Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Have Built Robot Muscles That Can Lift 1,000 Times Their Own Weight (qz.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Quartz: Researchers at Harvard's Wyss Institute and MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) announced today (Nov. 27) that they've created robotic "muscles" that can lift up to 1,000 times their own weight. The simple objects are constructed out of metal or plastic "skeletons" that are covered in either a liquid or air, and then sealed in plastic or fabric "skins." The muscle pulls taught when a vacuum is created inside the skin, and goes slack when the vacuum is released. By folding the skeletons in different ways, the vacuum can pull the muscle in different directions. "Vacuum-based muscles have a lower risk of rupture, failure, and damage, and they don't expand when they're operating, so you can integrate them into closer-fitting robots on the human body," Daniel Vogt, a research engineer at the Wyss Institute, said in a release.

These new structures are also surprisingly cheap. As they don't require anything other than water or air to move them, the researchers told Harvard that a single muscle can be built in about 10 minutes, for less than $1. (Obviously, there'd still be a cost for the vacuum or whatever is being used to change the pressure of the muscles.)

119 comments

  1. MECHWARRIORS! OUR TIME IS NOW! by Sologretto · · Score: 2

    ... or in 30 years after Boston Dynamics patents expire and we have the reasonably sized fusion reactors that we've been promised for like 50 years...

  2. Unacceptable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I don't want my army of killer robots going limp the moment you decide to escape into space.

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

      Whatever. I won't be exposing my tentacle sex robot to vacuum so I don't care much.

    2. Re:Unacceptable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think exposing yourself to the vacuum is what you are looking for anyways.

  3. 1,000 times their own weight! by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    The catch is they only weigh 2 nanograms. Silly "scientists".

    1. Re:1,000 times their own weight! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      These'll go great with the adamantium skeleton I'm look at on ebay. Unfortunately, installation service isn't included.

    2. Re:1,000 times their own weight! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the catch is they aren't muscles. They're just structures held in place by air pressure. This is what happens when you're too specialized (or just running after DARPA money). It's only pneumatics/hydraulics. Anyone who has ever vacuum packed their food or clothing has created one of their 'robot muscles'. Granted their's have more complicated shapes, but that doesn't make them novel.

      If you're having a hard time understanding their muscle, look at your penis or clit. Same thing. Structured cells fill with fluid to form a ridged body capable of holding more than it's weight. Empty the fluid and it returns to the original size/shape. I hope you won't have to pay them a licensing fee every time you get an erection. Fee enforcement might get awkward. On second thought, where can I buy their stock?

      You can DIY this, so don't worry about it being vapor ware. It already existed.

    3. Re:1,000 times their own weight! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      The catch is they only weigh 2 nanograms. Silly "scientists".

      Indeed. "Lifting capacity as a multiple of weight" is a meaningless metric. It is trivial to achieve just by using a tiny displacement.

    4. Re:1,000 times their own weight! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I hope you won't have to pay them a licensing fee every time you get an erection

      Time for a Free Hardware Foundation - like the FSF - with a dick as its mascot!

    5. Re:1,000 times their own weight! by BlueStrat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, the catch is they aren't muscles. They're just structures held in place by air pressure. This is what happens when you're too specialized (or just running after DARPA money). It's only pneumatics/hydraulics. Anyone who has ever vacuum packed their food or clothing has created one of their 'robot muscles'. Granted their's have more complicated shapes, but that doesn't make them novel.

      Many absolutely ingenious pneumatically-driven actuators were designed and used over the decades quite widely in many, many areas of industry, manufacturing, and defense for myriads of applications and uses all the way up through the 1950s-60s. Pneumatic technology of all sorts was one of the "cool" and "in" things in the early 1900s, many novel examples winding up being featured in "futuristic" displays in World Fairs during the period.

      I say this to point out that these boys (bless their hearts) might be trying to reinvent the wheel, here.

      Sometimes, reading these types of articles that are all breathless over something like pneumatics, or hydraulics in the case of a fluid-based system, I wonder if maybe modern-day scientific researchers and scientists miss prior work in some field they're in simply because they only research prior work that's been digitized and made available online while missing the huge amount of research and documentation that still exists only on paper and/or possibly microfiche that require relatively large amounts of man-hours to search and read.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    6. Re: 1,000 times their own weight! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ha! The Wyss Institute and counterpart Engineering & Applied Science (Biotech) lab is a joke... DARPA doesn't want a vacuum powered TALOS; the whole idea of catastrophic failure from a jihadi with a broken plastic spoon lunging at a 120+ decibel, awkward moving super soldier seems all too likely the outcome of implementation... The whole thing just doesn't seem to fit their design perameters; right on par with all the other fruits of their grant squandering...

    7. Re:1,000 times their own weight! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "This 10 cm-long linear actuator was fabricated within 10 min, with materials costing less than $1. This actuator weighs 2.6 g, and it can lift a 3 kg object within 0.2 s using a 80 kPa vacuum. " (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/11/21/1713450114.full - the underlying research paper.)

    8. Re:1,000 times their own weight! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My mechanical muscle that works by freezing and thawing a tiny amount of water lifts one million times its own weight the distance the water expands between liquid and solid phase.

    9. Re:1,000 times their own weight! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Joking aside, it's great when we see advances in mechatronics. With such advances in both hardware and software, pretty soon we will have our dexterous robots.

