Ford Pilots a New Exoskeleton To Lessen Worker Fatigue (futurism.com)

Ford is partnering with California-based exoskeleton maker Ekso Bionics to trial a non-powered upper body exoskeletal tool called EksoVest in two of the carmaker's U.S. plants. The goal is to lessen the fatigue factory workers experience in Ford's car manufacturing plants. Futurism reports: Designed to fit workers from five feet to six feet four inches tall, the EksoVest adds some 3 to 6 kilograms (5 to 15 pounds) of adjustable lift assistance to each arm. This exoskeleton is also comfortable enough to wear while providing free arm movement thanks to its lightweight construction. "Collaboratively working with Ford enabled us to test and refine early prototypes of the EksoVest based on insights directly from their production line workers," Ekso Bionics co-founder and CTO Russ Angold said in a Ford press release. "The end result is a wearable tool that reduces the strain on a worker's body, reducing the likelihood of injury, and helping them feel better at the end of the day -- increasing both productivity and morale." The U.S. trial, made possible with the help of the United Automobile Workers, has already demonstrated the wonders that the exoskeleton can offer in reducing fatigue from high-frequency tasks. As such, Ford plans to expand their EksoVest pilot program to other regions, which include Europe and South America.

Comments

Interesting start.

[glitch!]

This sounds like an interesting start. It's not powered armor, but a trivial gain in weight carrying power is something. Yes, 15 pounds per arm is very low. But it's a start and they can collect data to help refine their system. With time, they might create a suit with useful powers.

Re:Interesting start.

[Anonymous Coward]

Serious about a better life for workers, strapping them in a fucking machine is not fucking it, you sick bastards. Talk about turning people into a cog in the machine, you are now a device, your body is superfluous, we just need your brain to control the machine. Why not free workers even fucking more, cut out their brains and put them in a jar in the machine, now how efficient would that be.

You're honestly a moron. Workers need to be there precisely because there's a lot of things machines are somewhere between bad out or horrible at. Humans are always necessary for the inspection of parts precisely because computer vision sucks even in the best of circumstances. Trying to spin this all as "human brain in a jar" really misses the point. Now, whether an exo-skeleton is the right answer is definitely debatable. But the whole notion that the issue is humans and robots in some fashion working together? I honestly think you've got no real experience handling 15lb steel parts 8 hours a day.

Re:Interesting start.

[Anonymous Coward]

Strapping people into a machine

For example, strapping yourself inside of an automobile.

Hmm.

Got it.

Re: Interesting start.

[Anonymous Coward]

1 month vacation should be the standard minimum anymore.

Re:Interesting start.

[Anonymous Coward]

They're already there doing the work. This is an improvement in employment conditions, because it will reduce their own risk of injury from heavy repetitive work.

Re:Interesting start.

[DerekLyons]

The problem with powered armor isn't the suit design - it's the power supply, which requires carefully refined unobtanium moderated with pixie dust in sealed unicorn horn capsules.

Re:Interesting start.

[Anonymous Coward]

They just need a solar panel on their hat and a battery in their pocket. Problem solved..

Re:Interesting start.

[Anonymous Coward]

Charging pads in the floor?

Re:Interesting start.

[gurps_npc]

I don't consider 15 pounds to be low, except in comparison to comic book/movie exoskeletons, especially as it is per arm.

Most people work out with single hand weights weighing 15 pound or less.

At 30 pounds total, that is about over 3 gallons of water. Try hauling that around all day while you work.

Re:Interesting start.

[Anonymous Coward]

They just need a solar panel on their hat and a battery in their pocket. Problem solved..

You forgot the beanie propeller on their head. /whimsy

Re:Interesting start.

[Wycliffe]

how about a nice comfy chair, a cup of coffee, an airconditioned office and a remote control and VR remote control. Look at it this was, that warehouse would no longer need to be conditioned, no temperature, lighting or even fresh air beyond the needs of the goods stored there, because the works are in a healthy safe human beneficial work environment operating the device by virtual reality remote control. How many jobs would be some much better with the simple inclusion of VR remote control, it is even conceivable that you do it from home.

