Robot Catches High Speed Objects 273
shpoffo writes "Engineers at the University of Tokyo in Japan have created a robot that can catch a ball moving faster than 186 miles per hour (300 kph) - more than 270 feet per second. It uses an array of photodetectors to directly control the three finger actuators - which can rotate 180 degrees in 0.1 seconds. It's only catching softballs at the moment, but operators are optimistic for it to soon catch other objects and grasp moving things. A video with odd sci-fi TV-series (coral cache) accents is available."
yeah but.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:yeah but.... (Score:2, Funny)
long answer: noooooooooooo
Re:yeah but.... (Score:2)
It just might. (Score:2)
Also, the idea of putting the sensors in the hand i
Sure, if it's thrown straight at it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sure, if it's thrown straight at it (Score:2, Funny)
We already have bowling robots, now we have a catching hand, just need to build the 'battathon 2000' and England may have a chance in the next test
Re:Sure, if it's thrown straight at it (Score:3, Insightful)
All in good time. Having the arm without a hand capable of catching it once it's in position wouldn't be very helpful. One step at a time.
Re:Sure, if it's thrown straight at it (Score:3, Interesting)
Neither is having the hand without the being able to move and position it with an arm. The hard part is moving the hand in position to catch the ball. I'm not terribly impressed by just the hand alone, especially since they're still only using soft balls, like foam rubber balls. They're not even softballs, which aren't really all that soft, by the way.
The robot is all thumbs. (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be even nicer if it had an arm to intercept balls that weren't thrown precisely to it though.
Re:The robot is all thumbs. (Score:3, Insightful)
Having an arm and ability to learn (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Having an arm and ability to learn (Score:2)
Re:The robot is all thumbs. (Score:5, Funny)
Well, since you're compiling a wish-list, let's not forget ... BREASTS!!
Re:The robot is all thumbs. (Score:5, Funny)
I think we've all had our balls-busted enough to know that we don't need to put breasts on something which can catch balls at 300 km/hr.
It wouldn't be long before we have a bunch of cranky, female-looking robots grabbing your parts at high-speed and little delicacy.
Not a good combination.
Re:The robot is all thumbs. (Score:2)
Dude, if you can't relate it to dating relate it to getting beaten up by Suzie at the playground. Whatever works for 'ya.
Entertainment (Score:4, Funny)
Bye bye legs (Score:2)
Finally being a couch potato will be the ultimate norm. Scream to your kids: Put the robots outside and do not temper with their accuracy this time, it already cost us a window this week!
Re:Entertainment (Score:2)
Re:Entertainment (Score:2)
Re:Entertainment (Score:2)
Yeah... (Score:2)
Is the US lagging behind Japan? (Score:5, Interesting)
But all the Robotic news seems to be coming out of Japan lately, is anything being done in the US that compares?
Note: Not asking because I think the US should be in the lead but that it should compete for the benefit of all, definitely the US had the first industrial robot back in 1962 AFAIK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_robot [wikipedia.org]
And it's rather sad to think we're lagging in this on the R/D side in new frontiers. Unless this should be the extent of it:
http://robots.engadget.com/entry/0657766019921755
Re:Is the US lagging behind Japan? (Score:3, Informative)
http://plyojump.com/ [plyojump.com] has some in-depth info and couple good essays [plyojump.com] on these topics and why exactly this is happening. The core problem seems to lie in deeply rooted cultural issues
Also check out Marshall Brain's ( the howstuffworks.com guy ) http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com] blog
In late 1945 (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Is the US lagging behind Japan? (Score:5, Informative)
1 out of every 2 robots in the world are already in Japan. I guess they have a head start. Societies are different. We allow Mexicans to come into this country in lieu of robotic research. Japan has a much tighter immigration policy.
No, this is not a slam against Mexicans. Its been said publicly by Bush that we like illegal aliens for cheap labor (maybe other Presidents as well).
Re:Is the US lagging behind Japan? (Score:2)
"the illegal Mexican to US inmigration problem is not a problem of Mexican government, for Mexico, after Petrolium, inmigrants is the second biggest source of income so it is a 'great buisness', the problem is in the USA and that it allows the inmigrants to go/work there. It is the USA government who needs to enforce its inmigration laws
Re:Is the US lagging behind Japan? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the one hand, we have recent event whittling away at the rights of both white- and blue-collar workers, from "no compete" contracts to laws allowing employers to prevent employees from fraternizing after working hours (at least accordin to Slashdot). On the other hand, we have overly zealous unions that can work to prevent employers from adopting technologies that would replace human workers (I've heard anecdotes of labor unions in the Port of Los Angeles fighting automation). Mix in a government giving US companies all the immigrant and offshoring opportunities they want, is it any surprise that the US is sliding behind in robotics in particular and technology in general?
