Slashdot Mirror


Transforming Robot Gets Stuck In Fukushima Nuclear Reactor

An anonymous reader writes with more bad news for the people still dealing with the Fukushima nuclear accident. "The ability to change shape hasn't saved a robot probe from getting stuck inside a crippled Japanese nuclear reactor. Tokyo Electric Power will likely leave the probe inside the reactor housing at the Fukushima Dai-ichi complex north of Tokyo after it stopped moving. On Friday, the utility sent a robot for the first time into the primary containment vessel (PCV) of reactor No. 1 at the plant, which was heavily damaged by the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in northern Japan. 'The robot got stuck at a point two-thirds of its way inside the PCV and we are investigating the cause,' a Tokyo Electric spokesman said via email. The machine became stuck on Friday after traveling to 14 of 18 planned checkpoints."

99 comments

  1. Beginning of a movie by MightyYar · · Score: 2

    This sounds like the beginning of a movie about sentient robots.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    1. Re:Beginning of a movie by itzly · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't worry. You need radiation for the robots to become sentient.

    2. Re:Beginning of a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason I read /. Is cuz we're ten posts into the comment section and nearly all are about irradiated killer robots. None are substantive comments about the summary.

    3. Re:Beginning of a movie by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      "We'll send some trained lizards into the radiated environment to free the robot. It's a fool-proof plan."

    4. Re:Beginning of a movie by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      The reason I read /. Is cuz we're ten posts into the comment section and nearly all are about irradiated killer robots. None are substantive comments about the summary.

      Without arguing whether this is or is not a good thing... :) ... What we really need on Slashdot is a button that will scroll you down about 50 posts, right away. (Less for "newer" stories with less comments.)

    5. Re:Beginning of a movie by bobbied · · Score: 3

      Don't worry. You need radiation for the robots to become sentient.

      Or a lighting strike... Well that and an animal rights nut job named Stephaney to befriend you.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    6. Re:Beginning of a movie by OhSoLaMeow · · Score: 1

      Or a lighting strike... Well that and an animal rights nut job named Stephaney to befriend you.

      Stephanie change color.

      --
      They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
    7. Re:Beginning of a movie by Hussman32 · · Score: 1

      Press your space bar, it scrolls down for you.

      --
      "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
    8. Re:Beginning of a movie by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      Press your space bar, it scrolls down for you.

      M. Night Shyamalan : "The button he had desired was there all along!"

    9. Re:Beginning of a movie by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      None are substantive comments about the summary.

      Maybe because there is nothing substantive to comment on. They sent a robot in knowing there was a good chance it would not survive, it accomplished most of its inspections, it stopped working and due to where it failed it can't be pulled out. A more durable robot is already under development but was not yet ready to deploy.

      What is there to really comment on? The way the press made it a big deal I suppose would be something to talk about.

  2. Transformers: the Origin by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 1

    Here's how Optimus Prime got his superpowers!

    --
    My first program:

    Hell Segmentation fault

  3. Please, Don't tell Michael Bay by jd2112 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Lets not give him any ideas for another horrible Transformers movie...

    --
    Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    1. Re:Please, Don't tell Michael Bay by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Love it, hate it .. but, honestly you simply can't discount a film franchise in which two of the four movies have had global revenues of over a billion dollars and shows up on the lists of highest grossing films.

      At the end of the day, screw artistic merit when you earn zillions of dollars.

      You don't have to like it, but there's not escaping that they've been successful. As long as those movies make that much money, you can count on more of them.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Please, Don't tell Michael Bay by khr · · Score: 1

      you can count on more of them

      And you still don't have to watch any of them if you don't want...

    3. Re:Please, Don't tell Michael Bay by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Ever seen the bumper sticker "Eat shit, a million flies can't be wrong"? That about sums up my feelings on the issue.

      I understand the motive, but that doesn't change the fact that they took a moderately interesting franchise and turned it into yet another vacuous action movie. [Queue comparisons to the Star Trek reboot, The Hobbit, etc.]

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    4. Re:Please, Don't tell Michael Bay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No way this isn't the plot for "Godzilla vs Transformers 2015: a Bay/Emmerich Production". They've probably held the option since 12 March 2011. It is guaranteed to suck.