    10. Re:1,000 times their own weight! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These'll go great with the adamantium skeleton I'm look at on ebay. Unfortunately, installation service isn't included.

      You may feel some, uh, discomfort--during the installation procedure.

      Ok, it's going to hurt.

      A lot.

    11. Re:1,000 times their own weight! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you won't have to pay them a licensing fee every time you get an erection

      Time for a Free Hardware Foundation - like the FSF - with a dick as its mascot!

      I think you mean Free Hard-on Foundation.

  4. Newsflash! by thesupraman · · Score: 1

    'Scientists' rediscover flexible pneumatics.
    For about the thousandth time.
    I wonder when they will discover they can use a lever to increase for force applied!
    Perhaps also something round to allow the device to smoothly move over the ground!

    1. Re:Newsflash! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do you know the difference between "rediscover" and "apply in a new way"? A lot of discoveries and inventions are based on very old and established ideas with incremental tweaks and improvements, especially as other fields, like materials and manufacturing, advance in parallel.

    2. Re:Newsflash! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "apply in a new way" would be some innovative compact fluid power unit and precise micro circuits for precisely controlling large numbers of pneumatic loops.

      This is quite literally scientists playing with water balloons and calling it a new discovery. The problem of using pneumatics in this way never about the 'muscle' or the 'skeleton'. That's been done to death. The problem is you can't make a very useful robot if it has to pull it's own fluid control cart behind it plugged into an AC outlet.

      It might as well be a sock puppet. They could call it a sock robot "applied in a new way" just so we're clear on the distinction.

  5. Erector set mega claw circa 1983 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The picture in the article looks just like the erector set 'claw' I had in the 80s, if you covered it's 'fingers' with a balloon.

  6. Re:MECHWARRIORS! OUR TIME IS NOW! by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    Patents expire after 20 years.

    Nobody promised you a fusion reactor. That was the moron talking head on the TV not understanding the story.

  7. pshhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not even close to what I'm puttin up. You even lyft brah? NERDS!

  8. Only a dollar! by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    Only a dollar, not counting all of the other expenses required to exploit the technique in anything resembling a reliable, portable, battery-feasible practical application.

    My SUV runs on lug nuts and body panel rivets that only cost pennies each to manufacture!

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:Only a dollar! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My SUV runs on lug nuts and body panel rivets that only cost pennies each to manufacture!

      How ironic that the most expensive component on any vehicle is the logo glued on the grill.

    2. Re:Only a dollar! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      How ironic that the most expensive component on any vehicle is the logo glued on the grill.

      If you can buy it separately from the grill, it usually costs under thirty bucks to replace the logo. I can probably name at least a half-dozen components that cost more than that to produce, starting with every major casting or forging, and I can sit here all day and name parts that cost more in the parts department.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Only a dollar! by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Not sure what the GP was saying ... a grill emblem does NOT cost more to make than ... an airbag assembly. Or a windshield. Or a rear bumper assembly.

      People are silly.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:Only a dollar! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm sure they were trying to say something clever about how people pay more for a car because it has a fancy badge on it, but I enjoy being pedantic which is why I Slashdot.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Only a dollar! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're excused for overestimating a car's usefulness here, as opposed to a woman's handbag.

  9. Yeah, that's cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I played with this in the '90s.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  10. unsubstantiated claims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm sure these vacuum muscles are great. The paper is actually very nice and exceptionally detailed. I really could not ask for more, technically. My problem is with the "built for $1 in 10 minutes" part of this being included in a scientific paper (although buried in Table S3 in the supplement).

    I am a scientist. I know how this works. "Scientific" conclusions require support through data, modeling, or citation in the text. Then there are the statements presented as fact, but are actually put there to get funding or attention. This "$1" statement is one of those. It's lazy, misleading, and bad science.

    Cost is a quantitative metric, an easily measured value. Give us the actual cost. How much was spent? How many did you make? That number makes a lot of scientists uncomfortable, there's a lot of developmental costs associated with that... but it's honest.

    Quoting vague times and estimates of minimal material doesn't incorporate equipment, training, and expertise required to make something. This was a problem with a promising paper based microfluidics project I reviewed (also DARPA funded) a few years ago. It turns out there was one guy in the lab who could actually make some of the chemicals required, and he wasn't able to effectively transfer that knowledge to anyone else for many years. It doesn't matter what something is made of or how quick it is to make; if only one person in a team of PhDs can make the process work, it's not going to be cheap any time soon (maybe one day...). So while the cost quoted in the literature for the devices was pennies, millions of dollars was spent on (failed) training that was not accounted for.

    If you really want to show that you have something manufacturable without actually doing manufacturing, have an intern manufacture widgets for you for a while. Keep track of training and oversight time as well as yield rates and scrap material, and use all that to report projected costs.

  11. Re:MECHWARRIORS! OUR TIME IS NOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I get old enough that my natural muscles start failing me, I will expect these to be ready to be used as replacements. The above-and-beyond super-strength is a nice side-benefit.

    I will, of course, also need a cure for age-related cognitive decline by then.

  12. Obligatory- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty sure I can't lift ONE time my own weight..

    1. Re:Obligatory- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need pneumatic void muscles.

  13. The cost of vacuum by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

    (Obviously, there'd still be a cost for the vacuum or whatever is being used to change the pressure of the muscles.)

    But if we use up all our vacuum on robot muscles, when future generations look for vacuum they'll find nothing! That would really suck!