Technology only succeeds when it is cheaper to use than human labor, and human labor is pretty damned cheap in the US.
Re:Is the US lagging behind Japan? (Score:2)
Neccessity
Re:Is the US lagging behind Japan? (Score:2)
Re:Is the US lagging behind Japan? (Score:2)
Re:Is the US lagging behind Japan? (Score:2)
Re:Is the US lagging behind Japan? (Score:5, Funny)
They also have a moat the size of an ocean
Re:Is the US lagging behind Japan? (Score:2)
If you're referring to your post, I agree. :)
Yes, we're saving tons by having illegal immigrants. But then why would you spend it on robots that you don't need - you already have illegals doing the job you would be designing the robots for.
Japan has fewer illegals and less problems with un
Re:Is the US lagging behind Japan? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is the US lagging behind Japan? (Score:2)
Dude. It's Japan. (Score:2)
Robotic fly catcher. (Score:4, Insightful)
The reality is that the robot has no idea what its catching. It doesn't know how to recognise a ball. The chances are that a fast moving object is easier to identify that a stationary one, as you just grab the thing that is moving rather than identifying a shape and deciding if that is the thing you want to collect.
Still an interesting technology showcase, but I'm still no closer to my robot slave
This is only a hand. (Score:2)
Similarly, this is one small component of what will eventually be one hellaciously competent robotic assistant. Put two (or ten!) of these hands on the ends of 'Doc Oc' style semi-autonomous arms and watch the fur fly! I hope they're on our side.
Re:Robotic fly catcher. (Score:2)
I remember in IJCAI 2004 conference I attended to an invited where the person explained the difference in information between a still image and a moving image, IIRC, he showed first 1 still image, where as he said you have only pixels, and all you can attempt to do is a "edge detection" to recognize objects (playing with contrast/brightness/channels etc).
After that he showed the next image in the collection and it showed
Re:Robotic fly catcher. (Score:2, Insightful)
Excellent for the Space program (Score:5, Funny)
2) One of these on Earth
3) One of these on the Moon
4) Make big ball-shaped transport vessels.
5) SPACE PROFIT!
Certainly a lot better than crappy shuttles that are critically damaged by bloody foam insulation.
Define catching... (Score:5, Interesting)
Picking up an imprecise, reasonably fast throw to a particular area doesn't need catching ability : think of those coin collectors on toll gates which are just a funnel down to a small coin slot.
So it's really a display of fast reacting robotic actuators and a pretty cool photo detection in order to time the reaction correctly. As the guy quoted in the article says "It's an engineering feat really"
Real catching, in my opinion, can only be acheived if you can follow through with your hands to "take the speed off the ball" at least for hard objects. I think that a fast moving real baseball would be incredibly hard to catch robotically. A mitt is really useful because it allows the momentum to be absorbed into a wide area. In cricket, all fielders know they have to bring the ball in to their chest or follow its trajectory after catching impact to not lose the ball - they don't have a mitt. This robot couldn't catch a moving hardball no matter how fast its actuators are, because the kinetic energy has to be disspated properly, and with a heavy ball this energy is very high.
Pretty cool demo though. I think its applications will be rather more in the picking up of (reasonably slow) moving objects realm than any useful rôle in catching. If you want to catch soft balls all day long might as well just breed dogs.
Re:Define catching... (Score:3, Interesting)
There's nothing that is fundamental about the way humans catch. We happen to use hand motion to absorb speed absent a glove, but all that's required to catch is that you absorb the energy somehow. A robot arm could do it just by being tough enough to take the hit.
"I think that a fast moving real baseball would be incredibly hard to catch robotically."
It
Re:Define catching... (Score:3, Insightful)
A human has to do that due to the limitations of the hand and arm. Catching a ball thrown hard enough might well break your wrist. A suitably constructed robot would have no such structural limitations.
A mitt is really useful because it allows the momentum to be absorbed into a wide area.