Although I agree with you that a shorter work week would be good, I'm not convinced that it's any healthier to have workers sitting at a desk with a joystick all day. The human body requires movement and sitting is killing us. We really need to rethink work. Currently jobs are mostly either 100% manual labor which is terrible on your body or 100% desk job which might be even worse. Having some sort of exoskeleton might actually be an improvement. The worker still gets the movement that keeps them active without the physical strain that usually comes from manual labor.

Re: Interesting start.

[Anonymous Coward]

You completely missed the point. Parent was saying that giving more reasonable working hours and time off is a far more humane way of reducing fatigue than plugging someone into an exoskeleton. We've had this discussion on a previous thread, and the upshot was that I learnt that statuatory paid time off, sick leave and holiday time is completely against the US psyche, who prefer to stick their tongues up that corporation hole and really work it.

Re:Interesting start.

[mlyle]

Hauling around 3 gallons of water all day is no big deal. It's doing it with your arms, and repeatedly, that sucks.

The Macarena

[Arzaboa]

I'd like to write a couple of macro's for these things.

--
"Hey Macarena" -- Los Del Rio

Re:The Macarena

[lucm]

I'd like to write a couple of macro's for these things.

--
"Hey Macarena" -- Los Del Rio

Fun part is that it will happen. Because we all know that the second they IoT these things there will be backdoors and default passwords and unsecured wifi, and some dude bored to death in his basement will start running "twigsnapper.js" and "cockfight.js". All in good fun.

Re:The Macarena

[PolygamousRanchKid]

I'd like to write a couple of macro's for these things.

-- "Hey Macarena" -- Los Del Rio

Hmmm . . . I think, for the US auto industry, it would be more important to implement other South Asian technologies in automobile production robots:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:The Macarena

[_merlin]

Gangnam Style is East Asian, not South Asian.

Re:The Macarena

[Megane]

If you are making an exoskeleton dance, wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it "Gundam style"?

Re:The Macarena

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to write a couple of macro's for these things.

--
"Hey Macarena" -- Los Del Rio

Hmmm . . . I think, for the US auto industry, it would be more important to implement other South Asian technologies in automobile production robots:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Your link led me to planking, which led me to the discovery that there actually is a "Darwin Award"! I've been using that term sarcastically since the '80s, but had no idea that there is actually a Darwin Award! Thanks for the unintentional enlightenment! I shall avoid planking on a balcony.

Ans then

[bobstreo]

Data Analytics, AI, and after enough input. you can just replace the workers with robots that have been trained for everything the workers do...

Either Or

[tquasar]

Ripley, is that you? Or Mecha- Streisand.

wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's non-powered, how does it add lift? Counterweights? Riiiiiiight.

Re:wait...

[blindseer]

If it's non-powered, how does it add lift? Counterweights? Riiiiiiight.

Magnets.

Seriously, is this that hard to imagine? Put in some springs or something elastic. People have been using simple devices to assist in motion for a long time. There are lifting belts that take some strain off of backs. Dancing shoes of various sorts let people stand on tiptoes or whatever. Just shoes generally, from basketball shoes with little air pockets in the soles to those crazy spring loaded contraptions that people use to jump over cars. None of these things are powered but they add some kind of support, leverage, or energy storage.

Re:wait...

[drinkypoo]

It's probably springs of some form. Your body already does this; energy is stored in your tendons when you walk. When you shift your weight from one leg to the other, one tendon stretches (the foot coming down) while the other relaxes, giving up some of the energy used to stretch it. This is why bipedal walking is so efficient, and in turn why any fit and healthy human can do it all day.

Let's say you had to repeatedly squat all day. If they built an exoskeleton which went under tension when you sank into a squatting position, then it would help you get back up and reduce the amount of work you had to do, letting you perform the action more times. It might make it harder to get back up if you fell down, though. We could probably have evolved to be more springy, so if we haven't, there's probably a drawback. It might however still be worth it to wear one while doing a particular job. Our hands are soft and delicate so that we can do fine detail work, lots of other animals (including other primates) have tougher skin. But we still put on gloves, which reduce tactile feedback. Then we take them off again.

Re:wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are other similar examples of this, like drywall stilts. Unless you are 8' tall.

