my trap! Fear my elite AC skills.

    19. Re: octopi? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Or is is like "moose" ... one moose, two moose, three moose? Look at all the octopus.

      Let's remember ... and I say this as a native speaker who has had to learn all of the exceptions ... English is a loose bastardization of French, Latin, German, Greek, Gaelic, and who knows what else.

      It consists of 'rules' which are inconsistent, random, arbitrary, and depend on you actually knowing the rules from the language we stole the word from.

      I've honestly given up on caring about some of the corner cases, and having spent many years listening to the small errors non-native speakers make ... the errors they make are completely logical. The rules often aren't.

      Octopodes sounds incredibly stupid, because I can't think of another word in the English language which is pluralized with "podes" -- which makes it such an extreme outlier as to be doubtful.

      I find the more I understand and know the "rules" of English, the more I think it's a bit of a joke to claim these are, in fact, rules ... any language which involves knowing the rules of the half dozen languages we stole words from is mostly just winging it.

      I'm aren't convincimicated that debatalizing betwixt octopodes, octopi, octipadum, or octipum embiggens us in any cromulent way. ;-)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    20. Re: octopi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your assertion is based on the presumption that etymology defines correctness.

      You sound like a pedantic octopussy to me.

    21. Re: octopi? by Caesar+Tjalbo · · Score: 1

      Octopodes sounds incredibly stupid, because I can't think of another word in the English language which is pluralized with "podes" -- which makes it such an extreme outlier as to be doubtful.

      Antipode

      --
      "I'm not much interested in interoperability. I want substitutability. I want to be able to throw your software out."
    22. Re: octopi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, hippopotamos is a second declension noun in Greek, so the Greek plural is hippopotamoi. Latin and English tend to drop the first letter of a diphthong (like Utopia for Outopia), so hippopotami would be correct.

    23. Re: octopi? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      OK, smart ass ... what's the singular of antipodes? Yes, antipode.

      Now, if it was antipus, I might think you have a point.

      I'm not saying there isn't an example but I'm not convinced there's anything else which would be done in the same way "octopus -> octopodes".

      If there is, I'd love to see it. We don't have circupodes, or discupodes. *Is* there another word in English which ends in "us" and is pluralized as "odes"? Does the 'p' play a role here?

      If this is an outlier from the Greek, do we have any similar uses to extrapolate to a rule? One instance does not a rule make.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    24. Re: octopi? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      If enough people make the same mistake, then the language has to adopt and accept the usage. Remember the term "petitio principii" which meant circular argument that is translated into English as "begs the question"? (in the sense the answer is begging the question to be accepted as right) Well by consensus (or consensi ?) its meaning has changed. Now "begs the question" simply means "raises the question", no connection to circular arguments.

      I have used boni to mean bonuses and it did not raise too many eyebrows either. If enough people do it boni would become the synonym of bonuses. Langauge is a democracy, we fools get to own it or pwn it.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    25. Re:octopi? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Mmmm. Pie.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    26. Re: octopi? by easyTree · · Score: 1

      I see a disturbing trend, even within mainstream newspaper's (!), to use greengrocers' apostrophe's. I'm no linguist but it hurt's my eye's to see it.

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
    27. Re: octopi? by easyTree · · Score: 1

      "May I have a grilled halloumi panini"

      *shudder*

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
    28. Re: octopi? by easyTree · · Score: 1

      English is by consensus

      No it isn't.

      Yes it is. Who's with me?

      Nope, youre on you're pwn.

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
    29. Re: octopi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Adults (without learning disabilities, brain damage, etc.) don't go around speaking their native language wrongly."

      OK. Let's see if you still agree with that statement after spending a few hours in the "hood". I can assure you that Adults regularly mangle the English language, and I can further assure you that no matter how often and hard they mangle it, "Da Shiznit" will never be correct English.

    30. Re: octopi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless by "correct" you mean "doesn't make you look like a fool," and the reader is someone who believes in the tenets of National Grammatical Socialism...and that person is also in a position to decide whether your thesis or dissertation or resume passes muster or not... then suddenly, I think you'll find, what is "correct" is not what you wish it were, and it matters where the word came from.

      Of course, you can insist such people are assholes until the ending of the world, but that doesn't change the facts.

    31. Re: octopi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iffn all be's valid, and tehrez no authoritsises in Inglish, () *** > thens whats I is righting write knauou iz valid tooowo, rIETE?

    32. Re: octopi? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I didn't say everything is valid. I said English is by consensus.

      If there is a consensus amongst English speakers that that is valid, then it is valid.

      There isn't so it isn't.

  2. One-shot motor by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So it's super-efficient and all... if you intend to move no farther than 10 ft forward.

    For greater distances, you could, say, keep the balloon constantly inflated with some kind of pump. And then, to save unnecessary weight and complication, you could do away with the balloon and let the pump shoot out the back of the vehicle directly.

