Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Robotics Science

Robotic Fish Track Targets, Communicate With One Another 68

Roland Piquepaille writes "Many of today's underwater robots need to periodically come up to the surface to communicate with their human supervisors. But researchers at the University of Washington (UW) have developed a new kind of underwater vehicle. The 'Robofish' can work cooperatively with each other. 'The Robofish, which are roughly the size of a 10-pound salmon, look a bit like fish because they use fins rather than propellers.' According to the researchers, such robots 'could cooperatively track moving targets underwater, such as groups of whales or spreading plumes of pollution, or explore caves, underneath ice-covered waters, or in dangerous environments where surfacing might not be possible.' Further information and more pictures are also available for these autonomous fin-actuated underwater vehicles."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Robotic Fish Track Targets, Communicate With One Another

Comments Filter:
  • by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Sunday June 08, 2008 @12:15PM (#23700693)

    According to the researchers, such robots 'could cooperatively track moving targets underwater, such as groups of whales...
    Anyone else miss the cold war? In the eighties the press release about such gizmos would have mentioned "commie subs poised to vaporize Dick, Jane and their good ol' American homestead on a few minutes notice." Instead, we're left with following "groups of whales" around - sheesh.
    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Don't worry. PETA will impose a global ban the next time a shark goes tits up while to digest one of these.

    • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Sunday June 08, 2008 @12:23PM (#23700733) Homepage
      Actually just wait a bit more. the Former USSR is now pissed at the USA once again. (Something about our asshole practices of pushing our laws on them) and poised to whip the populace back up in a Hate amarica furvor once again.

      Oh and they still have the ability to kill every single man woman and child on this planet in less than 12 hours.
      • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Actually just wait a bit more. the Former USSR is now pissed at the USA once again. (Something about our asshole practices of pushing our laws on them) and poised to whip the populace back up in a Hate amarica furvor once again.

        It's not just our bush baby that's done that... soul-seeing or not. Vladimir Putin is an ex-KGB chief, so he's been steering people back toward the US-is-the-enemy frame because, for him, it's a known-working means of controlling the population. He sees the Cold War as the good old days when things were simpler, and is working to bring that back. Note his inability to rescind power.

        Changing topics, I'm surprised nobody has pointed out the obvious utility of this technology for developing fully-robotic l

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by jackharrer ( 972403 )
          Even more. Putin started camps for kids that are in principle very similar to HitlerJugend. There's also a quite a big nationalist movement in Russia.

          There's a big chance that new cold war will start but it'll be much different that the previous one. It can be 3 sided with China taking also strong-arming especially in Asia and Africa. Oh, in Brazil also. Also technical advancements changed many aspects of warfare, you can see it when you look at cyberattacks originating from China.
      • It might also have something to do with them oppressing the freedom of speech, and tampering with the election system on a massive scale, and generally behaving more and more like a dictatorship.

        Of course, I'm talking about Russia, not the US, though I'll admit the differences are small.
    • Don't blame it on the era, blame it on the journalists. If they had a bit of imagination they could have suggested it's use in catching rafts of illegal immigrants or maybe Muslim suicide bomber dolphins. Allah Akiikiikiiba!

      They will probably send them to swim through the sewers and listen to people's conversations from just around the u-bend. Those Government Bastards!
  • by witherstaff ( 713820 ) on Sunday June 08, 2008 @12:16PM (#23700705) Homepage

    An Ig Noble award was for Fish Flatulence as a means of communication [bioedonline.org].

    So we just need to create a robotic Bender, that burps and has an exploding ass, to really understand nature.

  • by compumike ( 454538 ) on Sunday June 08, 2008 @12:28PM (#23700761) Homepage
    They talk about trouble with communications while underwater, but the Skin effect [wikipedia.org] describes how in a conductive media (say, seawater), various frequencies of electromagnetic waves are attenuated with distance. In short, high frequencies travel less distance into the material than lower frequencies. This is why the requirements for shielding of different electronics can be very different -- higher operating frequency implies thinner shielding. And of course it's also why submarines use very low frequencies to communicate. (See also LORAN positioning system [wikipedia.org].)

    --
    Hey code monkey... learn electronics! [nerdkits.com]
    • Salmon sized fish, huh? Once they release these into the ocean, they aren't going to last very long against the sea lions. Of course, we could solve the sea lion problem with a robotic orca...
  • Prey (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mofonius ( 1304097 ) on Sunday June 08, 2008 @12:32PM (#23700781)
    What happens when another fish mistakenly eats the robofish?
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Monoliath ( 738369 )
      I'm very interested in the answer your question, as I'm sure the materials used to manufacture this robo fish are incredibly poisonous.