Mod parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for the UAW and am paid $145/hr plus benefits to laugh at these comments for 15 minutes per day.

fix humans or fix design?

[4wdloop]

Well could not they turn the car sideways (design for it) for better ergonomics?

Sucks for us in the 1%

[blindseer]

Designed to fit workers from five feet to six feet four inches tall

As someone that is six feet five inches tall I'm not terribly surprised at this. About 99% of the populations is between five feet and six feet four inches tall. I've gotten used to things in the world not being designed for people as tall as I am, but it still sucks. You'd think that just one inch is not such a big deal but consider the height of a typical door. Most household doors are six feet eight inches before things like flooring and such are added, now add the thickness of the sole of a typical work boot, and headgear like a helmet, hearing protection, or just a baseball cap. Now someone that's just an inch taller than 99% of the population has to be very careful walking through doors or that little metal button on the top of a baseball cap gets slammed into their skull. Those door return mechanisms on many fire doors are another hazard to life and eyesight for the 1%.

Here's an interesting thing I found out, being short is considered a "disability" but being tall is not. A person under five feet tall (male or female*) is considered "disabled" under laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, and as a "disabled person" they can demand "reasonable accommodations" for their height. There is no upper limit to height that I can see being considered automatically a disability, therefore businesses are not required to make any "reasonable accommodations". Is that "fair"? Life's not fair.

* If one is not either male or female then that's just weird, and not a disability under any law I could see.

Re:Sucks for us in the 1%

[Spy Handler]

Being under 5 feet tall is a disability under ADA? I didn't know that.

Also where did you get this "99% of the population is between five feet and six feet four inches tall" figure? A large percent of the population is under 5 feet tall. They're called children.

Re:Sucks for us in the 1%

[dunkelfalke]

so now you are whining because you are literally too stupid to duck?

Re:Sucks for us in the 1%

[blindseer]

Right, that would be "adult population".

One thing about being short is that such people can find clothes, children's clothes but they exist. I don't see too many tall women complain about finding clothes that fit. Their dresses might be shorter on them, they can buy men's clothes (which can be stylish regardless of the practicality), and those cropped pants that are (or were) the style don't look silly if another inch or two shorter. I've been finding it easier to get clothes every year but my selections are always limited, for example a style of carpenter jeans I like will come in 7 colors in most sizes but in "tall" they only come in 4.

Re:Sucks for us in the 1%

[blindseer]

No, I'm pointing out the difference an inch can make. Once I grew to be tall enough to start hitting the tops of doors with my head I had to learn when to duck, and then months later find myself hitting my head where I hadn't before. But that's only part of the problem.

I'm just far enough from the norm that I'll fit most places but not all. Mostly my complaint is about people one inch "too short" have it easy compared to people like myself who are one inch "too tall". One example is having my assigned desk and chair at work too short for me. A person on the short end of the height scale have the ADA to protect them from having such an uncomfortable arrangement. I have no such protection in law. I had to rely on the company policies of keeping an ergonomic workplace.

If I was in this Ford factory then I might not fit in this work harness they use. I suspect this is more than likely due to my slightly longer arms, that's by proportion not just by my height. I would not have protection under the ADA for Ford to make any accommodations. Someone under 5 feet would have ADA protections. Ford might be forced to find the short person a different job they could do, or fashion a special harness for them. I might simply lose my job.

I have people tell me, "I wish I was as tall as you." I'll reply, sometimes only to myself, "No, you don't."

Re:Sucks for us in the 1%

[dunkelfalke]

because being too tall is not nearly as inconvinient as being too short. for you it is just a slight loss of comfort, but you are still able to accomodate yourself. a too short person is physically unable to compensate. but if you are too stupid to duck, i guess you are also too stupid to understand that.

Re:Sucks for us in the 1%

[blindseer]

Who pissed in your Cheerios?

I was just making an observation on an odd quirk in ADA law as well as poking fun at the "top one percent" protesters. As a teen I had to learn to duck under some doorways, because there was a time I wasn't six feet five inches tall. It took a few bumps on the head to figure out that doors are made to fit 99% of the population and I had grown to be outside that 99%. It sometimes sucks being as tall as I am but I manage just fine most the time.