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
  14. Re:MECHWARRIORS! OUR TIME IS NOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not only that, but assuming they had some secret sauce recipe, the patents are likely ten years old already.

  15. Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where do you get vacuum?

    1. Re:Great by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Microsoft.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your brain, obviously

    3. Re:Great by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Where do you get vacuum?

      Outer space is an unlimited resource. Let's mine Outer space for vacuum! Vacuum is the new oil of the 21st century.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    4. Re: Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will be so valuable we will have to secure it by encrypting the vacuum on the block chain...

  16. Slow, fragile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An artificial arm with this technology would be fantastic, light weight, cheap and flexible like its organic counterpart. But there are draw backs

    1)It is strong to its weight but its weight is low, it needs to be strong flat out and these systems look like a child could pull them open even under tension.

    2)It is slow, which for some operations still leaves it within the realm of practical but for the majority of applications this is unacceptable.

    3)Flex fatigue would be a factor, in a lab just to demonstrate with fresh materials it looks good, but in the real world where things get scratched and wear down I cannot honestly see one of these muscles lasting beyond a month in indoor conditions before fraying and failing (most appear to need the entire surface to be unbroken to maintain a seal). In outdoor conditions this would occur much faster and water based units would be highly temperature sensitive.

    This technology also looks identical to technology I observed decades ago which never went anywhere for the above stated reasons. Industry standard is not vacuum based but servo motor based. Servo motors are stronger, faster and more robust in real world conditions.

    Stop infantilizing university students and give them a tough love approach, the idea was proven bad long ago. Revisiting this area of research does nothing to serve humanities needs.

    1. Re:Slow, fragile by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Slow and fragile BUT light, low-cost and easy to manufacture.

      There has to be applications where those features are preferred over stronger/faster/more robust.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:Slow, fragile by godel_56 · · Score: 1

      An artificial arm with this technology would be fantastic, light weight, cheap and flexible like its organic counterpart. But there are draw backs

      1)It is strong to its weight but its weight is low, it needs to be strong flat out and these systems look like a child could pull them open even under tension.

      You underestimate the power of air pressure, assuming it has a reasonable amount of surface area to work on. At 14.2 pounds per square inch or about one kg per square cm it won't take much surface area to overpower even a strong man, let alone a child, and these things are folded to provide lots of area.

      2)It is slow, which for some operations still leaves it within the realm of practical but for the majority of applications this is unacceptable.

      3)Flex fatigue would be a factor, in a lab just to demonstrate with fresh materials it looks good, but in the real world where things get scratched and wear down I cannot honestly see one of these muscles lasting beyond a month in indoor conditions before fraying and failing (most appear to need the entire surface to be unbroken to maintain a seal). In outdoor conditions this would occur much faster and water based units would be highly temperature sensitive.

      I dunno, modern plastics can be pretty damn tough. Even if they have to be replaced every 6 months or so (indoors), that could be acceptable if they're cheap enough to make. The nuisance of having to replace them could compensate for the high initial cost of a precision machined hydraulic solution

  17. taut not taught! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given the number of systems that are being "taught" these days, it's kinda important to distinguish "taut" from "taught". Pity TFS author hasn't learned the difference.

    1. Re:taut not taught! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Pity TFS author hasn't learned the difference.

      It's that way in the linked article. Sad, I know.

      Protip: http://www.dictionary.com/

    2. Re:taut not taught! by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Spellcheck said it was OK.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    3. Re:taut not taught! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you spelled 'taut' correctly. Wrong word mate.

  18. Uh, watch out for that... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

    Vacuum-based muscles have a lower risk of rupture, failure, and damage, and they don't expand when they're operating, so you can integrate them into closer-fitting robots on the human body,

    OK, if you want to read a story you'll never be able to forget, read about the little girl that was eviscerated by the suction of a pool filter and the action of her somewhat dense mommy. Or, on second thought, don't read that. It's too nasty.

    There are risks to high suction next to the human body. Especially sick and weak ones.

    1. Re:Uh, watch out for that... by SCVonSteroids · · Score: 1

      It's great to be aware of certain dangers.

      But damn....

      --
      I tend to rant.
  19. Elon Musk to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By that time Elon will offer us a round trip to the nearest black hole in his BFR-7 to collect some of the much needed vacuum.

  20. who invented this? was it Elon Musk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HE INVENTS EVERYTHING

  21. The disadvantage of vacuum pressure by Solandri · · Score: 5, Interesting

    . "Vacuum-based muscles have a lower risk of rupture, failure, and damage, and they don't expand when they're operating, so you can integrate them into closer-fitting robots on the human body,"

    The disadvantage of basing it on vacuum pressure is that their force is limited to ambient pressure. For sea level that's 14.7 PSI, or about 10 Newtons per square cm of muscle cross sectional area. The typical human muscle can pull with a force of about 35 N/cm^2. So these artificial muscles are considerably weaker than biological muscles. Sorry all you Mechwarrior fans.

    It might turn out to be useful in underwater applications. Pressure underwater increases by 1 atmosphere approximately every 10 meters of depth, so it wouldn't take much depth to greatly exceed human musclepower. The problem might actually be being able to pull a vacuum under those pressures.

    Incidentally, air pressure is also what they use to make zero-g weightlifting exercise equipment.

    1. Re:The disadvantage of vacuum pressure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can use the exact same design and have the muscles based on forced pressure instead of vacuum pressure. The only change is you'll no longer be able to make the sensationalist statement of them not expanding when operating.