    5. Re:Please, Don't tell Michael Bay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Justin Beiber packs 50,000 seat arenas; I'm still not going.

    6. Re:Please, Don't tell Michael Bay by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Well, let's not pretend that the movie industry operates on anything other than a desire for money, and let's not pretend the movie going public is looking for high brow drama.

      If vacuous action movies make billions of dollars, that's what they're going to make.

      I guess you could spend your own personal money trying to make a black and white film about an angst-y mime and his damaged relationship with his mother ... but nobody would give a damn.

      The fact of the matter is, the movie going public isn't paying to see poncy art films.

      Fast cars, pretty women, and explosions is where the real money is at. Ingmar Bergman? Not so much.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:Please, Don't tell Michael Bay by itzly · · Score: 1

      Fast cars, pretty women, and explosions is where the real money is at. Ingmar Bergman? Not so much.

      There's quite an entertaining spectrum between those two extremes.

    8. Re:Please, Don't tell Michael Bay by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Sure, but nothing short of the mega-action flick does a billion dollars worldwide in box office revenues, at least not that I'm aware of.

      You don't have to watch them. You don't have to like them.

      But nobody at all should be surprised that the high grossing action films continue to get made when people pay to see them.

      Michael Bay doesn't need to have some vaunted "artistic integrity", he just keep cashing the checks and not giving a crap what other people say.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    9. Re:Please, Don't tell Michael Bay by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Fine, I've got no problem with that. My complaint is when franchises with greater potential get appropriated as "source material" (and yeah, Transformers is borderline, at best, but it's happening to a lot more interesting franchises as well). If your movie is about explosions and nice asses, fine, no problem, I may even watch it after a few beers if I'm in the mood, but why pretend it's related to some more substantive franchise?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    10. Re:Please, Don't tell Michael Bay by Hussman32 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Look at it this way, Universal Studios makes the Transformers series. Any serious filmgoer won't even watch them on the plane, but the studio rakes in enough cash to make movies like No Country for Old Men, Watchmen, Up In the Air, Interstellar, and a bunch of other movies you may or may not want to see.

      As long as they keep making enough good movies to justify the crap, I don't mind.

      --
      "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
    11. Re:Please, Don't tell Michael Bay by Hussman32 · · Score: 1

      I mean Paramount, not Universal (oh how I wish we could edit after posting some times...)

      --
      "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
    12. Re:Please, Don't tell Michael Bay by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      Schindler's List did $321,306,305 world-wide in '93. IIRC, there was only once scene with a blotch of color in it - the kid in the red coat. Paper Moon (1973) was done in black and white, and it's a pretty good movie - made it to the top 10 in '73.

      And if you go back to 1970, Love Story was #1 with $106 million gross, and it was certainly not an action flick. In today's dollars, that's 641 million.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    13. Re:Please, Don't tell Michael Bay by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      What franchises are you referring to?

      Obviously Transformers is related to the kids series, but you clearly have some other franchise in mind which is appropriating source material.

      The only thing I can even think of is "I Robot", which had nothing whatsoever to with the Asmiov story.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    14. Re:Please, Don't tell Michael Bay by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Love it, hate it .. but, honestly you simply can't discount a film franchise in which two of the four movies have had global revenues of over a billion dollars and shows up on the lists of highest grossing films.

      At the end of the day, screw artistic merit when you earn zillions of dollars.

      You don't have to like it, but there's not escaping that they've been successful. As long as those movies make that much money, you can count on more of them.

      The technical term is "Asses in seats". Hollywood knows summer blockbusters are basically plotless action flicks that really have little artistic merit, but damn do they get those asses into those seats.

      And it's just fine. Every other creative medium has similar things going for it - books can be pulp or they can be literature, or span the wide gap between them. Movies can be thought-provoking, life altering with tons of subtext, or they can consist of people just blowing crap up. You see this in video games too - from your standard FPS shooter that sells and makes billions to your indie game exposing some human condition.

      Just because Depression Quest is a thought-provoking video game doesn't mean you can't have your Call of Duty.

      Ironically, though, Michael Bay isn't a bad a filmmaker as you think. He actually does do quite a few things right that other filmmakers do wrong.

