6 Tiny Robotic Ants, Weighing 3.5 Oz. In Total, Pull a 3900-lb. Car (nytimes.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

6 Tiny Robotic Ants, Weighing 3.5 Oz. In Total, Pull a 3900-lb. Car (nytimes.com)

Posted by msmash on Monday March 14, 2016 @04:00AM from the friends-of-ant-man dept.

Reader schwit1 writes about MicroTug, a team of six microrobots that weigh just 3.5 ounces (99 grams), and can move a car: Researchers at Standford University's Biomimetics and Dexterous Manipulation Lab have developed six miniature robots that have the pulling-power to move objects 2,000 times of their own body weight. The tiny robots and their inter-coordination are based on that of ants. The microrobot uses a special kind of glue on its feet that make them serve as sticky gecko toes. "Their new demonstration is the functional equivalent of a team of six humans moving a weight equivalent to that of an Eiffel Tower and three Statues of Liberty," said David Christensen, a graduate student who is one of the authors of "Let's All Pull Together: Principles for Sharing Large Loads in Microrobot Teams paper. Researchers' fascination with gecko adhesive is nothing new. In 2010, Stanford mechanical engineer Mark Cutkosky developed a Stickybot that could climb walls. A similar robot that could roll up on smooth as well rough surfaces was demonstrated by a group of researchers in Canada in 2011.

130 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

H1-b by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 04:06 · Score: 0, Troll

Is it true that the ants all had H1-b visas?
The car wasn't pulled by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 04:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

They made the car roll, not the same thing as pulling the effeil tower...
1. Re:The car wasn't pulled by KBentley57 · 2016-03-14 04:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I was going to post something similar. I hate comparisons like these. The 'ants' are pulling against the rolling resistance of the car, not the car laying on its side, as would be the case with the tower equivalent weights. Unless you had some gigantic roller bearings to slide them across.
2. Re:The car wasn't pulled by wonkey_monkey · 2016-03-14 04:18 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The car wasn't pulled
  They made the car roll
  Yes... by pulling it.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
3. Re:The car wasn't pulled by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  They made the car roll, not the same thing as pulling the effeil tower...
  Or the Offal Tower,
  Or the Eiffel Towel.
4. Re:The car wasn't pulled by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 04:47 · Score: 0
  
  English, motherfucker - do you speak it? They pulled the car. Do you need a dictionary to look up what the word "pull" means?
5. Re:The car wasn't pulled by nintendoeats · 2016-03-14 04:49 · Score: 2
  
  I don't feel that was misleading. When somebody says that they towed their car, I do not assume that they put it on it's roof to do so.
  One thing that I think IS misleading is when people demonstrate how strong something is by dropping a car on it, completely failing to mention that the suspension and tires are distributing the weight over time and that an equivilent brick would smash straight through.
6. Re:The car wasn't pulled by peragrin · 2016-03-14 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  Also picking up a car isn't as hard as you think either. It is heavy but most guys are strong enough to lift up one of the back corners as long as the gas tank isn't full.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
7. Re:The car wasn't pulled by nintendoeats · 2016-03-14 05:48 · Score: 2
  
  ...thanks for the immasculation :p
8. Re:The car wasn't pulled by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  A soft breeze can pull a car if it's not on in gear.
9. Re:The car wasn't pulled by Obfuscant · 2016-03-14 05:56 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I don't feel that was misleading. When somebody says that they towed their car, I do not assume that they put it on it's roof to do so.
  And when they include the weight of the car in the statement, they are implying that the weight of the vehicle is somehow relevant.
  The main hurdle to "pulling" something is the friction, not the mass. If you put the Eiffel Tower on a set of rollers that had the equivalent rolling resistance that a 3900 pound car has, I betcha six people could pull it, too. If the brakes aren't on, one person can push a loaded railroad car. And if you use levers and pulleys (machines) for assistance, you can pull a lot.
  At many county fairs there used to be a popular show called "the tractor pull". People would compete in pulling a loaded sled with their tractors. They'd all start out able to pull the sled, but as the sled moved forward, so did a large weight that increased the friction between the sled and the ground. Only the beefier tractors could pull it the full distance, but all of them could pull it.
10. Re:The car wasn't pulled by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 06:09 · Score: 0
  