    2. Re:The disadvantage of vacuum pressure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you need 3.5x the cross-sectional area to develop the same force? This increases the diameter of the muscle less than 2-fold: seems reasonable to me! Anyway, if you wanted to develop more force, I wonder if you could pressurize the exterior of the muscle, rather than applying a vacuum to the interior. With 10 bar pressure you would end up with a robot muscle 3-fold stronger than a human one!

    3. Re:The disadvantage of vacuum pressure by MobyDisk · · Score: 2

      You just pointed out what is awful about science reporting. The summary is written to make you think the muscles are strong, when you seem to be pointing out that the muscles are weak.

      can lift up to 1,000 times their own weight.

      That *sounds* strong! But without something to compare it to that number is meaningless. It also sounds like it's the wrong unit of measure anyway.

    4. Re:The disadvantage of vacuum pressure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong with comparing to weight?

      If your cell phone battery stored 2x as much energy, and it weighed as much, but took up twice the volume, that would be useful for some people. If it weight twice as much but had the same volume, that would be useful for other people.

    5. Re:The disadvantage of vacuum pressure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that to make it bigger increases its weight. I'll just leave it with, how weight vs lifting capacity scales, look up why a 50 foot ant scaled linearly wouldn't be much of a threat.

    6. Re: The disadvantage of vacuum pressure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It actually scales well if used in the correct environment. Specifically under water or pressurized chambers. Think jelly fish, not exoskeletons. There are 100kg jellies out there.

    7. Re:The disadvantage of vacuum pressure by Maven0 · · Score: 1

      The problem I see is the muscle doesn't do shit without a vacuum system and they are not including that weight in their calculations.

    8. Re:The disadvantage of vacuum pressure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The disadvantage of basing it on vacuum pressure is that their force is limited to ambient pressure.

      The simple answer is to use these for deep sea missions!

    9. Re:The disadvantage of vacuum pressure by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. Strength to weight ratio is indeed a valid measure.
      Unrelated apology: I didn't preview, which is why I have the nested quote. Whoops!

    10. Re:The disadvantage of vacuum pressure by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      It said in the summary it's origami based. So, in fact, we can have Mechwarriors powered by these muscles.

      They will be made out of paper.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    11. Re:The disadvantage of vacuum pressure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The area where atmospheric pressure is relevant is the surface area of the muscle, not the area it exerts pressure upon. By bundling a larger number of smaller diameter muscle fibers into the same volume you can increase the surface area and the total strength of the muscle with the same atmospheric pressure. To get a good comparison to human muscle we need more data than just weight and pressure exerted. We need, length of muscle, muscle volume and distance of displacement as well as amount of pressure throughout the displacement. I'm not sure weight of muscle is even an important metric for strength to weight ratios that are much, much larger than one, which would be all useful muscles. My bicep contracts about three inches to lift 40 lbs 30 inches to curl a dumbell. It weighs maybe 2 lbs. (40*30)/(3*2) = 200 lbs of strength per lb of muscle, so a 200 to 1 ratio. This artificial muscle could be 5X stronger than human muscle by weight, but unless it fits into the same volume that is kind of meaningless. We expect machines to be way more than 5X stronger than humans by volume. An electric motor and some gears with a heavy spring makes a super strong "muscle". I don't know why people are excited about making objectively weak robots. A soft robot that isn't very strong seems to be of limited usefulness. Its best property would be that it is safe to have around humans even if it makes mistakes.

  22. Illiterate by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

    The muscle pulls taught

    Taut.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    1. Re:Illiterate by Hattmannen · · Score: 1

      Yes!
      However, it's actually misspelled in TFA, so as a direct quote it is actually correct. A little [sic] note from the editor wouldn't have hurt, though.

      --
      People are not wearing enough hats.
    2. Re:Illiterate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sick notes are a sign of weakness

    3. Re:Illiterate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The muscle pulls taught

      Taut.

      You taught them!

  23. Re:MECHWARRIORS! OUR TIME IS NOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have seen your posts more and more lately and I have to say, you are not a pleasant person. Did you go through a divorce lately and are taking it out on strangers?

  24. Westworld by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Westworld here we come!

  25. No they havenâ(TM)t... they made a tendon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The vaccum pump is the muscle, whatâ(TM)s being described as the muscle here is more like a tendon; it isnâ(TM)t generating the mechanical energy. Does a cable attached to a winch count as a muscle?

  26. A tiny issue which sci-fi usually ignores by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

    Just in case this isn't clear to everyone and even by forgetting about different aspects highly constraining what/how can be lifted, note that an equivalent resisting force is required to help during the process and keep it up. If you rely on air, you would need to carry a mass of air equivalent to what you would be lifting. That's why the typical robo-exoskeleton shown in movies allowing a random person to lift 1 ton is plainly impossible: that person would have to provide most of the required force reacting to that ton.

    --
    Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    1. Re: A tiny issue which sci-fi usually ignores by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That... Makes no sense. A robot suit can easily lift a ton. You can buy a ten ton manual bottle jack for thirty bucks at harbor freight. Add motors a frame and. A pilot harness and you are done.

      More commonly we call them forklifts. There is no reason we can't make them with two legs instead of four wheels. We don't because wheels are better in most uses cases.

    2. Re: A tiny issue which sci-fi usually ignores by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      Makes no sense

      So, physics makes no sense? Or have you found a way to create an action without a reaction?! Please, share your discoveries with all of us! LOL.