    15. Re:Please, Don't tell Michael Bay by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Love it, hate it .. but, honestly you simply can't discount a film franchise in which two of the four movies have had global revenues of over a billion dollars and shows up on the lists of highest grossing films.

      You might not be able to discount them, but I certainly can. Crap remains crap even if it's designed to sell merchandise (Transformer-branded shit-paper, anyone?) and succeeds in that by means of brat's pester power.

      I didn't actually know (or care, in the slightest) that they were a quadruple of films, or that they were high grossing. I only know of their interminable existence from the presence of mounds of promotional crap in the town centre.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  4. What the hell? by gstoddart · · Score: 0

    Transforming Robot Gets Stuck In Fukushima Nuclear Reactor

    Oh, man, that has to be the best headline all year.

    I for one welcome our new giant, transforming robotic overlords.

    Why the hell haven't we been seeing stories about transforming robots yet?

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:What the hell? by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      There is more than meets the eye.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    2. Re:What the hell? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our new giant, transforming, radioactive robotic overlords.

      FTFY.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  5. Not a problem by Kardos · · Score: 2

    .... just send in another transforming robot to retrieve it.

  6. Rope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    They should have tied a rope on it to pull it out.

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

      uhh, they actually did; the umbilical was designed for just that, but the thing appears to be snagged.

    2. Re:Rope by Gibgezr · · Score: 1

      Obviously they should have tied a rope to the umbilical, so they could pull THAT out.

  7. I've seen this movie... by grasshoppa · · Score: 2

    ..next we hear from Japan, some crazy, 50 ft tall robot will be destroying Tokyo.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:I've seen this movie... by gewalker · · Score: 1

      You mean like the classics, Godzilla vs. Magalon and Godzilla vs.Mechagodzilla? Actually the second one is not too bad for a Godzilla movie.

    2. Re:I've seen this movie... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not there was actually a mecha-Godzilla in the official continuity.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  8. Respawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    They shouldjust force suicide and respwan at the last checkpoint

  9. I wouldn't want to go in either. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Stuck" or "stopped by choice"? You make the call.

    Irony... my catcha was "distress". :-)

  10. Decepticon by Jason+Levine · · Score: 0

    That transforming robot was clearly a Decepticon in disguise and how is surely gathering all of the energy in Fukushima to convert to Energon for Megatron! Someone call the Autobots.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  11. Robots can't handle a 10 Sievert/hour dose rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forget about CPUs. At the dose rates dealt with in this case, even ordinary transistors have a tough time.

    NHK has frequent brief stories on both their international tv channel and the web, but they seldom last more than a day on their front page, and the links usually die in two. So even though it's current, here's a wayback link.

    http://web.archive.org/web/201...

    Usually one thinks of possible long term harm from too much radiation exposure, but the levels seen by the bot cam apparently would cause death in about 40 minutes. I guess no one will be going in after that dead bot anytime soon.

    The robot isn't the type we usual think of. It's more of a mobile snake camera. I think the light output goes through an optical cable. Camera image sensors don't do well in radiation. It's reminds me of how some of the craft monitoring the sun have sensors go nuts when there is a proton storm. Some feeds just get a burst of firefly-like snow. It's almost funny when one of the video feeds shows the sun jumping around and doing a 360 degree spin (as the spacecraft briefly loses lock on the stars and does a roll).

    1. Re:Robots can't handle a 10 Sievert/hour dose rate by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Just goes to show, never send a robot where a human with an augmented exoskeleton should go.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:Robots can't handle a 10 Sievert/hour dose rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like you know nothing about radiation. There is no form of shielding that would be both safe and mobile. It's the high-energy gamma rays that would be the issue. To make it safe during normal operation required meters of dense shielding. Then the reaction got too intense for the shielding, so the shielding melted. That probably slowed things down somewhat, but it's going to be decades before it's cool enough for anyone to be near.

      Plus your exoskeleton probably has some form of electronics, so you have the same problems as the robot with a squishy meatbag at the center. And transparent radiation shielding is more or less not a thing, so we're really really far into the territory of pointless and stupid. Just stick to your day job, okay Barb? I'm assuming that these days your day job is still programming and not making inane comments on slashdot.