    I shall call my invention a hydrojet. Genius!

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:One-shot motor by Splab · · Score: 2

      No no, this is great for submarines, just sit there and wait for the torpedo to hit you, and then in the last second, you unleash the balloons and instantly jump 10 feet away!

      It's flawless!

    2. Re:One-shot motor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even better if you fill the balloon with 'ink' that confuses the torp.

    3. Re:One-shot motor by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Well, it might be flawless, if submarines weren't 30+ feet in diameter....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:One-shot motor by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Nope, then you've utterly lost the hydrodynamic performance benefits. 10 body-lengths per second is pretty respectable by biological standards, and an order of magnitude beyond anything we've created except for torpedoes, which only maintain their speed by consuming embarrassing quantities of fuel.

      Obviously at this stage it's kind of useless, but it's the first significant boost in our artifacts underwater performance in many decades, and I would bet that before the end of the century many craft will engage in efficient rhythmic pulsations rather than steady state propulsion. Especially the unmanned ones - I imagine it might be excessively disruptive for normal usage by crewed vessels.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    5. Re:One-shot motor by Immerman · · Score: 1

      And that's a problem because...? As I recall hydrodynamic systems tend to scale linearly - there is actually far less variation in biological speeds measured in body-lengths per second than when using an absolute metric. Well, at least when looking at "performance" animals - plenty of slowpokes out there too, not everyone is optimized for speed.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    6. Re:One-shot motor by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Using gas propulsion on a submersible is hardly a new idea. Compressed air torpedos, like the Whitehead torpedo, were used in the XIXth century. Some of them were used by Norway during WWII to sink a Nazi cruiser. The torpedos were over 30 years old by then but they still worked.

      Even a lot of more modern torpedos still use gas propulsion. The VA-111 Shkval uses a solid-fuel rocket for propulsion. Other rockets use hydrogen peroxide monopropellant rocket propulsion or other kinds of rocket propulsion.

      Nothing to see here. Move along.

    7. Re:One-shot motor by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Hmm, 15 radius means the torp will still hit.

      A torp passing rather farther away will still detonate (we haven't used contact torpedoes since WW2) and break the sub's hull. How far away? well, that depends on the torpedo and the sub, but it's probably still classified.

      Suffice it to say that unless that hydrodynamic system scales linearly from octopus to SSN688-sized, it won't be far enough away when the torpedo booms to make a difference....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    8. Re:One-shot motor by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Fair point, but I'd add some caveats.
      Firstly, if the torpedo is on a proximity fuse, then it's going to be at least detonation distance + escape burst away, which should at least reduce damage from a single survivable blast. The blast would also then be coming from behind, which I suspect would reduce the damage dramatically compared to a broadside hit.

      Secondly, the point of such evasion tactics is typically just that - evasion. I would suspect that it would be accompanied by chaff, decoys, or active countermeasures - basically buying the sub a few more seconds to dodge.

      As for scaling - it's not "squirting" propulsion, but swimming seems to scale fairly linearly from minnow to blue whale size, so I'd not bet against it.

      Most significantly though, you're also only considering submarines, which may not be the best use of such technology - it's going to be awful uncomfortable for the crew to be rhythmically "squirted" through the sea. Think instead of the applications for unmanned undersea "drones" - an increasingly significant technological niche for both military and research applications.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    9. Re:One-shot motor by SiChemist · · Score: 1

      Use a flexible internal skelton to stretch the elastic skin and draw in water from the front through a one-way valve. When it's full, the skelton can return to normal and a valve at the back can release the pressure to let it jet forward.

      --
      God is imaginary
  3. This was on Gizmag four days ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But it doesn't mention 'climate change', how did it get on Slashdot?

  4. This doesn't seem to be a robot by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

    Why does the linked paper refer to it as a "robot"? It seems to be a projectile at best. Is there some definition of robot I'm not aware of?

    1. Re:This doesn't seem to be a robot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there some definition of robot I'm not aware of?

      Hard to tell without knowing your background, but given that the word exists in multiple languages and is used extensively in manufacturing industry, science and science fiction it is very likely that there are several definitions of robot that you're not aware of.

    2. Re:This doesn't seem to be a robot by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. I am still curious what definition this device would fall under.

    3. Re: This doesn't seem to be a robot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, like in South Africa all traffic lights are robots.

    4. Re:This doesn't seem to be a robot by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If it doesn't make any decisions for itself, then it's not a robot. Is it a robot?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  5. Fake article. No video. This is a kids toy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    slashdot got tricked..

  6. Click bait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This article is nothing. Not a vehicle, not a robot. If water is held in a stretched bladder and the contents are allowed to escape, much like a balloon filled with air, the bladder moves. We should investigate. Maybe there is a basic premise that Newton missed. Next Slash dot will present electrolysis: free energy from the explosive gas HYDROGEN!