      A robot suit can easily lift a ton

      Because the robot itself is bearing the corresponding reaction and, lately, transmitting it to floor/walls.

      More commonly we call them forklifts.

      Excellent all that, but again: how the action/reaction balance is supposed to happen and be transmitted across all the given structure to transform moving a lever into actually lifting 1 ton? Do you have even basic physics (mechanics, which is the the branch of physics dealing with this kind of analysis) knowledge to understand what is going on when something lifts something? You have to perform a static analysis where all the forces have to be fully equilibrated at each point of the machine and the person's body in case of the referred impossible exoskeleton.

      There is no reason we can't make them with two legs instead of four wheels.

      Sure. You can create a machine emulating a person's body if you wish, but better make sure that you rely on steel or other strong enough material to bear all the stress. In people, the reactions are provided by our muscles which have an upper limit, that's why we cannot lift 1 ton or be an active part of a system lifting such a weight.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    3. Re: A tiny issue which sci-fi usually ignores by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      Just to make sure that we are on the same page: if you create whatever machine able to lift certain weight and put a person freely moving inside without any contact with the structure, it might be OK (extremely uncomfortable and pretty useless though). What I meant was the person's body also participating like what happens with a robotic arm or Spiderman's Doctor Octopus.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    4. Re: A tiny issue which sci-fi usually ignores by PPH · · Score: 1

      and pretty useless though

      Why useless? Consider the previously cited example of a forklift. [Leaving the issue of the inevitable Chinese forklift for future discussion]

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re: A tiny issue which sci-fi usually ignores by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      Why useless?

      Logically, the driver of whatever machine isn't useless, right the contrary. I meant creating a sci-fi exoskeleton (what this whole sub-thread is about) performing whatever human-like action with a person inside not doing anything. Anyway, I guess that my point is pretty clear already and, if not, I don't care because will not clarify it further.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    6. Re: A tiny issue which sci-fi usually ignores by werepants · · Score: 1

      Just to make sure that we are on the same page: if you create whatever machine able to lift certain weight and put a person freely moving inside without any contact with the structure, it might be OK (extremely uncomfortable and pretty useless though). What I meant was the person's body also participating like what happens with a robotic arm or Spiderman's Doctor Octopus.

      I think you're making a point that's obvious to anybody who gives a moment's thought to these things. Of course, putting a metal arm on someone doesn't allow that person to lift 1000lbs - their legs, spine, and rest of their body needs to support the same weight. Surprise, surprise, action movies aren't realistic.

      A full exoskeleton, though, which itself provides the leg and spine structure, has no real upper limit on carrying capacity. The human is just the driver at that point and so the machine can do whatever its engineers can build it to do.

      Doctor Octopus, btw, doesn't inherently violate physics - as he's portrayed, some arms are usually bracing against a structure, while other arms throw things and people around - as long as there's something besides the human body to handle the force it can make sense.

    7. Re: A tiny issue which sci-fi usually ignores by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      obvious to anybody

      That expression has no meaning to me since some time ago. At least, not in internet.

      A full exoskeleton, though, which itself provides the leg and spine structure, has no real upper limit on carrying capacity.

      As clarified above, if the person's body isn't participating directly, yes, although it would be pretty pointless/uncomfortable. In any case, bear in mind that most of machines can lift so heavy stuff in part thanks to being operated under static/perfectly balanced conditions. Creating a robot walking like a person and lifting anything as a person does would be quite difficult too because of the associated instability. Most of actions performed in a movie like Ironman would be extremely difficult or directly impossible, regardless of the fact of having a person inside or not.

      Doctor Octopus, btw, doesn't inherently violate physics

      You are kind of right, but only in the cases where he isn't standing on his feet or other part of his body. And even when everything is managed by the tentacles, his body would suffer a relevant amount of stress (something like lifting 1 ton seems also out of picture because of this). Additionally, making these tentacles behave as they do, like snakes with lots of mobility, would be a nightmare of complexity and provoke them to become quite weak. The way to make them a bit stronger would be via some external system, what would notably reduce their flexibility.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    8. Re: A tiny issue which sci-fi usually ignores by werepants · · Score: 1

      As clarified above, if the person's body isn't participating directly, yes, although it would be pretty pointless/uncomfortable.

      Why pointless or uncomfortable? The exoskeletons that are being envisioned are just machines that have some of the benefits of tools and some of the benefits of vehicles - think of it as an excavator with a different toolset and interface. Or thought of another way - a very strong and versatile robot chassis that uses a human for sensing, control, and inverse kinematics calculations. Both of these things are potentially very useful.

      Creating a robot walking like a person and lifting anything as a person does would be quite difficult too because of the associated instability. Most of actions performed in a movie like Ironman would be extremely difficult or directly impossible, regardless of the fact of having a person inside or not.

      Hard controls problem != physical impossibility. The robotic exoskeleton is not among the major physics sins of Iron Man - the unfueled reaction engines that he uses to fly everywhere, and the essentially infinite yet portable energy source are.

      Additionally, making these tentacles behave as they do, like snakes with lots of mobility, would be a nightmare of complexity and provoke them to become quite weak. The way to make them a bit stronger would be via some external system, what would notably reduce their flexibility.

      Again, you seem to be confusing technical challenges with limitations of physics. Of course the strength and articulation of these tentacles is beyond current engineering capability - it's sci-fi.

