Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Robotics Technology

New Robots Developed To Climb Walls 110

Posted by samzenpus from the your-friendly-neighborhood-roomba dept.
An anonymous reader writes "SRI International, a nonprofit research and development organization, has developed a new technology that enables some robots to scale walls. The wall-climbing robots could be a boon for the US military, which could use them on reconnaissance or other missions in war zones, said Philip von Guggenberg, director of business development for SRI International, adding that the independent group has received some funding from DARPA, the technology research arm of the Pentagon. Von Guggenberg said that the new electrical adhesive technology called compliant electroadhesion, provides an electrically controllable way to stick machines to a wall. So what can they do? That adhesion lets the robots, using either feet or tracks, scale a vertical wall. They can even climb walls covered in dust and debris, or made out of concrete, wood, steel, glass, drywall, and brick. Good news is that regular robots, especially those with tracks, can be retrofitted with the technology and turned into wall climbers. Maybe if the kids are good, they'll get one for Christmas."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Robots Developed To Climb Walls More

New Robots Developed To Climb Walls

Comments Filter:

  • Electroadhesive robots (Score:5, Insightful)

    by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 ) on Wednesday May 28, 2008 @11:53PM (#23581793)
    Never mind the military uses, how about using them for construction purposes?

    • Re:Electroadhesive robots (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Frosty Piss ( 770223 ) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @12:17AM (#23581973)

      Never mind the military uses, how about using them for construction purposes?
      Indeed. It's pretty sad that most (or just a lot? It seems like most...) new technology comes about for "military needs". Imagen if all this effort was devoted to developing technology whose actual purpose was peaceful applications to benefit a peaceful society... The money we spend on war prevents a renaissance of humanity.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by nawcom ( 941663 )
        And that, was, "REAL OPINIONS - WITH HOST - FROSTY PISS"

        Heh don't take that as a troll; I just find anything that has the phrase "frosty piss" in it humorous.

        Ok back to the subject matter that you were replying to: I've always found something odd about DARPA, compared to ARPA. I guess advanced research projects agency sounds like something funded for the sole purpose of continuing to succeed in the new discoveries and development in technology; you turn that into a government department (DARPA) (and yes,

      • They need fundind (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DrYak ( 748999 )

        Never mind the military uses, how about using them for construction purposes?

        Indeed. It's pretty sad that most (or just a lot? It seems like most...) new technology comes about for "military needs".

        It will probably be mainly used for construction in the future. It's just that they need more funding for the project. And these day adding "and it helps fighting the evil terrorists !" at the end of a press release increases your chance of getting government funds.

        Just like the obviously outrageous "this will eradicate cancer !" claims that you see each time some bio-medical research lab publishes some obscure discovery.

        • And these day adding [...]

          "These days"? You are forgetting the original reasons GPS and the Internet got created, to name just two...

          Seriously, if it weren't for the fear of and the designs over property and women of the neighbors, humans would've still been hunting-and-gathering (mostly gathering, of course)...

          • "These days"? You are forgetting the original reasons GPS and the Internet got created, to name just two...

            The "these days" was referring to "fighting evil terrorists !".
            In the sense that before that, it used to be "fighting godless communists !", etc.

            Seriously, if it weren't for the fear of and the designs over property and women of the neighbors, humans would've still been hunting-and-gathering (mostly gathering, of course)...

            One can take human history as an example. Old Greece. Yes, some greek genuis like Archimedes got his name become legendary following feats during a military siege. On the other hand the most prolific period in terms of art and philosophy of the greek history, the so called Golden Centruy, happened during a time of peace *after the end* of the Persian wars.

            More cl

      • Re:Electroadhesive robots (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @03:39AM (#23583189) Journal

        Imagen if all this effort was devoted to developing technology whose actual purpose was peaceful applications to benefit a peaceful society... The money we spend on war prevents a renaissance of humanity.
        The money we spend on war brought us the Internet, which has arguably brought about a modern day renaissance.

        Not to mention that the military is responsible for the commercialization of a wide variety of technologies that go into making safer & cheaper products for everyone.

        As for why so much technology is developed for the military...
        It's because they are willing to go into a cost plus contract with companies.
        Nothing like having the military pay for all the cost overruns & extra R&D.