    3. Re:Robots can't handle a 10 Sievert/hour dose rate by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      First, exoskeletons can be made that are electronic-free. Take someone who's terminal and you don't have to worry about survivability. Or take someone on death row and offer them the chance to leave their relatives a million bucks.

      At that point you don't care whether they survive more than a day.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re:Robots can't handle a 10 Sievert/hour dose rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, did the hostility really improve your day that much? There are better ways..

  12. Nostalgia is a powerful thing by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Ever seen the bumper sticker "Eat shit, a million flies can't be wrong"? That about sums up my feelings on the issue.

    Could not agree more. Clearly many folks were entertained but wow those were some bad movies.

    I understand the motive, but that doesn't change the fact that they took a moderately interesting franchise

    Moderately interesting franchise? Maybe if you have rose colored glasses from your youth. Some of the comics were kinda-sorta ok stories but none of it was particularly good. I grew up with transformers - they were the big thing during part of my youth. But try watching any of the animation as an adult. It's complete crap designed solely to market toys to kids. Seriously, it's unwatchable. If anything the Michael Bay movies are better but that is the very definition of damning with faint praise. I saw the first movie out of nostalgia and have seen bits of the later ones but they were definitely not good movies. I'm sure someone could do something interesting with it but it won't be Michael Bay. Some cool special effects and Megan Fox's ass are not enough to make a movie worth watching.

    1. Re:Nostalgia is a powerful thing by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Hey now, I never said *anything* about good - don't go putting words in my mouth. :-D.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:Nostalgia is a powerful thing by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Anything has to be better than that piece of pretentious slop know as The English Patient.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  13. obligatory lyrical rendition by nimbius · · Score: 3, Funny

    Something feebles watching over you
    Comin' from the pipe!
    And there's no way it can move

    Prepare to gripe!
    There'll be no place to run
    When your caught in checkpoint 14
    Of the evil PCV


    Transformers! (moves a bit, then dies)
    Transformers! (leave the probe inside)

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  14. Bumblebee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no! come back to us!

  15. Confidence, that's the ticket by Catbeller · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Don't worry, a billion self-driven cars will never make an error. We've thought of everything. Because that's how engineering works. No errors, all the time. Unless it's turning a corner or something--

    1. Re:Confidence, that's the ticket by itzly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Self driving cars only need to make less errors than smartphone-distracted humans. That's not a very high standard.

    2. Re:Confidence, that's the ticket by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      It's a standard no self driving car has yet approached.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:Confidence, that's the ticket by itzly · · Score: 1

      The test cars that are on the road seem to be doing pretty well. I wouldn't be surprised if they've already surpassed human drivers for the easy roads.

    4. Re:Confidence, that's the ticket by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      There are two streams of data. Marketing coming from Google and real data coming from various DARPA challenge participants.

      Guess which one you are listening to?

      No self driving car has yet driven in 'the wild' without a professional driver ready to take control at a moments notice. Control transfers that are routine, even on divided highways.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:Confidence, that's the ticket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The test cars that are on the road seem to be doing pretty well. I wouldn't be surprised if they've already surpassed human drivers for the easy roads.

      Obviously never been on Arkansas roads. Reflectors and stripes on the roads here are horrid. And that is in daylight. Night and rain makes them even worse.

    6. Re:Confidence, that's the ticket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because every technology should transition instantly from non existent to ready for market. There can be no development time. If there is a development time then clearly the technology is worthless and should be abandoned.

      Seriously, what point are you trying to make? That self-driving cars aren't ready for the market? We already know that from the fact you can't buy one. That doesn't mean they won't be useful in the future.

    7. Re:Confidence, that's the ticket by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      It's a standard no self driving car has yet approached.

      Too true -- no deployed self driving car has yet performed that badly.

    8. Re:Confidence, that's the ticket by khallow · · Score: 1

      Self driving cars only need to make less errors than smartphone-distracted humans. That's not a very high standard.

      They also want them to be able to drive fast in dense traffic and my understanding, with decentralized logic as to how to handle emergencies. That's a high standard, though not an unachievable one.

    9. Re:Confidence, that's the ticket by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Where 'easy' is a rural limited-access divided highway in good condition, light traffic, no construction or other complications. mid-day, and clear weather?