    9. Re: A tiny issue which sci-fi usually ignores by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      think of it as an excavator with a different toolset and interface

      But what is the point of having a person inside it if he cannot directly perform the moves? Wouldn't be much better to have a remotely-controlled machine? I can understand a setup on these lines in case of having an appearance which might be appealing to some people (e.g., robot fights), but it doesn't seem the most practical approach for almost anything else.

      Hard controls problem != physical impossibility

      Exerting certain level of force and lifting certain things from certain positions by involving only certain mass is either practically or completely impossible. I didn't mean to just keep the balance, what is already a quite difficult task, but to be in a position to generate certain amount of force while being standing, jumping, moving, etc.

      you seem to be confusing technical challenges with limitations of physics.

      I don't think so. Again, my comment was mostly focused on their suitability to exert certain force under conditions which make such an event almost impossible. The underlying idea to most of these fantasies is assuming behaviours similar to human/animal muscles by extending the boundaries beyond what is physically possible. Creating a tentacle moving like Dr. Octopus's and being able to lift heavy weights isn't just extremely difficult from a technical point of view, but also almost impossible according to physics.

      Even by assuming that you could create/control something on these lines, the final part of the tentacle wouldn't be able to lift almost anything, simply because of not having enough torque. Just think about how much weight a snake could lift with its head. You have to measure the available torque/distance from the last muscle up to the head which is very small. Additionally, the force you can exert in that last muscle is quite low already due to the high effort required to do virtually anything (lots of movements/muscles = lots of small forces which have to be systematically generated). Even simpler: think about beating (or lifting or performing any other action) with the end of a rigid stick vs. a flexible one.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    10. Re: A tiny issue which sci-fi usually ignores by werepants · · Score: 1

      But what is the point of having a person inside it if he cannot directly perform the moves? Wouldn't be much better to have a remotely-controlled machine?

      What's the point of having a person inside an excavator? While machines are powerful, AI is primitive and control is hard. A human is good at making decisions, but is relatively puny, so giving a human an intuitive interface and powerful hardware allows the human to be more productive. The human's natural ability to balance, not get its limbs tangled up, and do all sorts of things that are hard for robots would come in very handy. It really is just the equivalent of construction machinery but with more flexibility and a more direct control interface for the human. And of course, these systems are still primitive, but they've already got a lot of promise for disabled people, soldiers, and construction workers. The main challenge is energy density.

      Exerting certain level of force and lifting certain things from certain positions by involving only certain mass is either practically or completely impossible. I didn't mean to just keep the balance, what is already a quite difficult task, but to be in a position to generate certain amount of force while being standing, jumping, moving, etc.

      I think you're talking about inverse kinematics calculations. Humans do all these calculations intuitively, and continually. Accomplishing any of the tasks you are talking about is just a matter of calculating the forces and masses involved and fitting a geometry to achieve balance. The calculations aren't simple, but they are clearly solvable because every animal of even moderate complexity is able to do them almost from birth. Standing, jumping, and moving with a 10lb weight and 100lb weight are achievable by an unassisted, healthy human. Doing so with a 1 ton weight is fundamentally no different, as long as the chassis in question has the structural strength and powerful motors to achieve it.

      I don't think so. Again, my comment was mostly focused on their suitability to exert certain force under conditions which make such an event almost impossible. The underlying idea to most of these fantasies is assuming behaviours similar to human/animal muscles by extending the boundaries beyond what is physically possible. Creating a tentacle moving like Dr. Octopus's and being able to lift heavy weights isn't just extremely difficult from a technical point of view, but also almost impossible according to physics.

      Physical fact: Force is inversely proportional to the length of a lever arm
      Not a physical fact: Long arms can't lift heavy objects

      See the difference? Yes, a long, flexible arm will be RELATIVELY less powerful than a short, solid arm. However, unless you know the strength of the materials and the motors involved, you know nothing at all about what can be lifted by a long, flexible arm. All we can say, based on physics, is that the arm in question could lift much more while extended to 1 meter than when extended to 5 meters. But it still might be able to lift 1 ton when extended to 5 meters.

    11. Re: A tiny issue which sci-fi usually ignores by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      You think that movie-like exoskeletons make perfect sense for practical purposes, are physically doable and only a bit far away technologically speaking. I don't agree with any part of that summary for multiple reasons, but I don't see the point of continuing this conversation. Sorry, but I don't like talking too much in so generic terms and have spent already a quite relevant time here. My ideas are exactly the same than when I wrote my first post, guess that yours too and am OK with that.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    12. Re: A tiny issue which sci-fi usually ignores by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      Just in case it isn't clear: I don't agree with quite a few statements in this last post of yours, but don't think that continuing with this endless loop of abstract argumentation (+ kind of not getting properly the other's position) will get us anywhere.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    13. Re: A tiny issue which sci-fi usually ignores by werepants · · Score: 1

      You think that movie-like exoskeletons make perfect sense for practical purposes, are physically doable and only a bit far away technologically speaking.

      An exoskeleton like the one in Elysium, for instance, is a fairly direct descendant of military hardware that is being tested today, and the usefulness of any technology that allows a soldier to carry more armament for farther distances while retaining complete mobility seems pretty obvious. Do you think there are fundamental technological or physical hurdles that will make this unworkable? Lots of researchers and companies currently doing development in the field would disagree with you. That doesn't mean that we are ever going to see iron man suits, but I think it is pretty inevitable that we will see some kind of power-assisted exoskeletons being put to use, maybe not ubiquitously, but at least in military, industrial, and medical applications where it makes sense.