And you (nor I) cannot catch a ball, thrown directly at you, at 1/2 the speed that this robot c
Re:Define catching... (Score:2)
The same technique is used by American football recievers. Soft hands, soft hands.
Re:Define catching... (Score:2)
You're pretty coherent, offer a somewhat witty/smart comment, in a condescending, disparaging way.
You complain about this not catching heavy thrown balls. You bitch about "I think its applications will be rather more in the picking up of (reasonably slow) moving objects realm than any useful rôle in catching.".
Are you a geek at all? WTF are you doing here on this site?
A normal nerd/geek/person who is interested in tech will immediatelt grasp that this te
Re:Define catching... (Score:2)
Watch the video again... the photo-electronic equipment is not in the Palm, its above the robot arm (the orange "disc" of lights above it). The Palm itself has no cameras at all in it (look closely at it in the close-up shots when its catching).
This isn't really that fascinating at all, when you consider that its simply "reacting" to the ball breaking the "curtain" of camera fields pointed downward. When you can guage the speed that the ball is traveling, you can guage how soon you need to grasp to catch
Idiot Land-speed Record (Score:2, Funny)
Is there any chance such a contraption could be used to save some silly person's butt in case they decide to go that fast?
Re:Idiot Land-speed Record (Score:3, Insightful)
I know the imperialists always convert from mph to kph in this manner when telling us of the superiority of the imperial system that their imperial overlords insist on, however do we really have to stoop so low as to give the speed to 6 s.f.? Do we really think the limiters are accurate to less than one thousandth of a percent? That's like saying a running track is length-accurate to about the thickness of you fingernail.
Missile Defense (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Missile Defense (Score:2)
This was my first thought as well, clicked into the comments and searched for "missile." Cheers to the like-minded thought!
Asimovian future (Score:2)
But don't worry. The robots watching will be programmed to enjoy it.
Shows just how powerfull the human brain is (Score:4, Insightful)
While the raw maths is pretty simple by itself, when you factor in stereo image processing to see a ball, work out it's speed and trajectory, and move potentially hundreds of muscles into the correct position to catch the ball, you realise just how powerful the human brain is and how well it can adapt.
Re:Shows just how powerfull the human brain is (Score:2, Funny)
While the raw maths is pretty simple by itself, when you factor in stereo image processing to see a ball, work out it's speed and trajectory, and move potentially hundreds of muscles into the correct position to catch the ball, you realise just how powerful the human brain is and how well it can adapt.
My dog is better at catching tennis balls than I am, and he does it in his mouth.
Does this mean that dogs have been secretly hiding the power of the canine brain? What are they planning? Oh my god...
Re:Shows just how powerfull the human brain is (Score:2)
Your dog also eats dog food and licks his own ass. I don't think he has world domination on his mind.
Re:Shows just how powerfull the human brain is (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Shows just how powerfull the human brain is (Score:3, Insightful)
They don't plan they just "do", that's what makes them great catchers, nobody told them about the math.
Re:Shows just how powerfull the human brain is (Score:2)
Re:Shows just how powerfull the human brain is (Score:4, Informative)
There's an old saying in computer science that one of my professor's passed on to me in my undergraduate studies: "Things that humans find hard, computers find easy, and things that humans find easy, computers find hard."
It really rings true when you think about things like factoring polynomials, solving differential equations, and catching a ball. I thought it was interesting, and the saying has stuck with me all these years.
Re:Shows just how powerfull the human brain is (Score:2)
I thought the human brain didn't do the calculations though. Rather for things like catching it learns from experience how to react to catch the object. There isn't any maths going on behind the scenes or anything.
That isn't to say it isn't powerful, but that it approaches such things very differently from how we usually make machines and computers to do them.
Re:Shows just how powerfull the human brain is (Score:2)
When you try to catch (and throw) a ball for the first time, you usually don't. After repeated tries, your (at that point usualy childrens) brain stores a pattern of experiences about that particular ball and the amount of effort required to throw that ball a certain distance and for the time that ball takes to get to you. Any further throwing/catching of that particular bal
Re:Shows just how powerfull the human brain is (Score:2)
Looks like your probably right- Even after 15 days of ball catching in micro gravity, astronauts still naturally reacted to the ball as if they expected it to accelerate downwards. It seems that the brain either remembers from catching as a child, or it's genetic.