        • The money we spend on war brought us the Internet, which has arguably brought about a modern day renaissance.
          That is most likely a happy coincidence. Imagine how many internet-equivalents we might already have if money was spent on peaceful purposes instead!

        • eisnhower begs to differ (Score:1, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          the 1 trillion spent on the iraq war, if spent on civilian projects, would have generated far, far, far more advances, contributed far more to industry, and benefited society much more.

          yeaah the military generated a lot of cool stuff, but that is because the military uses up so much money that other science projects get starved, including nasa, the department of energy, the national institutes of health, the cdc, fermilab, etc etc etc.

          giving a certain amount of money to the militray does not necessarily gen
          • There's a difference between Iraq War spending and military research spending. We've spent MUCH less on military research than funding the endless war. I don't think you know what you're talking about... military research funding = good. Military operational funding = good when we have something worthwhile we're doing. Right now military operational funding = bad.

        • As for why so much technology is developed for the military...
          It's because they are willing to go into a cost plus contract with companies.
          Nothing like having the military pay for all the cost overruns & extra R&D.
          Military-inspired tech existed long before the concept of cost plus contracts.

          You really need to extend your knowledge of history back farther than what has happened since you began reading.
        • Nothing like having the American Taxpayers pay for all the cost overruns & extra R&D.

          Corrected that for you
        • Anyone heard of Alfred Nobel?
      • Military research goes towards providing one of the basic services a government is suppose to provide and that is for the defense of a nations sovereignty (regardless of how abstract that can be). History has proven that market forces, not governments, are better at developing technology for the benefit of society. Massive social projects directed by governments, are often misguided and result in massive unintended consequences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward [wikipedia.org]

        If human beings were perfect, we
      • "The money we spend on war prevents a renaissance of humanity."

        War removes old, defective, degenerate, weak systems. (The revolutions in the US, France, Russia, and China are examples.) Inconclusive wars are less effective, which argues for waging war with sufficient force to accomplish the object of the conflict.

        "The money we spend on war prevents a renaissance of humanity."

        The churn of war gives the opportunity for human improvement static (i.e. "warless", conflict-free) social systems do not.

        War is an an

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Haoie ( 1277294 )
      Afraid that human labour will be far, far more cost effective, and will remain so for probably our entire lifetime.

      Robot technology doesn't really grow in leaps and bounds [unlike the internet].

      • Robot technology doesn't really grow in leaps and bounds [...]
        That's 'cos they keep fitting the bally things with caterpillar tracks and not power-jumpers :P

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Yoozer ( 1055188 )
        Read Marshall Brain's "Manna" - at least the robot part can be done/developed/invented realistically.

    • Flaw in the Wall (Score:5, Funny)

      by camperdave ( 969942 ) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @01:33AM (#23582369) Journal
      how about using them for construction purposes?

      Well, the wall climbing robot suffers from one debilitating flaw when it comes to construction. You see, in order to climb a wall, the wall needs to be there first.
      • yes, so using it to help...you know...put in wiring behind walls, paint, test durability or just climb up the bracing before the wall is put up is obviously a silly waste of time.

        Well, actually, until these little buggers become cost effective it probably is. Yipes!
        • Why would we put bracing up before putting a wall up? That doesn't make sense. I think there's one viable construction use that would actually be worthwhile, and that's because otherwise someone has to stick their hand in the wall to do it.

    • Never mind the military uses, how about using them for construction purposes?
      They used kids for that during the industrial revolution. Some day I reckon these robots will be cheaper than children, but it'll take a while.

    • Never mind the military uses, how about using them for construction purposes?

      All that matters is how efficiently the US military can kill people.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • It's pretty easy to ban something you don't even have. They should ban time travel while they're at it.
          • Comment removed based on user account deletion
            • You got me - I'm FOR cluster bombs everywhere. Putting aside the issue of the effectiveness of cluster bombs, my only point was that most of the "100 nations" probably don't have cluster bombs (or an effective air force to use them) in the first place. Their "ban" is in name only.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by somersault ( 912633 )
      Never mind the construction purposes, I want a car that I can park on the side of my office building!