  But they were pulling it downhill ...
11. Re:The car wasn't pulled by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 06:14 · Score: 0
  
  You need a dictionary too, genius. A breeze can push, but it can't pull. Words have meanings. Look them up.
12. Re:The car wasn't pulled by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 06:14 · Score: 0
  
  They would be a "push".
13. Re:The car wasn't pulled by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 06:42 · Score: 0
  
  No it wasn't. I watched the video. It was on a level surface.
14. Re:The car wasn't pulled by unrtst · 2016-03-14 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  And when they include the weight of the car in the statement, they are implying that the weight of the vehicle is somehow relevant.
  Exactly.
  6 tiny robots were able to pull this car. However:
  * comparing them to ants is fucked up. They're WAAAY larger than any ant I've ever seen!
  * the legged versions were not the ones to pull the car
  * the video shows what is essentially 6 miniature wenches, not walking robots
  * that car was pulled by 6 pieces of string (of some sort). That should put it into perspective how little force they are actually exerting.
  I'm sure there's some interesting stuff going on, but the summary and article are both distorting it enough that they're useless drivel.
15. Re:The car wasn't pulled by omnichad · 2016-03-14 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  It was misleading because they included the weight. That's not directly involved in understanding the rolling resistance. Also, some tow trucks do put the entire car on the bed.
16. Re:The car wasn't pulled by Obfuscant · 2016-03-14 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  the video shows what is essentially 6 miniature wenches, not walking robots
  I don't care what they do as long as they are available to bring me my slippers, a couple of beers, and a sammich when I want them.
17. Re:The car wasn't pulled by nintendoeats · 2016-03-14 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  A bed which is supported...by wheels...
18. Re:The car wasn't pulled by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2016-03-14 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  The main hurdle to "pulling" something is the friction, not the mass
  Mass is inertia. To pull a car a reasonable distance in a reasonable time, you need to be able to exert real force.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
19. Re:The car wasn't pulled by SoftwareArtist · 2016-03-14 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  > And when they include the weight of the car in the statement, they are implying that the weight of the vehicle is somehow relevant.
  It is relevant. Walk up to a car that's in neutral and sitting still and press lightly on the back end. It won't start rolling. It's not that it rolls very slowly. It doesn't roll at all. You could sit there for an hour and nothing would happen. You have to push pretty hard to get it started (as anyone who's helped move a stalled car can tell you), and while the details are very complicated, that force is roughly proportional to its weight.
  
  --
  "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
20. Re:The car wasn't pulled by omnichad · 2016-03-14 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  Either way, that's no different than putting it on its roof.
  
  When somebody says that they towed their car, I do not assume that they put it on it's roof to do so.
  Either way, the weight has no direct correlation with the rolling resistance (which would be different depending on whether the car was pulled or carried on a truck bed).
21. Re:The car wasn't pulled by shadowrat · 2016-03-14 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  the misleading part is describing the robots as ants. This evokes images of hexapod robots straining their tiny feet. The video even shows such robots walking around. Those aren't the robots that did the towing though. the actual robots are just a winch glued to the floor. For all i know. the touted synchronization is nothing more than each robot blindly executing the same timeline of roll, glue, pull from one synchronized starting signal.
  
  Granted, they are tiny winches powered by the LiOn batteries that i use in little helicopters and quad copters, and the glue is some magic stuff that can be engaged and disengaged at will by the robots. That's all incredible stuff. I was somehow let down by it though as i was expecting to see something even more incredible.
22. Re:The car wasn't pulled by Darinbob · 2016-03-14 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  Things don't scale that easily. Even if the strength to pull were strong enough it would pull the Eiffel tower apart as well. But people like to scale up the "ants can carry 200 times their own weight" all the time even though the physics doesn't make sense.
23. Re:The car wasn't pulled by diamondmagic · 2016-03-14 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  That's only true if the static friction is high enough - which, despite efforts to minimize friction and resistance, is still very imaginable for something like a car.
  If the friction were to be zero, it would start moving right away, it would just accelerate very, very slowly, perhaps even imperceptibly for a few moments.
  