      If you aren't looking to have your opinions challenged, then of course there's no point to continue the discussion, but it still seems to me that you are claiming that exoskeleton technology is impossible/pointless, without any real basis in science or engineering to support your claims.

    14. Re: A tiny issue which sci-fi usually ignores by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      If you aren't looking to have your opinions challenged, then of course there's no point to continue the discussion

      This wasn't my point. I don't like too much abstract discussion where the point/counter-point are more or less generic/unprovable and both parties aren't exactly on the same page. I am a very practical guy and the most logical output under those conditions is a long conversation not letting anyone happy. Don't misinterpret me: you seem a fairly reasonable and respectful person, the kind of people with whom I have no problem in discussing about whatever. It is simply a matter of pragmatism built over having been involved in equivalent chats quite a few times before.

      Let me put a more descriptive example to help you understand my position: I could easily use your "without any real basis in science or engineering to support your claims" against you, because this is pretty much what I think of your argumentation. I think that I have provided enough information to get the idea or, at least, to continue a more technical discussion focused on some of my assumptions, but you have avoided all that an relied on even more generic statements. See why there is no point in continuing? Bring me some data/calculations/relevant information supporting your position or proving me wrong and I wouldn't even mind to spend time doing some work on my own. But no more abstract talking, please.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    15. Re: A tiny issue which sci-fi usually ignores by werepants · · Score: 1

      Here's something specific: http://bleex.me.berkeley.edu/r...

      This is still pretty early in the development of this type of tech, but this machine is already providing a higher level of strength (carrying a 200lb pack is no easy task) and simultaneously reducing the effort required by a human, with concrete, measurable numbers in terms of strength increase and efficiency improvement for the human. It seems straightforward to me that arms, weapons, armor, or other useful tech that is usually too heavy for a single human to carry could be attached to this type of machine. So, while the infinitely articulating and energetic armor of Iron Man might be pure fantasy, something like the mech from Aliens, or the exoskeleton from Elysium, seems inevitable once the technology becomes more mature.

    16. Re: A tiny issue which sci-fi usually ignores by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      Here's something specific: http://bleex.me.berkeley.edu/r... [berkeley.edu]

      This is a much better way to have a proper discussion! Thanks for sharing.

      At first sight, this seems an on-going research which might have a more or less good funding and a long-term essence. So, this seems as an excellent sample of top achievements on this field at the moment. The page you refer doesn't describe in too much detail the specifics; just includes some generic statements and visually-appealing resources like videos. The 200 lb reference seems a bit too high already and, in my opinion, an excellent accomplishment in case of getting it under favourable enough conditions. It is quite difficult to tell for sure with so little/unclear information though.

      In the publications section, there are quite a few papers although not precisely too new. The newest one, “Human Augmentation and Exoskeleton Systems in Berkeley”, is from 2007 and you can find it in sci-hub. If you go to page 12, you would see a quite clear picture of how a system on these lines might look like and its drawbacks seem evident: firstly, it doesn't seem to avoid too much mobility; secondly, there seems to be a minimum not precisely minor weight. This might be helpful under very specific conditions like walking long distances with a heavy pack; I have personally done things on these lines (traveling just for fun) and do know that, under these conditions, any small help is welcome. That paper refers to a maximum load of 34 kg (page 11) in the first version, but doesn't make any express mention to anything else. It does mention in various parts that this exoskeleton is expected to resemble a 165 lb person, what seems quite compatible with bearing that weight for a long time. The 200 lb value seems a bit off and, as far as there is no justification anywhere for that, I assume that is associated with either much higher constraints or more or less imprecise targets. Assuming that the maximum load which a human-size structure like this can bear is around the maximum that a person can seems a quite reasonable.

      A very good reference which, IMHO, kind of proves my point: nothing even close to what you see in movies and, in any case, with lots of constraints, what makes the resulting products only relevant under very specific conditions. Additionally, this looks like a pretty tough-to-do-research field as far as there is likely an important pressure to increase the values as much possible; an issue which might explain that looking-like-too-much-already 200 lb value, at least under comfortable enough conditions. Anyway, there are lots of material in that site and it might even be possible to find other researches connected with all this; certainly a much better way to have a proper chat about all this.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    17. Re: A tiny issue which sci-fi usually ignores by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      With "doesn't seem to avoid too much mobility", I meant "doesn't seem to allow too much mobility". What a day I am having on Slashdot! Much more errors than usual!

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    18. Re: A tiny issue which sci-fi usually ignores by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      And if I had written "many more errors than usual", it would have been even better! LOL.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    19. Re: A tiny issue which sci-fi usually ignores by werepants · · Score: 1

      Sorry, this link would have been better, and more specific: http://bleex.me.berkeley.edu/r...

      This specific system shows the 200lb value, and as you can see, this isn't a particularly large/complex machine. The legs could be much thicker, the motors could be much larger (and more powerful), and overall, this is one of the very earliest iterations of an almost brand-new technology type, so I expect that they've barely scratched the surface of what's possible.

      Importantly, the question is what the main limitation here is in vastly improving the performance of this machine. Currently, it is very lightweight and minimalist in order to accommodate the capability for a human to continue walking in it after the batteries die. If instead, it was going to be constrained to a different role (doing work in a warehouse, for instance, where power is always close at hand) then it could become much larger, heavier, and stronger, and have more powerful and energy-hungry motors to boost the whole thing. A 5x or 10x improvement doesn't seem particularly challenging if you did away with the unpowered walking requirement.

