Industrial Robot Arm Becomes Giant Catapult

wintersynth brings us a story about a group of enthusiasts who made a catapult out of a 2,800lb industrial robot arm. They used it to launch bowling balls, fireballs, and cans of beer toward a stationary target, and they controlled the catapult's aim with a graphical UI on a laptop. "I wanted to be able to control the rotation of the robot so we could aim the robot from the laptop, but I quickly realized that since the desert is so flat, we could do some basic ranging on the target too. I also wanted the targeting to be overlaid in 3d over a photograph of the target area. The software needed to control the robot like an MMO or RTS game. I suspect that video games, in general, have some of the most optimal control interfaces. I wanted to try a control scheme similar to the area effect spell targeting in World of Warcraft."

double entendre

[User 956 (568564)]

wintersynth brings us a story about a group of enthusiasts who made a catapult out of a 2,800lb industrial robot arm.

And it's all thanks to the second amendment.

Re:

[Scrameustache (459504)]

wintersynth brings us a story about a group of enthusiasts who made a catapult out of a 2,800lb industrial robot arm.

And it's all thanks to the second amendment.

Cyborg bears can't be far behind...

Re:

[Walt Dismal (534799)]

Well, if they combined this with a RealDoll, they might have something useful.

Re:

[Architect_sasyr (938685)]

So she throws you away right before you...

Re:double entendre

[SnowZero (92219)]

The right was granted in the age of muzzle loaders.

...and cannons[1], mortars[2], bombs[3], and landmines[4]. Most people seem to forget that.

[1] [wikipedia.org] [2] [wikipedia.org] [3] [wikipedia.org] [4] [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[moosesocks (264553)]

I don't think you could seriously argue that the second amendment covers cannons, mortars, bombs, and landmines.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms." implies personal firearms.... not the sort that would be solely used in large-scale warfare.

Landmines, on the other hand, would seem to fall into the same category as handguns, as the victim more often than not has no idea that his opponent is armed, or that he's even in danger. I fail to see a reason for those to exist.

Although I do respect the fo

Re:double entendre

[Crypto Gnome (651401)]

.... the founding fathers' intention of keeping the population armed so that the people have a "last resort" should the government cease to act in the interests of the general populace....

It never ceases to amaze me ... Exactly specifically WHAT EXAMPLE OF "government ceasing to act in the interests of the general populace" are you all waiting for?

Does "the president" need to DROP NUKES on The Continental US of A before people WAKE UP and DO SOMETHING?

Or do you all think that "having a vietnam war" in the middle of the desert is in the interests of the general populace?

Re:

[The One and Only (691315)]

So far, peaceful methods have yet to prove ineffective in stopping that.

Re:

[The One and Only (691315)]

Landmines by themselves will usually kill only wandering civilians and stray dogs. The enemy is clever enough to figure out that landmines exist and might be planted somewhere, and as soon as they discover a minefield they'll find a way to avoid being killed by it.

Landmines, in conjunction with other defenses, are extremely effective. For example, if the North Korean army were to swarm south across the DMZ, they would come under heavy machinegun fire, and would lack the time and ability to safely go throug

Re:

[Ours (596171)]

"Now do you understand the reason for landmines to exist"
As long as kids and farmers will keep loosing limbs or worse in past conflict zones, no I won't understand. It's not because in one case they are used in a well defined DMZ that their existence is justified.

Re:

[blackest_k (761565)]

Ok how the British army deal in short order with a mine field,
http://www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/l0066.html#MINE%20CLEARANCE [armedforces.co.uk]

" The Python has the ability to clear a much longer safe' lane than its predecessor. It is also faster to bring into action and far more accurate. It can clear a path up to 230m long and 7m wide through which vehicles can then safely pass.

The system works by firing a single rocket from a newly designed launcher mounted on a trailer which has been towed to the edge of the mined

Re:

[ultranova (717540)]

Landmines, on the other hand, would seem to fall into the same category as handguns, as the victim more often than not has no idea that his opponent is armed, or that he's even in danger. I fail to see a reason for those to exist.