  --
  Wonder what the public key field is for?
24. Re:The car wasn't pulled by Darinbob · 2016-03-14 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  The Tower of Offal. Tour d'Abats. Visited by an average of 7 tourists a year.
25. Re:The car wasn't pulled by KGIII · 2016-03-14 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  A lady who used to work for me drove a little tiny Renault. A buddy and I would often pick up the back of her car and turn it sideways in the parking space. We didn't need any help for it or anything and we were able to easily pick it up - presumably the tank was either full or near full multiple times. Sometimes there wouldn't be much space so we'd have to pick up the front and move it a little and then do the rear end.
  Hmm... It might have been an Opel.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
26. Re:The car wasn't pulled by KGIII · 2016-03-14 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  > At many county fairs there used to be a popular show called "the tractor pull".
  There still is. They do oxen, horses, tractors, and trucks. I'm sure they do more. I've had the chance to see all of the ones that I've mentioned. The ox are kind of cool and they make some decent money if they win. The horses are pretty neat too. The ons that I know, I know personally and they're actually working animals but that is a long story. I'm not much for the tractors or the trucks but they seem to have quite a following and are willing to spend quite a bit of money on their hobbies. Some of the after-market gear that goes into them is kind of impressive, almost as impressive as the language used when someone blows a $25,000 engine on their first time out.
  Yes, yes I do know some rednecks. They're mostly harmless and good people. I can't say that I'm as enthralled as some of them are with their various hobbies but they're not so interested in my hobbies either.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
27. Re:The car wasn't pulled by KGIII · 2016-03-14 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  > the weight has no direct correlation with the rolling resistance
  Assuming high-school physics then, sure. Otherwise, while not really significant, weight impacts resistance where things like the tires compress and bearings have greater friction applied. It's not likely to be significant but it is certainly some. In a perfect world where things like the the tires do not compress due to weight than, sure. I'd say things like the tire compressing and added friction on the bearings are both directly correlated with the weight.
  It is (I've not done the math) likely a fairly insignificant amount but it's certainly a direct correlation with weight and 'rolling resistance.' Even a steel-on-steel surface would likely have some increased resistance due to weight - though much less directly associated with it. The weight might increase vibration or even cause minuscule deflections in the rolling surface like a railroad track. Sure, that'd be pretty damned minute, but it would exist and be something to account for - if one wanted to be anal.
  Note, this in no way really matters. As far as I know, the impact is really trivial and insignificant - and can be lessened. I'm merely adding this for completeness and to be argumentative, a little. I *might* be mistaken but I don't think I am?
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
28. Re:The car wasn't pulled by Zero__Kelvin · 2016-03-14 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  Holy Fuck. Wind pulls a car? You truly are a fscking idiot.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
29. Re:The car wasn't pulled by Zero__Kelvin · 2016-03-14 12:12 · Score: 1
  
  You couldn't pick up the spare tire, idiot.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
30. Re:The car wasn't pulled by Zero__Kelvin · 2016-03-14 12:13 · Score: 0
  
  Isn't it phenomenal how many morons think that they are intelligent?
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
31. Re:The car wasn't pulled by Zero__Kelvin · 2016-03-14 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  So you are saying that it takes the same force to pull a 10 pound block on wheels than a 1000 ton block on wheels? (Yes, you are an idiot)
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
32. Re:The car wasn't pulled by Zero__Kelvin · 2016-03-14 12:18 · Score: 0
  
  There is no such thing as a tow truck that puts the entire car on the bed. What you are thinking of is called a Ramp truck, not a Tow truck. It turns out that the word Tow has meaning, and even lowly towing and recovery professionals know the difference. When the fuck are you going to learn the English language?
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
33. Re:The car wasn't pulled by Khyber · 2016-03-14 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  "the video shows what is essentially 6 miniature wenches"
  I think you need to fix your glasses. Boobs were not present in that video.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
34. Re:The car wasn't pulled by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 13:03 · Score: 0
  
  You do seem to defensively post all day with absolutely nothing to contribute.
35. Re:The car wasn't pulled by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 13:40 · Score: 0
  