      I think it's important to make a distinction here, though: is such a suit technically feasible? Certainly. I don't think there's any doubt. Scaling up performance in an existing technology is usually fairly straightforward. The other, and entirely different question: is this suit going to offer economic and productivity advantages in the near future? There, I think the forklift, being a mature technology, will probably continue to dominate for the foreseeable future. But in niche cases, this could have a lot of utility - which is pretty much the case with any new technology. As it matures, prices will fall, capability will increase, and we'll see more cases where exoskeleton tech makes business sense.

    20. Re: A tiny issue which sci-fi usually ignores by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, this link would have been better, and more specific: http://bleex.me.berkeley.edu/r... [berkeley.edu]

      This is precisely the first link you shared. There is no specifics there, just abstract statements and videos. With specifics, I mean calculations, proper technical analyses, validations, etc. Usually, what you put inside a technical paper, the one I linked from my post (a copy in sci-hub because otherwise you would have to pay to see it); this paper is the second one in their publications section. Anyway, I think that we have already talk enough about all this and our positions don't seem to get closer. It was nice. Bye.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
  27. was calculations correct? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    was compressor weight included in calculations?

  28. Pnumatics != Muscles by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 2

    They don't have to be chemically-driven, but at the very least a muscle should be a self-contained unit. If you have to have a central pump (vacuum, hydraulic, etc) it's not a muscle, it's a piston. The difference is that a muscle is something you can stick in place and just need a power source to drive, whereas a piston requires that thing plus the power source plus some kind of transformer (in this case electric to pnumatic) to operate and is in turn much heavier, noisier, etc.

    1. Re:Pnumatics != Muscles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly what I thought - pnumatics.
      I suppose and electric coffee machine needle pump would be easiest and cheaper.
      The second thing I thought was a tree root - it expands and cracks rock and concrete easy.although water/ice does some heavy lifting toof. Next stop sublimates.

  29. Re:MECHWARRIORS! OUR TIME IS NOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unity, Duty, Destiny!

  30. At first scared, then happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pictomuscles, grow away!
     
      Robots will certainly be useful in construction. Not so dangerous as weapons as the summary suggested.

  31. Sheesh by wiretrip · · Score: 1

    Well done MIT, you've invented the piston.

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

      Agreed. This is a piston made of directionally flexible material that bends. Not quite what I'd call a muscle.

  32. Can Lift X1000 their weight..including the vaccum? by Eloking · · Score: 1

    Just asking,

    Does that x1000 include the weight of the vaccum?

    --
    Elok
  33. Japan needs these right about now by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    This tech would be useful in a high-radiation environment.

    1. Re:Japan needs these right about now by HideyoshiJP · · Score: 1

      Instead, Japan will use these for sex robots. And I'll help.

    2. Re:Japan needs these right about now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, if you've got a source of vacuum and the right diameter hose, what do you need the rest of the sex bot for?

  34. Not Invented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While some particularly clever implementation may qualify as invention, the concept has been known. Devices for smooth motion have uses simple fabric/plastic structures along with air pressure or vacuum already. A flexible silicone hose surrounded by plastic mesh makes a great actuator for very smooth and vibration free motion. It can work on pressure but very similar structures can use vacuum. These structures have been known and used for a long time.

    The core problem with vacuum is the ~16 psi max potential force. So surface area where the pressure difference actually expresses itself as motion along with the difference between ambient pressure and the vacuum used is the limiting factor.

  35. Re:MECHWARRIORS! OUR TIME IS NOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Down with the freebirth scum! For the clans!

  36. Re: Can Lift X1000 their weight..including the vac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um, a vacuum weighs nothing, by definition.

    Perhaps you meant pump?

  37. Water and air are cheap by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    But there are better fluids, and these will see use in larger, serious applications.

    Then the fun begins.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  38. Still can't lift a flagging trump presidency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ah those dissaffected howls of rage from repubs!

  39. By Neruos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can anyone say mimics hydraulics?

    1. let's use a ziplock(tm) bag!
    2. let's use 3D printed geometric folding shapes inside the ziplock(tim) bag!
    3. let's suck all the air out and see how it folds onto itself!
    4. let's call it a muscle!
    5. let's add some trap music to our intro!
    6. profit!

  40. Re:MECHWARRIORS! OUR TIME IS NOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whaddya mean "by then"? You need a cure NOW.

  41. Re: Can Lift X1000 their weight..including the vac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoosh!

  42. Re:MECHWARRIORS! OUR TIME IS NOW! by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

    Patents expire after 20 years.

    Not only that, the time starts on the filing date, and let assume that there is no extension (e.g. delay issue created by the USPTO side) and they will pay the due (fees) for the whole time of the patent if it is granted.

  43. pinche by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    good for pinching humans in half too!

  44. From-the-Arch-dot-dep't. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Do you want Skynet ants? Because that's how you get Skynet ants.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  45. Re:MECHWARRIORS! OUR TIME IS NOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you should just embrace it. Super strong, poop in the pants, no idea that guy in front of you is NOT your preacher...
    i like it.

  46. The "fluid" is air, you moron! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also, this is a pretty cool thing, no matter how much you pathetic losers feel the obsession to shit on it.