Try living right next to Stalinist/Soviet/Putinist Russia for a while and the idea of putting booby traps between them and you starts getting a certain appeal.

Re:

[rohan972 (880586)]

I don't think you could seriously argue that the second amendment covers cannons, mortars, bombs, and landmines.

I suggest you read "Common Sense" [gutenberg.org] by Thomas Paine.

"If premiums were to be given to merchants, to build and employ in their service ships mounted with twenty, thirty, forty or fifty guns, (the premiums to be in proportion to the loss of bulk to the merchants) fifty or sixty of those ships, with a few guardships on constant duty, would keep up a sufficient navy, and that without burdening

Re:

[AdmiralWeirdbeard (832807)]

Though I am of the opinion that 'it was a different historical context' is a flawed argument for constitutional interpretation, there are more practical implications in this case. Basically either some weapons can be restricted, or no weapons can be restricted. If no weapons can be restricted then anyone should be able to own nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, shit, whatever you want. Because otherwise the logic breaks down and the argument is no longer internally consistent. Or, some

Re:

[rohan972 (880586)]

Personally, I think it was in a different historical context, but the appropriate response is not reinterpretation of the constitution but amendment, for which there is a proper procedure. I think the US constitution (2nd amendment) is fairly clear and in the context of the revolution seems to mean full military armament. Taken in the context of a world in which nuclear weapons etc exist, I do not think this is a good idea. However, if the constitution is reinterpreted according to every change in technolog

Re:double entendre

[e4g4 (533831)]

The right to bare arms does not give you the right to have nuclear warheads

No, but it does give people the right to wear hideous hawaiian shirts, which is almost as bad.

Re:

[Registered Coward v2 (447531)]

The right was granted in the age of muzzle loaders.

Uhm, in the US, neither the Constitution nor government "grant" rights; they eixst and are the people's independent of either. The people give the government certain powers; and we can argue what those are and how broad they are, but that's different than teh people's rights.

Re:

[Muad'Dave (255648)]

The right was granted in the age of muzzle loaders.

Rights are not granted by the constitution or any government, they are supposedly protected by the government.

Re:

[corsec67 (627446)]

Nope, they are fully-automatic, and manufactured after 1986, so there is no way for a US Citizen to own one legally.

It's not a catapult.

[zippthorne (748122)]

It's a trebuchet, as can clearly be seen from the sling which holds the bowling balls. It also does not have an optimal sling length, but that just makes the robot itself all the more impressive.

Re:

[Psychotria (953670)]

You're correct. Except that a trebuchet is still a catapult.

Re:It's not a catapult.

[donscarletti (569232)]

It's a trebuchet, as can clearly be seen from the sling which holds the bowling balls. It also does not have an optimal sling length, but that just makes the robot itself all the more impressive.

A trebuchet is powered by a counterweight, this thing is powered by some sort of mechanical actuators meaning that it certainly is not a trebuchet. As for slings, the Roman onager used slings despite being driven by torsion rather than counterweights. Of course back then a catapult was defined as a sinew torsion based crossbow that that fired a spear. A ballista was similar but fired rocks instead, though these days we call an onager a catapult, a catapult a ballista and don't really have a name for a ballista.

Re:It's not a catapult.

[Nefarious Wheel (628136)]

A trebuchet is powered by a counterweight, this thing is powered by some sort of mechanical actuators meaning that it certainly is not a trebuchet. As for slings, the Roman onager used slings despite being driven by torsion rather than counterweights. Of course back then a catapult was defined as a sinew torsion based crossbow that that fired a spear. A ballista was similar but fired rocks instead, though these days we call an onager a catapult, a catapult a ballista and don't really have a name for a ballista.

There were non-counterweight trebuchets as well, called "traction" trebuchets. Instead of a counterweight you had a number of people tugging on ropes. I had one based on this model built for me for SCA combat as the result of a siege engine competition (Stormhold) some years ago. 60-90 metre throws with a cargo of softballs was customary with a 6 metre composite rattan arm. One advantage of a traction trebuchet is it's more mobile as you don't need to score or drag a tonne or so of counterweight along to the launch site.