  16. Poor WALL-E by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All that I can think of is poor WALL-E, collecting and crushing bits of melted and rehardened core into tiny cubes and stacking them for storage - until the stack reaches criticality...

  17. 14 out of 18 isn't bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... unless you're in Japan, then 78% is abject failure and cause for banishment from the family.

    1. Re:14 out of 18 isn't bad... by Minwee · · Score: 1

      ... unless you're in Japan, then 78% is abject failure and cause for banishment from the family.

      That's okay. Just claim that you got the other 12% and pretend that nothing is wrong. It can't possibly fail.

    2. Re:14 out of 18 isn't bad... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      They might point out that 78 + 12 = 90 and ask what happened to the other 10%

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  18. I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be nice if there were some images of exactly what kind of environment it's working in. If its having to struggle past mountains of debris and partially collapsed hallways its understandable that it would get stuck. If it got hung up on a set of stairs with a few ceiling tiles on them or something similarly unimpressive Tokyo Electric has added to my perception of their ineptitude.

  19. How boring by YoungManKlaus · · Score: 1

    and I was already thinking of the robot "mutating" and thus transforming :D

  20. Stuck in the PCV by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Did they try hitting it with a little carb cleaner?

  21. I know who designed the robot by jmcwork · · Score: 1

    The same engineers that designed my Toyota. They thought it would be a good idea to have to replace rear signal lights by remove a panel inside the car and reaching in about 18 inches to TRY to turn the bulb socket in order to remove it. Obviously, the were hoping to sell robots like this to people who needed to replace their turn signals. At least I am not bitter about it.

    1. Re:I know who designed the robot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know what Toyota you've driven, but I've owned three, and none require more than 30 seconds to change the rear lights. I usually do it in the parking lot of the auto parts store so I can use their can to toss the old bulbs out.

    2. Re:I know who designed the robot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      20 year old ford pickup, only the dome light has burnt out.

    3. Re:I know who designed the robot by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      15 year old Ford car, lost my first bulb this year (left rear marker)

      --

      Enigma

    4. Re:I know who designed the robot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same engineers that designed my Toyota. They thought it would be a good idea to have to replace rear signal lights by remove a panel inside the car and reaching in about 18 inches to TRY to turn the bulb socket in order to remove it. Obviously, the were hoping to sell robots like this to people who needed to replace their turn signals. At least I am not bitter about it.

      Should have bought a 'murican car. The Saturn I used to drive had the rear bulbs mounted in sockets made of some kind of plastic that actually liquified. Heat-activated plasticizer? Fuck if I know. Anyway, no problem removing the bulbs from that sucker!

      Getting new bulbs in, now that was a challenge.

    5. Re:I know who designed the robot by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      That's nothing. The new VW bug needs a specially designed screw driver to remove a panel under the hood so you can get at the headlights. It is a dealer replacement job and not made so you can do it yourself.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  22. they aren't bright enough to have a pullback cable by swschrad · · Score: 0

    geez, folks, a 1/16 inch steel wire cable along the umbilical would allow the robot herders to pull the clinker back and see what burned up. instead, the Gang That Can't Think Straight just sends haywire crap in and hopes to beat the odds and the physics. this is also a job for a vidicon, tubes, and light bulbs, not solid-state stuff. or considering the heat, an image dissector.

    50 years from now, these guys will be repeating the same sophomoric mistakes and shrugging their shoulders.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  23. at TEPCO, they create a better fool hourly by swschrad · · Score: 1

    'nuff said.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:at TEPCO, they create a better fool hourly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my native language TEPCO sounds like IDIOT. For us it sounds totally logically if you use idiots in your nuclear plant nothing good can happen.

  24. News At Six by Timoleon · · Score: 1

    Attention People of Tokyo!!!!!

  25. Oh, good... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

    Baby Godzilla now has a toy to play with.

    From TFA:

    the remote-controlled robot is 60 centimeters long and can be configured into a form resembling the letter I as well as one resembling the numeral 3.

    Perhaps tomorrows episode of Sesame Street will have Godzilla as a guest star.

    Brought to you by the letter "I" and the number "3".