  When Ramp truck drivers stop advertising their businesses as towing businesses, I'll stop calling them tow trucks.
  Captcha: Indolent.
36. Re:The car wasn't pulled by omnichad · 2016-03-14 15:41 · Score: 1
  
  OK. Direct correlation is the wrong phrase. To be extremely specific, I meant that you can't infer the number of newtons of force from the vehicle weight alone. All other things being equal, the weight has a direct correlation on rolling resistance but all sorts of other factors would be involved such as the type and tread and age of tire, number of wheels, distribution of weight and all that. The weight alone is relatively meaningless.
37. Re:The car wasn't pulled by omnichad · 2016-03-14 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  You caught me on semantics. I wasn't using the phrase "direct correlation" mathematically. I meant that there are other factors and that you can't infer the rolling resistance from the weight of the vehicle alone, making that exact measurement relatively meaningless.
38. Re:The car wasn't pulled by omnichad · 2016-03-14 15:44 · Score: 1
  
  What AC said.
39. Re:The car wasn't pulled by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2016-03-15 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't it phenomenal how many morons think that they are intelligent?
  Like you?
  What part of F=ma and d=0.5*a*t^2 is hard to understand?
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
40. Re:The car wasn't pulled by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-15 06:18 · Score: 0
  
  Dinoponera - giant Amazonian ants, females get to be 3 to 4 cm long.
41. Re:The car wasn't pulled by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-15 22:47 · Score: 0
  
  In the article it states that they pulled with a force of 200N of force. I can exert a greater force pushing upwards with one arm from my back. It's impressive sure, but laymen will assume that pulling the car took a much larger amount of force. In fact, the interesting portion of the experiment is the cooperative winching motion in cooperation with the sticky feet. There are already plenty of small electric motors producing 200 N which you could glue to the ground.
All Hail. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 04:08 · Score: 0

I, for one, welcome our new robotic overlords.
It's all fun and games... by Etherwalk · 2016-03-14 04:12 · Score: 3, Funny

It's all fun and games until somebody loses an Eiffel Tower and three statutes of liberty.
1. Re:It's all fun and games... by LynnwoodRooster · 2016-03-14 04:16 · Score: 2
  
  I don't understand the comparison. Now if it was in libraries of Congress, I'd get it.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
2. Re:It's all fun and games... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 04:53 · Score: 0
  
  If they're trying to appeal to the French with this, why not just use the metric system?
3. Re:It's all fun and games... by fustakrakich · 2016-03-14 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  How much does the Library of Congress weigh?
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
4. Re:It's all fun and games... by stackOVFL · 2016-03-14 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  I'm still trying to convert 6 tiny robots into 'N' European swallows.
5. Re:It's all fun and games... by XxtraLarGe · 2016-03-14 05:15 · Score: 2
  
  How much does the Library of Congress weigh?
  Oh, about 6 lbs, according to this blog post. Now, they didn't say it weight 6 lbs., but I used the bullet point that stated
  
  ."..it is estimated that the entire collection of the Library of Congress including photos, sound recordings and movies might take 3,000 TB of storage. Assuming $100 each for 2 TB hard drives, the entire book collection of the Library of Congress could be stored on about $1500 worth of hard drives at today's prices." LINK
  
  I looked up 2 GB external HDs and picked one at random. This Seagate Express 2 TB External HD weighs 6.4 oz.
  
  Hence, 15 2TB HDs at 6.4 oz. each, divided by 16 oz/lb = 6 lbs.
  
  --
  Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
6. Re:It's all fun and games... by Overzeetop · 2016-03-14 05:55 · Score: 2
  
  I don't see an issue - the Eiffel Tower and the Statue of Liberty were both created by the French. Seems absolutely logical.
  
  --
  Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
7. Re:It's all fun and games... by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · 2016-03-14 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  Hence bill C-9432, a.k.a. "the David Copperfield bill".
8. Re:It's all fun and games... by amicusNYCL · 2016-03-14 06:13 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Next you need to explain how you fit 3,000TB on 15 2TB drives.
  