By saying I'm "too stupid to duck" you are effectively mocking a younger version of myself. If you see a tall young teen knock his head into a door frame then would it be your immediate reaction to point and laugh?

Grow up.

Re:Sucks for us in the 1%

[dunkelfalke]

it is not a quirk and the fact that i actually have to explain this to you... well, i guess you have hit your head too many times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Sucks for us in the 1%

[Anonymous Coward]

Being tall isn't generally considered a disability because the benefits of being tall vastly outweigh the downsides. People are more likely to like you, more likely to believe you (even when you lie about things like qualifications), much more likely to strike deals with you that are more beneficial to you than to them, more likely to do what they're told when you're a manager (and you're more likely to get hired as a manager), less likely to screw you over or rob you. You're also potentially a lot better at most menial jobs because of your greater reach (and with some exercise you'll get stronger as well). In the personal sphere, you're more likely to get good friends and a lovely wife and you're less likely to get a divorce.
So you have to duck every now and then and your clothes are bit more expensive. It's nothing compared to all the things regular folk have to worry about that are no concern to you because unless you're a major screw-up, your life is vastly better in general.

Re:Sucks for us in the 1%

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that you have an awesome sense of humor about it all. If I were you, I'd call up your representative, perhaps Congress could fix the ADA if it's like you say... getting Congress to do useful stuff from time to time is good for all of us.

Re:Sucks for us in the 1%

[Wycliffe]

because being too tall is not nearly as inconvinient as being too short.

How do you figure? I don't see a major problem with being too short. We have a ton of short people called children so most companies and products have allowances made for this. Not so for someone who is tall. Someone who is extra tall doesn't have the option of shopping in the kids section for their furniture or clothes.

Re:Sucks for us in the 1%

[Anonymous Coward]

That goalpost moved so fast my neck hurts from watching it.

When your height increases your income in every western country and most other countries, you can't possibly claim it has been a hindrance to you with integrity. It's pathetic.

Just another day for blindseer.

Re:Sucks for us in the 1%

[dunkelfalke]

since when children work at ford?

Re:Sucks for us in the 1%

[mlyle]

If you're too short, you might not be able to drive a random car. You might not be able to reach the microwave in many houses, etc. It's a completely disjoint different kind of suck.

I think the trouble is being tall

[rsilvergun]

has never been litigated because, well, being tall is such a huge advantage in life. You're generally more respected and looked at more favorably. Men & Women find you more attractive (something like 90% of Women say they want a taller man, not sure what the stats are for the other side) and it's a rare day I see somebody short who gets promoted and when I do they're usually some kind of bad ass engineer.

I'm not trying to throw shade. I think it's an issue that might actually need to be litigated at some point. But I am saying that most of the tall folks I know would just move on to a nicer job if they were put in that situation rather than bothering with a lawsuit. Sort of a reverse survival bias.

Re:I think the trouble is being tall

[drinkypoo]

Being tall becomes a down side when you pair it with other things, like being fat or hairy or ugly. Then it makes you the big scary guy instead of the tall imposing guy.

I'm hairy, and sometimes I'm fat (I'm medium fat now) but even at forty I'm still relatively good-looking if you catch my good side*... so I get the opportunity to see both sides of this. Some people look up to me, and some people quail from me, and some people are just mad at me — before I even open my mouth.

* Most of us have notably asymmetrical faces, and mine is pretty typical in that regard, but one side looks happy and the other side looks annoyed. I have resting comedy/tragedy face.

It's an old idea...

[VAXcat]

GE did it in the 60s. This project was the inspiration for the powered armor in Starship Troopers. http://cyberneticzoo.com/man-a...

Logic Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I literally just finished reading Starship Troopers. The copyright date on that is 1959, meaning he probably wrote it in the '57 to '59 timeframe. How does work GE did on the 1960's teleport back in time to help Heinlein publish Starship Troopers in 1959?

OK, update. I followed your link and found a reference to a "Yes Man" device all the way back to 1956. There was also a "Handyman" device demonstrated in 1958-9. These were primitive devices and not a suit in any reasonable sense of the word. That took until 1965 at the earliest.

However it is plausible that a sci-fi writer like Heinlein might be aware of these devices in the late 1950's and extrapolate the technology to a suit configuration.