    1. Re:Click bait by Immerman · · Score: 1

      It's an early stage performance analysis device - and it's performing an order of magnitude better than anything else we've got. I'd say that's at least an interesting curiosity.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:Click bait by PPH · · Score: 1

      This. The effect being analyzed is that of the contracting body cross section contribution to the propulsion provided by the expelled water. Thrust provided by a jet of water is already well understood, as this is already available on boats and other watercraft.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  7. Super efficient amphibiuous propulsion by ziggystarsky · · Score: 1

    It sounds like magic! Scientists at Slashdot have invented a mechanism that can propell any vehicle, both under water and on land. The invention works by attaching an external string. An also external human then pulls said string, and the object moves in direction of the string. Youtube video follows.

    1. Re:Super efficient amphibiuous propulsion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You'll never guess how this guy propels a submarine with this one neat trick.

    2. Re:Super efficient amphibiuous propulsion by ziggystarsky · · Score: 1

      The external human has to stand atop an external land mass, of course. Thanks for my next publication!

  8. Incomplete Design by some+old+guy · · Score: 2

    For maximum speed and efficiency, they need to combine it with the rapid-inflation capability of the blow fish.

    Presto! A suck and blow!

    (Not to be confused with the Cessna OV-10)

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    1. Re:Incomplete Design by some+old+guy · · Score: 1

      Dammit, that should be the O-2...the OV-10 was conventional.

      --
      Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    2. Re:Incomplete Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The O-2 was first flown in 1967, it was a military version of the already existing Cessna 337 Super Skymaster which was introduced in 1965. It was predated by the original Cessna 336 Skymaster which lacked retractable landing gear but still had the tractor/pusher engine configuration and first flew in 1961.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_Skymaster
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_O-2_Skymaster

  9. Turgid and doesn't get limp! by eatvegetables · · Score: 1

    Lol. This is an Onion worthy gag-uralism! Author name: Ben Coxworthy. Quote from article: "...keeps it from deflating to the point that it becomes limp and unstreamlined. It can be seen in action, in the following video." Only complaint: didn't include the words "turgid" or "engorged."

  10. It's a Dupe [/Ackbar] by OzPeter · · Score: 2

    I will admit that it was last year, but its still a dupe Octopus-Inspired Robot Matches Real Octopus For Speed

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:It's a Dupe [/Ackbar] by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I came here in hopes that it was the next step in the development of that article. Namely, that they could pump water back in and keep going.

      Any fool can let go of a water balloon. The neat thing would be refilling and releasing it in a self-contained system.

  11. What's new ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A very similar concept had an article on slashdot last september :

    http://classic.slashdot.org/story/14/09/24/1243202

    What's different between this device and the one presented today ?

    1. Re:What's new ? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Probably nothing, but Slashdot doesn't care since it means more ads.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  12. Next on the tech tree: magnetohydrodynamic drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >> I shall call my invention a hydrojet.

    Next on the tech tree: the magnetohydrodynamic drive found in Red October (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_October_%28submarine%29)

  13. Dum dum dummm.... by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

    Queue the music from The Hunt for Red October....

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  14. A Vehicle, It Is Clearly Not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the kind of thing you hope to see at the neighborhood swimming pool, not a research lab. This must be somebody's thesis, otherwise why bother trying to replicate cephalopod locomotion unless you have synthetic fast acting muscles driving the action. This is the kind of thing you see that makes the "tax dollars" trolls get restless.

    1. Re:A Vehicle, It Is Clearly Not. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I expect there are some details that are left out. Getting the correct shape to allow it stay on course, using the right material to hold the pressure. Making sure while it deflates it doesn't become to flimsy and direct it off course.

      But still for a video it isn't that impressive. A case of over hyping.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  15. Fun Science But ... by pz · · Score: 1

    I'm all for this sort of noodling around, but it seems, ah, a little low-brow for such an esteemed bunch of folks, and I say this with two of my three degrees from MIT whence the research came.

    From the article, "While it at first glance might appear to be a glorified toy..." and that is certainly the truth. Dispelling that impression is in no way helped by the audio track on the released video where someone intones "pewnnnnnnggggggg" as the vehicle is released, making the same sound that a kid would.

    I'm sure there's serious science buried beneath it all, somewhere, but it isn't evident in the article, nor in their materials apparently released to the public.

    --

    Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
  16. That demo took an "international team by jpellino · · Score: 1

    of scientists" to pull it off? I realize that term is used to as puffery under the best of situations but here it just makes it sadder. At least they went "pewwwww..." when they launched it. That means the same thing in any language. Oh, and "hyper-inflated"?

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  17. This will be awesome by easyTree · · Score: 1

    This kind of vehicle will be awesome for jello-people.

    --
    Requiem for the American Dream