      I can't believe the forward thinking about oceanic pollution when it comes to putting devices like this in the water is not present when it comes to their prototype development. It's like we're right back in the excessive product commercialism of the 50's and 60's all over again...despite the education and technology behind ecological systems these days.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by zappepcs ( 820751 )
        I'm guessing you have never watched a fish tank for any period of time. Even gold fish who tend to try eating everything will have a taste and ignore it after. Now, if the robo-fish gets any algae on it, it could be problematic as that would make it taste like something to eat.

        Other than that, all those old boats sitting on the bottom have not been eaten bit by bit, so you can relax and quit worrying about the fish being killed by poisonous parts from the robo-fish.

        Grouper and sharks and larger predatory fi
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Monoliath ( 738369 )
          To compare the toxicity of an electronically guided fish to a sunken boat...is a little excessive IMHO not only that, you're approaching this from the perspective that sunken boats, depending on what their cargo was, and how recent the boat was manufactured, are themselves not a source of biological toxins.

          I am not a tree hugger, but my point here is that this kind of development needs to be approached from a much more ecologically sound perspective, given that the level of education and technology is advan
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by couchslug ( 175151 )
        "I'm very interested in the answer your question, as I'm sure the materials used to manufacture this robo fish are incredibly poisonous."

        Why are you "sure" of that?

        Most of the materials are obvious (metal, plastic, printed circuit board, battery) so unless there is Something Very Bad cunningly hidden is it's robo-guts, it's no worse than chucking a PC over the side. One shipwreck would put more material on the sea bed than the entire likely robo-fish production.
        • I can confirm that there is nothing toxic in the robots. Side panels are aluminum and the clear parts are acrylic. Even the PCB is RoHS.
    • It is written: this too shall come to pass.
  • by slew ( 2918 ) on Sunday June 08, 2008 @12:42PM (#23700847)
    Instead of calling them "autonomous fin-actuated underwater vehicles", perhaps they could call them "autonomous fin-inducted submarine hybrid" or just AFISH for short...
  • No one will take them seriously without frikkin' laser beams attached to their heads.
  • by hyades1 ( 1149581 ) <hyades1@hotmail.com> on Sunday June 08, 2008 @01:15PM (#23701007)

    The first time a fisherman accidentally catches one of these things, I have no doubt he'll swear it weighed at least 30 pounds, was half the length of his boat and towed him around the bay for half an hour.

    When he realized what he had, of course, he released it.

  • I build autonomous underwater mine-hunting vehicles. Beat that, fishy.
  • Surf Patrol (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Talisman ( 39902 ) on Sunday June 08, 2008 @02:04PM (#23701243) Homepage
    They need to make one roughly the size of a killer whale that targets and chases sharks out of areas where people engage in water activities, such as surfing.
  • I don't understand why people try to apply electric motors to linear propulsion. The reason animals use linear propulsion is because they use linear "motors" called muscles.

    If we were to develop synthetic muscles, then and only then does linear propulsion make sense. I suppose hydraulics are somewhat similar, but they are not nearly as robust as something based on fibers could be.
    • by Ox0065 ( 1085977 )
      ...because rotors sound like rotors & fish sound like fish.
      You don't really think these are for tracking whales do you?
    • You have a good point. Just because fish use a tail doesn't mean engineered systems should too. But there are benefits to fin actuation. For example, most all propeller driven subs are rigid, which limits their maneuverability. The flexible body of fin actuation allows the robot to be much more maneuverable. Also, cavitation is a non-issue with fin-actuation. As for efficiency, I suspect you're right that electric motors will be more efficient when driving a prop, especially considering that props hav
  • by PPH ( 736903 ) on Sunday June 08, 2008 @04:07PM (#23702099)
    Here comes FishNet!
  • I for one... oh, nevermind.
  • A group at the ANU has been working in this field for at least three years now. Their submersible is called the Serafina and more details are available at http://serafina.com.au/ [serafina.com.au]

    Ongoing research include swarm style movement and problem solving. Each of the submersibles includes a 122kHz long wave radio, there are also ongoing experiments in using LEDs for optical communication.
  • Roland's blogspam (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 1u3hr ( 530656 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @03:02AM (#23706013)
    In every one of Roland Piquepaille's submissions he links to his own blog at the nd "Further information...". This of course is just stuff he's plagiarised from the original sites. Slashdot encourages this thief and rewards him by linking him on the front page, elevating his pagerank.
  • I, for one, welcome our autonomous fin-actuated underwater vehicle overlords.
  • ... for these autonomous fin-actuated underwater vehicles.

    At least try... how about "fin impelled subaquatic hydrosphere-mobile" -- F.I.S.H.

    --- SER

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"

Working...