  26. Re:they aren't bright enough to have a pullback ca by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the umbilical has the strength to be used as pullback. It is snagged, just as your imagined 1/16 inch steel wire might be. Maybe the founding member of the Gang That Can't Think Straight is in your bathroom mirror

  27. Only vowels by AbrasiveCat · · Score: 1

    It appear that the robot is only capable of forming the letter I and E at this time, so future communications with it will be difficult.

    1. Re:Only vowels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Old MacDonald, by radioactive robots "E, I, E, I" oh.

  28. I for One ... by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our new Radioactive Transforming Robotic Overlords.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  29. Re:they aren't bright enough to have a pullback ca by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    geez, folks, a 1/16 inch steel wire cable along the umbilical would allow the robot herders to pull the clinker back and see what burned up.

    Cute! Name one thing in the real world that would have travelled along 14 checkpoints without going around a few curves and hard corners.

  30. Re:they aren't bright enough to have a pullback ca by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cute! Name one thing in the real world that would have travelled along 14 checkpoints without going around a few curves and hard corners.

    swschrad's thought processes?

  31. Re:they aren't bright enough to have a pullback ca by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

    This robot moved along a tortuous path, you can just pull it out, it has to move itself back out. They knew there was a good chance it would fail at some point, yet they accomplished most of the planned inspections so it was not a complete fail by any means, just the way the press likes to portray it. They have a more durable bot on the way.

    This really doesn't even qualify as news, IMHO.

  32. You need to use simple technology by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    Radiation. Our electronics and robotics thrive on miniturization however that is not useful when you're dealing with radiation. You want really thick circuits. You want something that can be swiss cheesed by the radiation all day and all night for years on end and still work.

    Here is my first idea:
    Have as little circuitry in the robot as possible. Instead run most of that stuff to a substation by wire that will get close to but not actually enter the reactor. Ideally, the only thing I'd put in the robot would be the literal sensors, the literal motors, the structure that is the body of the robot, and EVERYTHING else would be remote to the robot and thus largely safe from the radiation.

    So whatever controller boards for the servos etc... none of that in the robot. All of it instead at the other end of a wire.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:You need to use simple technology by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Radiation. Our electronics and robotics thrive on miniturization however that is not useful when you're dealing with radiation. You want really thick circuits. You want something that can be swiss cheesed by the radiation all day and all night for years on end and still work.

      It is a little trickier than that. Finer circuits present a smaller cross section; for example if the cross section decreases faster than the stored charge, then resistance to single event upset becomes greater which is the case with the later DRAM generations. Thinner substrates have less volume to capture stray charge which can act in a way similar to minority carrier injection. That explains why silicon on insulator is a good way to increase radiation resistance; the silicon volume to capture charge is smaller.

    2. Re:You need to use simple technology by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Murphy's law. Rather than building something that is less likely to catch that stray neutron that punches through that critical component in just the right way... why don't you assume that however you build it, the worst possible thing will happen to it immediately.

      Once you accept that, your view will shift from trying to mitigate probabilities and into simply immunizing the technology.

      We can build a robot that cannot be destroyed by the sorts of radiation you'll find in a damaged reactor. Literally immune. The radiation can swiss cheese the entire robot all day and all night for years on end and it makes no difference. We can do that.

      The idea of using hydraulics and fiber optic sensors was brilliant. We do that and the mechanisms are so robust that they can't really be damaged by some stray neutrons. You're not going to destroy a hydraulic actuator with anything short of radiation that literally melts it. So long as the radiation isn't cooking the robot, it should be able to tolerate the radiation almost indefinitely.

      And the fiber optic sensor would likewise be immune to that sort of damage. Add a chemical light on the front of the robot and he can shamble around the reactor while a cable snakes behind it carrying pressure to drive the robot, a bundle of pressure cables to trigger the actuators in series to give robotic motion, and the fiber optic camera that will give the humans piloting the robot knowledge of what is in front of the robot.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:You need to use simple technology by Agripa · · Score: 1

      I thought using hydraulics and fiber optics was obvious and such things are common in hazardous industrial environments. I remember seeing demonstrations of fluidic logic although I am not sure it scales down well enough compared to MEMs logic:

      http://www.eetimes.com/documen...

