Octopus-Inspired Robot Matches Real Octopus For Speed 71
KentuckyFC writes: Underwater vehicles have never matched the extraordinary agility of marine creatures. While many types of fish can travel at speeds of up to 10 body lengths per second, a nuclear sub can manage a less than half a body length per second. Now a team of researchers has copied a trick used by octopuses to build an underwater robot capable of matching the agility of marine creatures. This trick is the way an octopus expands the size of its head as it fills with water and then squirts it out to generate propulsion. The team copied this by building a robot with a flexible membrane that also expands as it fills with water.
The fluid then squirts out through a rear-facing nozzle as the membrane contracts. To the team's surprise, the robot reached speeds of 10 body lengths per second with a peak acceleration of 14 body lengths per second squared. That's unprecedented in an underwater vehicle of this kind. What's more, the peak force experienced by the robot was 30 per cent greater than the thrust generated by the jet. The team think they know why and say the new technique could be used to design bigger subs capable of even more impressive octopus-like feats.
The fluid then squirts out through a rear-facing nozzle as the membrane contracts. To the team's surprise, the robot reached speeds of 10 body lengths per second with a peak acceleration of 14 body lengths per second squared. That's unprecedented in an underwater vehicle of this kind. What's more, the peak force experienced by the robot was 30 per cent greater than the thrust generated by the jet. The team think they know why and say the new technique could be used to design bigger subs capable of even more impressive octopus-like feats.
Octopus Feats (Score:2)
Yeah, I had to read the last sentence three times because I thought it said, "...even more impressive octopus-like farts."
um... (Score:2)
um... that's not a robot, its a balloon stretched over a turkey baster.
Re:um... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Every kid already got that. Those scientists obviously missed their childhood... otherwise they would know that the thing they discovered is known to every 6 years old child who ever tried to release air-filled balloons and watch it progressively accelerate... :-D
I hope they will get a massive grant for this discovery... to compensate for the childhood they probably never had.
Re: (Score:2)
um... that's not a robot, its a condom stretched over a turkey baster.
FTFY
Re: (Score:1)
That's no balloon.
Underwater? Yes. Robot? NO (Score:4, Insightful)
After reading TFA all they effectively did was design a toy-sized torpedo that uses an expanding membrane to hold the liquid used to propel the device. Nada más.
While they probably did do interesting work in fluid dynamics (IANAFD), in no way, shape or form could this even be remotely considered a robot.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot
"A robot is an automatic mechanical device often resembling a human or animal. Modern robots are usually an electro-mechanical machine guided by a computer program or electronic circuitry."
Quite a serviceable definition, and it covers what they are doing.
But even robot arms are robots: completely lacking in autonomy. Robotics generally is entirely the study of the kind of thing they are doing: studying the ways to make machines do things that are modelled on the way humans
Re: (Score:2)
"A robot is an automatic mechanical device ... "
Quite a serviceable definition, and it covers what they are doing.
But there's nothing automatic about their model; They manually attached it to a water hose to fill it, manually released it, and relied on fixed fins to provide passive stability.
Sure the technology can be used on robots in the future, but this proof-of-concept model is as robotic as a water bottle rocket.
Re: (Score:2)
Taking a couple of sentences from a Wiki article does not make a complete definition. The only relevant part of your quote is "[a] robot is an automatic mechanical device". By that definition any self powered mechanical device that that does something after being initiated is a robot. That is not true.
How about this definition; [merriam-webster.com]
a device that automatically performs complicated often repetitive tasks
a mechanism guided by automatic controls
The device can neither perform repetitive tasks and has no automatic controls or any controls for that matter. It is a projectile not a robot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True. But if you can get over the semantic issue in the title, it is still a marvelous achievement.
I agree that the fluid dynamics part looks interesting and is probably the most important part of the story. But I am not qualified to comment on fluid dynamics.
But calling this a robot means that you can call a bowling ball falling from a tall building "a gravity powered robot", and also study the same fluid dynamics that are being tested in TFA.
Re: (Score:1)
You must've been fun to be around when you first heard the term "paper airplane".
Re: (Score:1)
Airplanes have onboard propulsion systems! These are just paper gliders!!2!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia is not always authoritative, alas
Oxford English Dictionary: "A machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer:"
I'd add that it is not a robot unless it has sensors. A self-winding moon-phase watch is not a robot.