So to stay on topic, I think you could call the robot arm a form of trebuchet. I've not seen onagers with slings in my researches though, will look for that. Onagers btw were so named because of the bucking motion they make, mitigated by curved ends of their foundation rails. Onager = Donkey in Latin. They were also called "rocking donkeys".

And another name for Ballista could be "ZOMG Look at the size of that effing crossbow!". They didn't always use rocks, some of them used mucking great iron bolts.

Re:It's not a catapult OR a trebuchet

[SilverRayn (984075)]

What categorizes a trebuchet as a trebuchet is the counterweight (not the sling). The qualifying factor for the catapult is the stored tension. This has neither. Sling or not, it's a robot, not a trebuchet or catapult.

Re:

[JustOK (667959)]

aren't ballistas the people who go to college for four years in order to serve drinks at starbucks?

Re:

[Mike1024 (184871)]

this thing is powered by some sort of mechanical actuators meaning that it certainly is not a trebuchet.

Those are AC servo motors. From the colour of the robot and be blurry photos I think it's a KUKA KR 150-2 K [kuka.com] or something similar.

Re:

[Ours (596171)]

Indeed, source code for the robot states that correctly.

Let me be the first

[Psychotria (953670)]

to offer my services as a target for this thing. Catapult a beer my way every 15 minutes. Thanks.

Re:

[Psychotria (953670)]

*burp* I dunno... I suspect they're heavies that are being thrust through the air by the trebuchet.

I can see the future now, and you DON'T want to be

[davidsyes (765062)]

on the WRONG arm of the LAW

Graphical UI

[iminplaya (723125)]

gorilla.bas?

HD Camera

[by Anonymous Coward]

Let me get this straight... they "Rented" the camera by buying it at Fry's and returning it?

I'm sure some people will defend this tactic, but its stuff like this that causes awesome return policies at stores to be restricted, and prices to go up. (as recently happened at CostCo)

I can't believe they posted that tidbit on the site...

Re:HD Camera

[plover (150551)]

Let me get this straight... they "Rented" the camera by buying it at Fry's and returning it?

I'm sure some people will defend this tactic, but its stuff like this that causes awesome return policies at stores to be restricted, and prices to go up. (as recently happened at CostCo)

Yeah, I was pissed at them when I read this too. I hope that when Fry institutes a 20% open-box charge on returns, that everybody look this guy up and send him a thank you note. Wrapped around a bowling ball.

Re:HD Camera

[wintersynth (915045)]

Okay, I have to admit, we felt pretty bad about this "renting" tactic until we actually tried the camera. It was hands-down the worst HD camera I have ever used. I mean seriously, it had all sorts of proprietary software with weird codecs so that the footage was extremely difficult to transcode at high resolution.

I felt absolutely no remorse returning that thing. I know, that still doesn't make it right, because we didn't know that going into it. But I hope it is at least a mitigating factor. Plus, I give Fry's tons of (non-"rented") business, and their awesome return policy is a big part of the reason.

Re:HD Camera

[errxn (108621)]

Sorry, but you intended to return it from the very start. The lame excuse that the camera sucked does nothing to change that fact, and really just makes you seem like that much more of a tool.

Re:

[Jeppe Salvesen (101622)]

If so - good on ya. You just made a crappy product slightly less profitable! I hope you also sent a mail to Fry's to explain why you returned that camera.

Re:

[LingNoi (1066278)]

And this is Fry's fault?

uh, yeah it is. The camera sucked so he took it back.

Re:

[Bongo Bill (853669)]

I hope that when Fry institutes a 20% open-box charge on returns, that everybody look this guy up and send him a thank you note. Wrapped around a bowling ball.

...Delivered by catapult, I assume?