  --
  "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
9. Re:It's all fun and games... by suutar · 2016-03-14 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  yeah, looks like familysearch's article messed that up. 3000TB * 1 drive/2TB => 1500 drives. I suspect someone grabbed "1500" when writing it up and overlooked that it was drives, not dollars.
  Now, at this point we can get 4TB for 120 at newegg, which changes the figures to 750 drives totaling $90,000, and would weigh (at 610g each) 457ish kg, or about 1000 lbs.
  So a ton of data is two libraries of congress :)
10. Re:It's all fun and games... by Coren22 · 2016-03-14 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  I could fit that 600 lbs in the bed of my truck...now we are back to a car analogy.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
11. Re:It's all fun and games... by Coren22 · 2016-03-14 06:34 · Score: 2
  
  They have a conversion rate to African Swallows, but the conversion between Swallow types is not standardized.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
12. Re:It's all fun and games... by Waffle+Iron · 2016-03-14 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  If they're trying to appeal to the French with this, why not just use the metric system?
  The metric system does not have units that are any more proper for popular science articles than these French-built monuments.
  The only standard units for mass in these types of articles are: Fleas, Baseballs, Volkswagen Beetles, Boeng 747s and Empire State Buildings.
13. Re:It's all fun and games... by XxtraLarGe · 2016-03-14 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  Next you need to explain how you fit 3,000TB on 15 2TB drives.
  Compression, my friend, compression.
  Yeah, I should have caught that. :shrugs:
  
  --
  Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
14. Re:It's all fun and games... by omnichad · 2016-03-14 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  The standard unit of car storage is 1 station wagon. Stop bringing trucks into a car analogy.
15. Re:It's all fun and games... by Coren22 · 2016-03-14 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  How many station wagons would it take to haul 600 lbs worth of 2 TB drives?
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
16. Re:It's all fun and games... by omnichad · 2016-03-14 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  Less than 1.
17. Re:It's all fun and games... by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · 2016-03-14 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  Not to mention the statutes of Egality and Fraternity.
  
  --
  Last post!
18. Re:It's all fun and games... by penguinoid · 2016-03-14 12:38 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  How many station wagons would it take to haul 600 lbs worth of 2 TB drives?
  
  Less than 1.
  If you have less than one car, it might not carry as much as you were hoping.
  
  --
  Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
...and in standard SI units... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 04:16 · Score: 0

6 tiny robotic ants, weighting 99 grams in total, pull a 1769 kilograms car.
Next time, how about using standard SI units?
1. Re:...and in standard SI units... by _UnderTow_ · 2016-03-14 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  SI Units? Really? I'd rather have it in football fields, or perhaps compare to an arbitrary number of cars.
2. Re:...and in standard SI units... by Flavianoep · 2016-03-14 04:44 · Score: 2
  
  SI Units? Really? I'd rather have it in football fields, or perhaps compare to an arbitrary number of cars.
  6 tiny robotic ants, weighting 0.056 cars in total, pull one car worth of a car.
  
  --
  Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
3. Re:...and in standard SI units... by Coren22 · 2016-03-14 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  That's some serious horsepower...
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Not that tiny by wonkey_monkey · 2016-03-14 04:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

6 Tiny Robotic Ants
They're not tiny if you're comparing them with ants.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
1. Re:Not that tiny by zAPPzAPP · 2016-03-14 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  But they are tiny if you compare them with robots!... wait
These guys must be new around here .. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 04:24 · Score: 0

The standard unit of measurement for meaningless comparisons is not an 'Eiffel Tower' or a 'Statue of Liberty'.
It's required to be a 'Library of Congress', also known as a 'loc'
1. Re:These guys must be new around here .. by Zero__Kelvin · 2016-03-14 12:21 · Score: 1
  
  loc is Lines of Code, and only an incompetent AC would confuse the two.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Terrible summary by burtosis · 2016-03-14 04:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

F=ma so if a is small then F, the force from the robots, can also be small. With over inflated tires and a smooth flat surface the rolling friction F needs to overcome can be quite small. Even a small child could push a 3900lb vehicle under the right circumstances. It would be far more useful (and less impressive to the masses) if an actual figure of force was given, much less any other relevant information.
1. Re:Terrible summary by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 04:38 · Score: 0
  