  • Easier way! (Score:5, Funny)

    by www.sorehands.com ( 142825 ) on Wednesday May 28, 2008 @11:59PM (#23581839) Homepage
    Why not have have the robots bitten by a genetically engineered spider?
    • Only two replies and the PC World server is already bitten by the Slashdot Spider.
    • Do you really want a robot like that to end up with a huge identity crisis and ponder back and forth whether it should ask out the recon drone it has a crush on?
    • Don't need to [tvacres.com]

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by garphik ( 996984 )
      OR even easier this could be even DIY ... okay

      Tie a simple fisherman's knot to one of the appendages of the robot that would take the force > its Mass*g(approx 9.8) Then throw other end of the string over the wall (or attach it to the pulley on top of the wall), and apply force to the other end of the string directed towards the ground and away from the wall.

      Also there is no guarantee that your robot will survive this climb without a scratch / broken parts, but heh it climbs

      jokes apart, that is r

    • I hate posts that link to articles with no pictures!

      http://www.sri.com/rd/electroadhesion.html

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @12:06AM (#23581891)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Ksevio ( 865461 )
      They said it doesn't work very well on damp surfaces which is when you need the most grip with a car so it wouldn't be very useful for that application.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by xonar ( 1069832 )
      I think this is an excellent idea. Could it possibly increase highway speeds in the future? Speed aside, the safety factor would be phenomenal.
      • Current tyre technology works fine at speeds upward of 150mph (depending on the tyre you buy, they are all rated differently and proper racing tyres need to be 'warmed up' before they grip properly), it's just the drivers that are the issue. It could improve safety slightly, but it would hardly be 'phenomenal' considering that most accidents are due to the drivers rather than the cars. There will always be idiots trying to push a vehicle beyond what it can actually do (that's fine on a racetrack, not so muc
    • Apart from the problems with reduced efficacy in the wet, these things support tiny forces compared to the friction that a car tire gives you.

      I suspect the contacts need to be *very* close to the surface (they work like a capacitor), so you're going to lose most of the advantage of having your tire made of nice, thick, flexible rubber.

      There's a technology available today for improving your car's road-holding ability: wider wheels. Most people aren't willing to bear the extra maintenance costs, or the reduc
    • I expect that even if it did work, you would end up increasing the rolling friction of the tire. That would cut into gas mileage.

    • Cool, so they managed to synthesize how a gecko sticks to surfaces...

      I'm not sure it's exactly the same thing, in light of this article. [slashdot.org]

    • Sorta, AFAIK gecko stick to walls because of the geometry of nano sized "hairs" on their feet, sorta like velcro. This robot does that to a lesser degree but uses static cling to compensate.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by blueZ3 ( 744446 )
      With conventional tires it's a trade off. Stickier tires are less efficient and last fewer miles. You can already buy VERY sticky tires, the kind dragsters use--the reasons that nobody puts these on their daily driver are 1)cost 2)gas mileage goes down 3)they have a shorter life.

      I don't see how some outside force applied to the tire would provide much different characteristics in these areas than is possible with conventional materials science.

      Anyway, as some other post already said, it's the driver, not th
      • The cool thing is that, like aerodynamic downforce, electrostatic friction would be adjustable (on the fly), and would not incur an inertia penalty relative to just using mass to increase your traction. If you could drive your car on near-bicycle size tires so as to reduce rolling friction, and still have acceptable acceleration, cornering and braking ability due to adaptive static friction control then it would be possible to get significantly higher mileage.

  • Add window washers to the list (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NotQuiteReal ( 608241 ) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @12:19AM (#23581983) Journal
    Of people who's job can be replaced by a robot.

  • Roland? Is that you? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Frosty Piss ( 770223 ) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @12:30AM (#23582047)
    Shouldn't this story have a Roland Piquepaille by-line?

    Sorry, I'll shut up now...

  • Every single story... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Is anyone else sick of reading about every new technology that seems to come out the military finds "uses" for it. Makes me think about their mindset when they look at every innovation and think "this would be really good for killing people".

    Goddamn sociopaths.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by The Evil Couch ( 621105 )
      You might want to reread the summary.

      The wall-climbing robots could be a boon for the US military, which could use them on reconnaissance or other missions in war zones, said Philip von Guggenberg, director of business development for SRI International, adding that the independent group has received some funding from DARPA, the technology research arm of the Pentagon.

      Looks to me like they came up with the concept and then marketed it to the military in order to get more funding.

  • what? no (Score:3, Funny)

    by westcoast philly ( 991705 ) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @12:52AM (#23582163)
    I for one, Welcome out new electro-stick spybot war machine overlords. ...jokes yet? Pretty cool, but frightening.