Re:

[manamonkey (1222298)]

Our budget was $1K to get this all done and a great deal of that hinged on the resources we had available between the three of us. Our camera loan fell through last minute (literally) and we did not have time to research the purchase of a new one. If the cam was good we would have kept it, but it really was a piece of crap. We are about as far from trust-fund kids as you can get and that was not my first or last Fry's return for a piece of disappointing hardware.

Re:

[moosesocks (264553)]

And also where did they "borrow" an industrial robot? (and then get permission to use it as a toy?)

You don't exactly see them sitting out on the street every day....

Calculon proves even robot arms can move up

[4d4m (584216)]

As we can see from Calculon, you aren't just stuck as a robot arm. Thespomat, David Duchovny - the sky is the limit.

Omg

[rampant mac (561036)]

"The software needed to control the robot [is] like an MMO or RTS game."

Oh I can see it coming... "OMG fsking WALL HAX N00BZ!" ...shouted right before you get shelled by 16 pound bowling balls. :(

yes but can it fling....

[Brad1138 (590148)]

a giant wooden badger?

Catapult?

[Teufelsmuhle (849105)]

It's not a real catapult unless it's flinging cows or pianos.

Re:

[dkf (304284)]

It's not a real catapult unless it's flinging cows or pianos.

Or trojan rabbits [imdb.com]. You can't get real-er than that!

correct timing of motors

[v1 (525388)]

They said they had some trouble determining the optimal movement of all the motors for maximum range. iirc, when trying to accelerate something, a 'whiplike" motion is preferred, similar to how a pitcher throws a fastball.

Ah, memories...

[Dr. Manhattan (29720)]

I used to work for an industrial robot company. I worked on the big arms that carried spot-welding guns around, mostly for the auto industry. Those arms were strong - there was one case where the gun welded itself to the truck frame it was building (as will happen if you don't clean the tips enough) and the robot kept right on going, and ended up tossing a truck body into the aisle when it returned to rest. Thankfully, no one was hurt.

But that incident, among others, spurred work to develop collision detection. They finally got some software running on the DSPs that'd estimate what the current to the motors should be, and measure what it actually was; too big a difference and the robot would halt. And then comes the fun part...

I got to test it.

For six months, my paid job was to take huge industrial robots and bang them into things.

I'm pure software now, and it's fun and pays better... but I still think about those days with fondness.

Not the first robot to fling something.

[karlandtanya (601084)]

In the floorpan line of a well-known auto manufacturer, the safety folks wanted to test the OSHA safe stopping distance calculation used to place some light curtains.

The way you protect workers from getting killed by a robot (and these things are way stronger than you think, even after seeing it fling rocks) is to put up light curtains around the robot.
The OSHA safe stopping distance calculation is used to prove that the hazardous motion will stop in the time it takes the person to traverse the light curtain and come into contact with the equipment.

So, the safety folks find the robot with the biggest, fastest moving load on the line--the floorpan skin transfer robot. A floorpan skin is basically a sixty-pound razor blade.
The end effector held onto the floorpan skin with suction cups, which are a cost-effective and reliable method for the process.

The robot guys set up a test, where they got all 6 axes of the robot moving in such a manner that the end effector achieved its maximum possible speed.
Not something you'd normally do, but a worst-case scenario for use as safety systems challenge.
We all wanted to see this robot haul ass, so the safety folks had us all standing back...
Robot dude picked up the TP and initiated the path at 100% speed...
Somebody waited for the arm to get to full extension and speed...and stuck their hand into the light curtain.

The robot stopped almost instantly--well within the expected stopping distance.
No way that person would have been injured by the robot.

The skin (remember the sixty-pound razor blade) stopped a couple bays over.

Hard clamps were added to the end effector and the test was repeated with improved results.

Re:I for one...

[scottrocket (1065416)]

...and the next time the mongols attack our shitty walls in their motorhomes, we'll be ready!

Re:

[hey! (33014)]

Yes, but it is a prototype made with off the shelf components. Scale the motors up 20x and give it a hopper capable of holding a couple thousand incendiary bowling balls and it would be a lot more impressive.