  A 3.5 ounce child?
2. Re:Terrible summary by Jason+Levine · 2016-03-14 04:47 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  From the paper ( http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?reload=true&arnumber=7407333&contentType=Early+Access+Articles linked to in the summary ):
  
  We present a simple statistical model to predict the maximum pulling force available from robot teams. The expected performance is a function of interactions between each robot and the ground (e.g. whether running or walking). We confirm the model with experiments involving impulsive bristlebots, small walking and running hexapods, and 17 gram Tugs that employ adhesion instead of friction. With attention to load sharing, each Tug can operate at its individual limit so that a team of six pulls with forces exceeding 200 N.
  So it looks like the 6 robots can pull with 200 Newtons of force
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
3. Re:Terrible summary by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 04:48 · Score: 0
  
  A child... the size of a tangerine.
  Once when I was in Burma....
4. Re:Terrible summary by amicusNYCL · 2016-03-14 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  So it looks like the 6 robots can pull with 200 Newtons of force
  Which just goes to show you what a sissy Newton must have been.
  
  --
  "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
5. Re:Terrible summary by Coren22 · 2016-03-14 06:36 · Score: 2
  
  Hey, he was a scientist, we don't exactly prize them on their strength...
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
6. Re:Terrible summary by KGIII · 2016-03-14 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  Wait, what?
  Are you telling me that I've been doing it... wrong?
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
7. Re:Terrible summary by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-15 02:33 · Score: 0
  
  How many dead babies does it take to push a car?
  Depends on how hard you throw them at it.
Standford? by by+(1706743) · 2016-03-14 04:28 · Score: 2

Apparently they beat MIDT, Hardvard, and the like...
ol' blue eyes... by Thud457 · 2016-03-14 04:34 · Score: 1

Anyone knows an ant, can't Move a rubber tree plant

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
1. Re:ol' blue eyes... by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2016-03-14 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone knows an ant, can't move a rubber tree plant
  But he has high hopes...
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
2000? Shouldn't it be 20000? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 04:37 · Score: 0

Why does it say 2000 times their own weight? Shouldn't it be 1769 * 1000grams / (99 grams in total) ? It comes to be around 18 thousand times their own weight.
I guess they missed one zero in the summary.
1. Re:2000? Shouldn't it be 20000? by omnichad · 2016-03-14 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know where the summary got 2,000 from. The article just says "thousands"
2. Re:2000? Shouldn't it be 20000? by omnichad · 2016-03-14 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  But it's likely to have been relating to the rolling resistance rather than the static weight of the car. Putting the weight in the headline is pretty misleading, since it's not directly relevant to the amount of required force (polished floors, lubricated axles, etc.)
please, stop. think of what youre doing... by nimbius · 2016-03-14 04:39 · Score: 2

This kind of technology might seem inconsequential, heck, even beneficial in the 21st century. I come to you from the future, the year 2143...and I beg you, do not unleash this pandoras box. our world is much like your own, except for a highway of autonomous --some say even sentient -- high speed statues of torchwoman --you know her as the statue of liberty -- rivaled in terror only by their helltower counterparts as they blaze across the wasteland once known as "texus" and "Cauli-forgnia." Most cower in fear of their herds, others worship them as signs of bountiful harvest or the approach of the cadmium rains. these are the new gods of our foul world, and we have only you to blame.

--
Good people go to bed earlier.
"pulling-power to move 2,000x their body weight." by Nutria · 2016-03-14 04:39 · Score: 1

Is my math off, or theirs? Because 3.5 oz (0.219 lb) worth of bugs pulling 3900 lbs is a 1:17,800 ratio, not 1:2000.

--
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Husband Relief by sycodon · 2016-03-14 04:42 · Score: 2

I foresee a HUGE market of moving furniture to location after location in various rooms as wives figure out the best arrangement, thereby saving countless backs.