  • Easy defense against these robots (Score:4, Interesting)

    by imrtt ( 1287370 ) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @12:55AM (#23582191)
    The article mentions that electroadhesion doesn't work well on damp surfaces. All you need to defend against these robots is a bucket of water.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by b4upoo ( 166390 )
      Think positive. I know that the next time I'm at home and feel like climbing the walls I'll have company. Now if these things can handle a paint brush I can change my home decor as often as I like.

  • Great...Just effin' great (Score:5, Funny)

    by hyades1 ( 1149581 ) <hyades1@hotmail.com> on Thursday May 29, 2008 @12:57AM (#23582211)

    My job's already got me climbing the goddamn walls, and for a fraction of the cost of a goddamn robot.

    They might as well finish the job and make me totally redundant. Invent a robot that begs my girlfriend for sex and gets turned down

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by bledri ( 1283728 )

      They might as well finish the job and make me totally redundant. Invent a robot that begs my girlfriend for sex and gets turned down

      Nothing personal, but with the right attachments it may not get turned down... Ouch.

  • Save some money... (Score:5, Funny)

    by arotenbe ( 1203922 ) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @12:59AM (#23582217) Journal
    I used to have a little toy that would do this. You turned it on and it stuck to the wall and climbed up very slowly. Its primary function was running out batteries.

    Tagged: suctioncup

  • What ... ? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by the bluebrain ( 443451 )
    ... now we'll have robots lording over us from random vertical surfaces?
    I, for one, am not sure I welcome the idea.

  • Hmm. (Score:2, Informative)

    by phreakincool ( 975248 )
    "In the future: human wall climbing: For uses ranging from Special Forces needs to exterior window-cleaning "
    Superhero uniform check-list:

    1 - Full-body/form fitting unitard: check

    1 - Ski Mask to hide my secret identity: check

    1 - No shame what-so-ever: check

    6 - Electroadhesive robotic thingys for hands, knees, and feet: working on that

  • Lem leads again and the robot free climbs (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dbIII ( 701233 ) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @01:50AM (#23582449)
    Odd coincidence. Just a week again I read "The Accident" by Stanislaw Lem which is about trying to track down a robot that has gone missing and has unexpectedly done a bit of rock climbing in it's spare time.
  • ...just get your robot to use vista for a few days, and it'll be climbing the walls without any training.
  • Soon the robots will overtake us all. It is only a matter of time. First they walk, then they run, then they climb walls.
  • Looks like it might have trouble with conducting surfaces. If you short those clamps together all that induced charge/voltage would likely discharge, sending the robot tumbling to the ground and maybe even blowing its power supply. Any wet wall, or even just a wall with a band of conducting material would still serve as a barrier to the robot.
  • The fools! How will we escape the Robotic Overlords now?

  • Print version (Score:3, Informative)

    by Nullav ( 1053766 ) <mocNO@SPAMliamg.valluN> on Thursday May 29, 2008 @05:15AM (#23583731)
    Here's the print version [idg.com.au] for those who don't want to scroll constantly because of the massive ad-walls.
    Really, I don't mind ads, but use them tastefully.
  • Wish I could think of something humorous like ALL OF Y'ALL. I am just very impressed by the concept. How heavy is this thing? (Secret? no pix.) I used to have fun as a youngster rubbing balloons on my hair, then sticking them to the ceiling. Who would have thought this could go so far?

  • More like civilian applications (Score:3, Funny)

    by Tyr_7BE ( 461429 ) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @09:30AM (#23586067)
    Screw military applications - this means my roomba might be able to handle the stairs soon!

    Exciting times :)
  • It's true lots of great technologies have come out of military research, but it seems a very inefficient way of coming up with new stuff. If the US is going to have such a statist economy, wouldn't it be better to use all those billions on research that is not for world domination?
  • ... as per http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/29/1254259 [slashdot.org] and you're telling me we can have bionic, monkey-powered, wall climbing robots? Where do I sign up?
  • Remember Tom Selleck in Runaway [imdb.com] back in 1984! Those robots were creepy - but not as creepy as Gene Simmons or as cool as the homing bullets!
  • And why not have have the robots bitten by a genetically engineered spider?

Slashdot Top Deals

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close