      I wonder how it would compare though to a much faster dedicated silicon on insulator process with 100^2 micron feature size.

    4. Re:You need to use simple technology by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Well, it would be obvious to an expert but I am just another arm chair speculator... I'd love to see an example of this technology. Are there are any videos or pictures of such machines?

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  33. The Japanese Perocialism by Required+Snark · · Score: 2
    The Japanese have been very reluctant to use non-Japanese technology for Fukushima problems. They would rather use home grown systems, and this has not worked out very well for them.

    For example, their record on handling radioactive water has been a list of miserable failures. Briefly, there were three different systems used to treat the water being used to cool the reactors: a French system from AREVA, a system from Kurion, a startup based in Orange County California, and a system built by Hiatachi/Tobshba. The timeline is complex, but both the French and Japanese systems broke almost immediately when they went into full scale operation. The Kurion system was more reliable, but it was not used as the primary cleanup platform.

    The muon imaging that has been used to verify core meltdowns was developed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and LLNL proposed that they work directly with TEPCO. Instead TEPCO worked with the US company that ended up with the equipment after the LLNL development project ended. All the press releases describe the imaging as being done by Hiatachi, who ran the detector in Japan. Even so, there are actually two different muon imaging systems in place, and one of them is directly from LLNL. The results from the second LLNL detector have not been officially announced yet.

    Outside Japan, experts were not optimistic about the ice wall project to keep ground water from entering the reactor buildings. They spent a lot of time, effort and money and then had to give up.

    I can only speculate, but I think they are very reluctant to use US technology unless they can rebrand it as Japanese. I think they want to show that they are better at high tech the the US.

    They may match or beat the US in industrial applications, but because of DARPA investment in disaster and military technology, the US has more robust robot technology for chaotic real world conditions. Just look at ASIMO vs Boston Dynamics PETMAN, ATLAS or BIG DOG. The Boston Dynamics robots all have videos where they are being shoved and kicked and stay upright. It's obvious that one good shove and ASIMO would end up on the floor and might be badly damaged.

    It just seems strange that there has not been more collaboration between Japan and the rest of the world for dealing with the Fukushima disaster. DARPA has been working on robots for HASMAT environment for a long time and yet they have no presence at Fukushima. It seems that Japanese ethnocentrism and pride is now making a bad situation more difficult.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  34. Oh, Jazz... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We lost a great comrade, but gained new ones. Thank you, all of you. You honor us with your bravery.

  35. Error 387, Infinite Recursion, Stack Overflow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your spelling of the word "parochialism" is "perocial".

  36. Simpler by Marrow · · Score: 1

    I would suggest using hydraulics and fiberoptics. Dont bother with active circuits at all. If all you want to do is look and grab, go really old school. Dont use amplifiers when two tin cans and a string will survive the radiation.

    1. Re:Simpler by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      fiber optics? You're going to need a media converter to translate the fiber optic signal into an electrical one at both ends. So I think that would actually make the robot less reliable.

      As to hydraulics, that is interesting... you would need actuators on the robot which I'm assuming would still need to be triggered electronically. I suppose you could trigger them with pneumatic pressure. That is, if some pressure comes in on this tube, you trigger this actuator and if this tube then that actuator?

      That leaves the sensors. I mean... you could have some sort of fiber optic light pipe for the sensor... is that what you were talking about with fiber optics? If so, great idea assuming that would work. And then you could even use a chemical light source.

      Something like that could get pounded with just savage radiation and not give a damn.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  37. Suprised it made it that far by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

    I saw a documentary awhile back, they had floated a probe down there. So much radiation the cameras kept showing bright spots all over, then the probe died after 10 minutes. This plant will be an environmental disaster for thousands of years.

  38. Re: Robots can't handle a 10 Sievert/hour dose rat by jfeldredge · · Score: 1

    Even among terminally-ill patients, you may have difficulties finding someone willing to die from acute radiation poisoning. From what I have read, it is a rather painful way to die.

  39. Re: Robots can't handle a 10 Sievert/hour dose rat by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    Just look at all the old people in Japan who volunteered in the immediate aftermath of the disaster, to spare others who were younger.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  40. They even have a mascot ! by iq145 · · Score: 1