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
1. Re:Husband Relief by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 05:06 · Score: 0
  
  Except that the hard part is getting the rollers under it in the first place, so doesn't really help much.
2. Re:Husband Relief by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · 2016-03-14 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  It's called Sketchup.
Re:"pulling-power to move 2,000x their body weight by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 04:46 · Score: 0

The bugs aren't dangling the car from the ceiling, but pulling the car on a horizontal surface. They only need to overcome the rolling resistance.
Re:Terrible comment by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 04:50 · Score: 0

It's one thing to prove it on paper, it's another to demonstrate it practically. They didn't set out to do anything groundbreaking, just a proof of what can be demonstrated mathematically. Also, dumb people are more interested in videos of small things pulling big things than math proving that it is possible.
New unit system needed by mschaffer · 2016-03-14 04:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

We probably need a new system of units for explaining things to non-technical people:
1 car-pull (symbol Cp): ? newtons
1 football field us (Ff-US): 1000 yards
1 Blue Whale (Whb): 30 meters
Sun temperature (Tps): 5000C
1. Re:New unit system needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 05:04 · Score: 0
  
  [quote] 1 football field us (Ff-US): 1000 yards[/quote]
  That's one hell of a football field.
2. Re:New unit system needed by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · 2016-03-14 06:58 · Score: 5, Funny
  My personal favorites:
  1 inch: 2.54 cm
  1 foot: 30.48 cm
  1 foot pound: 1.36 joules
  1 ounce: 28.35 grams
  1 pint: 0.47 liters
  --
  -SR
3. Re:New unit system needed by Darinbob · 2016-03-14 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  Whoah, too much math. Slow down.
4. Re:New unit system needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 09:03 · Score: 0
  
  "1 football field us (Ff-US): 1000 yards"
  Those are going to be some damn tired football players when the game is over. ;)
5. Re:New unit system needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 10:15 · Score: 0
  My personal favorites:
  
  1 inch: 2.54 cm
  1 foot: 30.48 cm
  1 foot pound: 1.36 joules
  1 ounce: 28.35 grams
  1 pint: 0.47 liters
  1 US pint (16 us fl oz) = 0.47 liters;
  1 UK pint (20 uk fl oz) = 0.57 liters
6. Re:New unit system needed by Zero__Kelvin · 2016-03-14 12:08 · Score: 0
  
  Don't forget:
  1 Moron = mschaffer !
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
7. Re:New unit system needed by Thong · 2016-03-14 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  All good except I think you messed up on the foot-pound bit. Torque should be Newton Metres in metric.
  Joules is the measurement of energy. I suppose that would Calories in the U.S., Burma and Liberia.
8. Re:New unit system needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 13:03 · Score: 0
  
  1 football field us (Ff-US): 1000 yards You are a fucking Genius.
9. Re:New unit system needed by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · 2016-03-14 23:02 · Score: 1
  
  Ironically, it's foot-pound for energy and pound-foot for torque. :-)
  
  --
  -SR
10. Re:New unit system needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-15 02:41 · Score: 0
  
  difference between lbf and lbm is the slug factor. I hate slugs.
11. Re:New unit system needed by rpstrong · 2016-03-15 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Where do you live? I'm in the US, and - at least in the tool and auto service fields - 'foot-pounds' is the norm.
12. Re:New unit system needed by rpstrong · 2016-03-15 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  Let's not forget:
  1 smoot = 5 ft 7 in
13. Re:New unit system needed by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · 2016-03-16 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  I'm a displaced wanderer, currently residing in Sweden.
  Foot-pound and pound-foot. It says in the latter article that the torque measurement unit is often referred to as foot-pound even though it should actually be vice versa. All the more reason why the imperial units are insane, heh.
  
  --
  -SR
Battle Plan: Ant Battalion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 04:56 · Score: 0

Drop 10,000 robot ants from a drone over enemy positions and let them tear things up and disrupt their operations...
hovermabored 2.0! by Thud457 · 2016-03-14 05:01 · Score: 1

Can enough of these robot insects fit under my feet so I can glide effortlessly around the Bi-Lo? Seqways are too bulky and Luddite.