Yankees (Score:3, Funny)
Ahhh (Score:2)
What's up with all these Japanese "sports" robots anyway? I mean, I know their sports teams suck, but surely they can just do like the US and buy all the good foreign players (ducking...)
It's not going that fast. (Score:2)
1000 Times Too Slow! (Score:2)
Re:It's not going that fast. (Score:2)
Robocop 2 (Score:2, Interesting)
Cue that scene where Robocop catches a bullet fired to a police.
I've always wondered about the real physics of that scene, maybe robocop's fingers would be destroyed, or the bullet deformed... all that kinetic energy has to go somewhere...
Ok, back to work.
Real men... (Score:2)
...catch bullets in their teeth. Not everyone succeeds [magictricks.com], but some do [foreworks.com]!.
New robot usage (Score:2)
(I say 'soccer for the benefit of the US readers, but I realize elsewhere in the world its called football.)
Wow... (Score:2)
Screw the robot... (Score:2, Funny)
Hooray! (Score:2)
That's a robot? (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems to me that's pushing the definition of robot a bit much. It's a grabber that closes when something approaches it. The ball is thrown straight at it. It seems more like the doors at the supermarket that open when you approach. Of course, the doors won't open fast enough for people moving at 186 mph but it's the same general principle.
The impressive thing about all this is that I was able to download the 9+MB video, first try, using the link on Slashdot's front page, in about 15 seconds. Now that's technology!
Wake me when someone builds a working pusher robot [somethingawful.com]...don't bother me with this "hand robot" jibber jabber.
Difficult? I think not.... (Score:2)
Stealth [imdb.com]
Accidents (Score:2)
Coral Cache (Score:2)
neat but... (Score:2)
robotic catchers (Score:2)
I would call it... (Score:2)
Re:Soon: pick-pocketing robots (Score:2, Informative)
Too late! There is already a card trick performing robot [brasslanternantiques.com]!
Re:High speed moving objects?! (Score:2, Funny)
Huh? I-- I don't know that! Auuuuuuuugh!
Re:High speed moving objects?! (Score:2)
Re:High speed moving objects?! (Score:2)
Re:High speed moving objects?! (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't know how hard a softball (sic) is, but a cricket ball is solid cork wrapped in leather. And I have the bruises this morning to prove it, after playing at the weekend...
.
Re:High speed moving objects?! (Score:2)
--
I'm not politically incorrect, I'm just differently articulate
Re:High speed moving objects?! (Score:2, Informative)
Fast controled motion robotic (Score:3, Interesting)
As mentioned, there is no arm and the area for interception is very tight. Building an arm mounted interceptor may raise serious problems with inertia though.
Time to think of a robotized pickpocket.
Re:Oh dear.... (Score:2)
Re:Just for once? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Just for once? (Score:2)
Re:Just for once? (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia, the revolution wants YOU!
Re:Just for once? (Score:2)
Non-linear equations (Score:5, Interesting)
In the video, the ball has a very visible parabolic flight curve over the 2 meters distance.
The parabolic flight curve actually makes this a harder task. If the equations of motion were purely linear, then it would be a simple task to calculate future position. The second order nature of the trajectory mean that a little more maths is needed to predict where to catch it. Much of the maths for this sort of thing uses matrices (read linear algebra) which would fall over for this task.
I seem to recall that human cricketers use a simple technique for solving this problem. As they are running to catch the ball they move so the ball is kept at a constant angle in their field of view. Keeping this angle constant ensures that the ball will neatly arrive in their hands. Or so the theory goes.
I've long thought that catching a ball would be a great research project, mainly due to the quadratics calculations involved, great to see it realised.
Re:Non-linear equations (Score:2)
If there was a parabolic flight curve involved in 2 metres at 186mph of speed, that ball must be AMAZINGLY heavy,
Re:Non-linear equations (Score:3, Interesting)
I should explain why this hard to solve in a machine learning context. Whilst I agree that quadratics eqns have long had explicit solutions this may not be relevant if you use a machine learning approach. For current AI the game is not to program in the explicit equations themselves, but more construct a system in which
Re:SI, damn it! (Score:3, Funny)
Or 499,968.9936 furlongs per fortnight, if that helps you put things into perspective...
=Smidge=
Re:SI, damn it! (Score:2)
Re:SI, damn it! (Score:2)
Re:SI, damn it! (Score:2)