Nor is a badminton birdie.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The definition from Wikipedia also says it usually looks like a human or animal, so those things and my toaster wouldn't count (though Wikipedia also include nanobots).
Since they use the word "usually" it implies that sometimes robots do not look like humans or animal so toasters, etc do count.
As I said, it's a broad term that's not well defined
... by Wikipedia. FTFY There are many other definitions [google.ca] that are much less broad.
a device that automatically performs complicated often repetitive tasks
a mechanism guided by automatic controls
That device can not do repetitive tasks and has no controls (automatic or otherwise). It is a projectile not a robot.
talk about a perfect set-up! (Score:2)
The Encyclopedia Galactica defines a robot [wikia.com] as
"a mechanical apparatus designed to do the work of a man."
I'll leave the ultimate zinger for somebody else...
Re: (Score:2)
The Encyclopedia Galactica defines a robot [wikia.com] as
"a mechanical apparatus designed to do the work of a man."
I'll leave the ultimate zinger for somebody else...
But who would build a machine that only goes around killing spiders?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, since us humans evolved from water to land, sea-creatures seem like a good starting point for studying Artificial Intelligence.
Especially the brainy mammals that crawled back into the ocean and grew a big nostril on the back of their necks. Dolphins and whales are genuinely intelligent and don't need AI in their robots.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking on behalf non-militant vegetarians ... no, you really should be sure a vegan hears you, because it's usually hilarious to hear the squealing. ;-)
I'm that vegetarian that says "I hear the calamari here is awesome, you should try it". :-P
Re: (Score:2)
If you follow the links in TFA, you will find that they originally were trying to create a robot based on a different animal commonly used for food.
Unfortunately, the model they chose was based on the cow and it was an udder failure.
But (Score:2)
Octopusses aren't that fast. Its squids that can move fast
Re: (Score:2)
as long as they are trying to hurt the people trying to hurt me, i'm fine with it.
Can't wait (Score:4, Funny)
Can't wait for nuclear-powered giant octopus submarines. Beats a laser-sporting shark anyday !
Re: (Score:2)
I can see the movie now ... nuclear powered octopus meets laser-sharknado.
Mark my words.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Robot...what? (Score:2)
I'm not completely sure because definitions change all the time, but I'm fairly certain that an underwater stored-energy balloon toy fails to meet even the loosest definition of "robot".
I, for one, (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Roboctopi-nado!
Now we know.. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Hey, 10gs of acceleration (Score:4, Funny)
What a nice sub - go from 10Gs back to 0Gs every couple of seconds. I'm sure the sailors will be shaped differently after traveling in that thing for a couple of weeks.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, and now we get to the real reason octopi don't have bones...
Not "sustained" speed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Are these the smaller fish? (Score:1, Informative)
The post says, "While many types of fish can travel at speeds of up to 10 body lengths per second, a nuclear sub can manage a less than half a body length per second."
How big are these fish? Body length does not seem like a good measure of speed, as it would tend to favor smaller fish over larger fish. There is no fish that is anywhere close to a sub in length (362' or 110 m is a reasonable size--ten times the longest fish). Even if you include whales (aquatic but not fish), the blue whale is less than a
Re: (Score:2)
Deceptive comparison (Score:2)
10 times body length per second is impressive on its own for under water bodies. I suspect the reason is the shrinking of the head as water is ejected out of the nozzle as it moves. In underwater craft, the vehicle has to displace the fluid around it, make room for itse
So (Score:2)
That's ok. Marine creatures have never been able to match the capacity of underwater vehicles either. A nuclear sub can haul 140+ people around, fire torpedoes, and launch guided missiles simultaneously. Thankfully aquatic creatures are some distance away from being able to
It might move like an octopus... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Finally an answer to the question:
"What looks like an octopus and is filled with sea men?"
Re: (Score:2)
Finally an answer to the question: "What looks like an octopus and is filled with sea men?"
drainbramage - The airport lost my luggage at the Cabbage Blaim. (I must have lost my head)
just like in the matrix (Score:2)
now i'm scared
Underwater Missiles? (Score:1)
... sure, I'll believe it when I see an octopus-like apparatus come anywhere near mach 1. Until then we'll have supercavitation which actually is starting to perform (scarily).
Sorry, what? (Score:2)
Why are we concerned that a gigantic metal tube designed to transport people underwater and missiles/other weaponry does not travel as fast as an organic unit that does not transport personnel and ordinance?
In other news, School buses not as fast as F1 cars.