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Incorrect statements .... by King_TJ · 2016-03-14 05:07 · Score: 2

Not saying the achievement isn't notable ... but pulling a vehicle isn't quite as difficult as they want you to believe.
Here's a video of a girl in Morocco pulling a car by her pony-tail!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
1. Re:Incorrect statements .... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-15 04:20 · Score: 0
  
  Let me know when she has mastered Jiu Yang Shen Gong (the martial art that involves pulling things around with your ding dong).
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
2. Re:Incorrect statements .... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-19 07:13 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry, I'm not *about* to click on *those* links...
Pffft. That's nothing. by hey! · 2016-03-14 05:24 · Score: 1

Give me a lever, and a place to stand...

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
1. Re:Pffft. That's nothing. by Overzeetop · 2016-03-14 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  Kronk, is that you?
  .
  .
  .
  .
  Why do we even *have* that lever?!?
  
  --
  Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
2. Re:Pffft. That's nothing. by penguinoid · 2016-03-14 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  Give me a lever, and a place to stand...
  And a crane to lift the lever...
  
  --
  Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
"Oh no! Talcum powder!" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 05:31 · Score: 0

"My only weakness!"
Re:please, stop. think of what youre doing... by avandesande · 2016-03-14 05:54 · Score: 0

also, think of the children!

--
love is just extroverted narcissism
That's impressive by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · 2016-03-14 05:59 · Score: 1

Their new demonstration is the functional equivalent of a team of six humans moving a weight equivalent to that of an Eiffel Tower and three Statues of Liberty," said David Christensen
What's this? An Eiffel Tower and Statues of Liberty for ants?
Re:"pulling-power to move 2,000x their body weight by samwichse · 2016-03-14 07:30 · Score: 1

It's a little closer if each robot weighs 3.5oz individually (so 1.313 lbs total)... but it still comes out to 2971x... so where did 2000x come from?
Are they using....suction cups? by Eloking · 2016-03-14 08:38 · Score: 1

Is it just me of the tiny robot move forward then use a suction cup to immobilize themselves while pulling?
If that's so, that mean the whole technology depend that robot work on a flat surface. It's way less impressing if it's the case.

--
Elok
1. Re:Are they using....suction cups? by KGIII · 2016-03-14 12:28 · Score: 2
  
  Gotta be honest here... That's a fuck of a lot better than any robot that I've made. How about you, what is the power:weight ratio for your robot?
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
so 7500 tons = 214 strong man competitors by iggymanz · 2016-03-14 08:54 · Score: 1

some strongmen competitions have guy pulling 35 ton locomotive
I, for one, welcome... by Mr.Fork · 2016-03-14 09:10 · Score: 1

...to our new Robot Overlords.

--
Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things. - Peter F. Drucker
Gone in 60 hours. by dsmatthews9379 · 2016-03-14 10:02 · Score: 1

I for one welcome our very slow, car stealing, microbot overlords, but how good are they at playing Go?
1. Re:Gone in 60 hours. by KGIII · 2016-03-14 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  Good news, they don't appear impervious to being stepped on.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
Except they weren't robotic ants at all by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 10:08 · Score: 1

The six-legged ant robots in TFA's video were being used to demonstrate running behaviors. The robots used to pull the car had two wheels, a suction cup and no legs.
HA! Well this is certainly some motivation by AdrianBaker · 2016-03-14 22:45 · Score: 1

Well, if little, tiny ants can get a 3,000+ lb car rolling then I need to start spending more time in the gym. Looks like robots are the future, has anyone seen that Boston company with the crazy robots? Frightening, really.
mass is not inertia by mschaffer · 2016-03-15 05:01 · Score: 1

Since mass is not inertia, it would appear that there is at leas one moron present: Zero__Kelvin
Zero__Kelvin = zero intelligence!
all your units are belong to us by termineite · 2016-03-15 06:13 · Score: 1

The mechanical ants weight 0.099kg and have 200N of force which translates to roughly 20.4kgf (kilogram-force).

That would put a 75kg adult being able to apply 15450kfg.

A very far cry from the 7.3 million kg the Eiffel tower weights but, nonetheless, absolutely impressive.
Can they pull Trump out of the election?! by martinfb · 2016-03-15 13:14 · Score: 1

PLEASE!

--

Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.