Automaton

...and dirty dishes, house cleaning, and other domestic chores. That's the goal of Anybots, a Silicon Valley startup founded by Trevor Blackwell. The company has been in the news before, but the whole thing is so intriguing we dispatched Automaton correspondent Anders Frick to get more details on the technology. Here's his report:

Economists like to say that the one kind of work you can’t move offshore is personal service, but what if remote-controlled robots become practical?

Trevor Blackwell loves robots, the humanoid kind that populate old sci-fi movies, and like many other roboticists, he thinks there may be a role for them to play around the house. He differs from most, however, in the economic rationale he offers.

Blackwell sees a future in which a low-paid worker from India might remotely control a robot in your kitchen, taking on tasks that today might be assigned to a servant. Blackwell believes that this is the Next Big Thing, and that thousands of homes will be using his robots to clean, cook, and serve meals. This scheme would effectively allow rich countries to import labor -- without the laborer.

To realize that vision, Blackwell founded Anybots in Mountain View, Calif., in 2001, after his last company, Viaweb, was bought by Yahoo for US $45 million in 1998. Blackwell is also a partner in the startup funding firm Y Combinator, which has invested in nearly 60 different startups during the last three years.

He is currently testing both a legged robot, named Dexter, and a wheeled one, named Monty. They now perform only a few, limited tasks, such as serving coffee and operating a hammer drill. It turns out Monty’s the nimbler of the two. “Robots with wheels are both faster and more stable,” Blackwell says.

Each robot has a built-in gyroscope in the torso, position- and force-sensors in the joints and fingers, and magnetic motion sensors in the arms. Their moving parts are actuated by pneumatic plungers and valves, powered by electricity from carbon aerogel ultra capacitors that can go half an hour on a charge.

The 16 cameras carried on different parts of the robots’ bodies supply video to 10 remotely placed monitors. In the beginning, Blackwell says, engineers and technicians will use the robots to steer in particularly dangerous environments -- say, the site of a nuclear or chemical accident. Such work should get the kinks out. That way, when robots go into mass-production for the consumer market, they will be sufficiently reliable, and perhaps also toxic waste-proof, which might come in handy when dealing with some people's dirty socks.

On July 26th, the MIT Museum here in Cambridge, Mass was full of some of the best and brightest roboticists in the area. The Boston chapter of TiE partnered with Robotics Trends to bring together experts to talk about the robotics industry and where it was headed.

Neena Buck, an industry analyst at MIT, and Dan Kara, president of Robotics Trends, introduced the robotics industry to the audience of mostly software entrepreneurs. Helen Greiner, co-founder and chairman of iRobot, gave a keynote about her company and the lessons learned over the last fifteen years. Finally, a panel spent some time answering questions from moderator Dan Kara and the audience. The panel was comprised of a Media Lab PhD candidate named Cory Kidd, also the founder of company Intuitive Automata; Joe Jones, CTO and Co-Founder of Q Robotics and also one of the inventors of the Roomba; Rory MacKean, R&D Manager at Mobile Robots (formerly ActivMedia); and Chris Wallsmith, CKO at Bluefin Robotics (he also has the dubious honor of being my boss).

The panel was fascinating, not just in terms of the answers they gave to the questions, but also to see what sorts of questions were asked by the not-necessarily-roboticist audience. A few interesting points and observations:

• Asia vs the US: there's a well known split in the attitudes toward robots in the US versus in Japan and South Korea. In Asia, it goes, robots are often humanoid (or canine-oid, in the case of Aibo), are meant to interact directly with people, and are thought of --and designed to be -- as pets or companions. In the US, robots are for "dull/dirty/dangerous" tasks like manufacturing or defense and are generally thought of as tools. This may be changing in the US, though. Helen Greiner had stories of Roomba customers asking for *their* Roomba to be repaired, not a replacement unit. Military PackBot operators give awards to the robots as though they are part of the human team and, like the Roomba owners, want their own robot repaired, not to have a new one sent to them. It will be interesting to see how these attitudes drive designs of the next generation of US robots, and whether the US and Asia begin to converge on their designs.
• The "killer app": there were many questions from the audience about what the panelists thought the "killer app" was for the robotics industry -- not a surprising question from those who work in software. What was surprising was the panel's almost unanimous response: there is none, because robots will literally be everywhere. Chris Wallsmith pointed out that robots are much like computers; that is, computers are everywhere -- your laptop, your cell phone, your car, your calculator -- but people don't call them computers. Similarly, he said, your car will be robotic, your kitchen will be robotic, your personal fitness trainer will be robotic... but they'll be called cars, kitchens, and trainers. Not robots.
• Training for robotics: a hypothetical investor in the audience asked what one should look for in evaluating the experience of people proposing a new robotic technology to VCs. The panelists all had different answers -- a background in psychology may help with the design of interfaces and interactions; a broad engineering base is needed to build up the electrical, mechanical, and software systems of a robot; membership in the target customer base lends credibility to the design. The only agreement seemed to be that a broadly experienced group is necessary for success.

So where is the industry headed? Everywhere, it seems. The good news is that not a single person in the room seemed at all pessimistic about the robotics industry; there's funding for startups, a healthy US defense research funding source, rapid growth of new technologies and new ways for people to interact with machines, and growing acceptance of robots working for and with humans. It's an exciting time.

Spectrum's current issue has a great article on Microsoft's quiet yet bold robotics initiative. Senior Associate Editor Steven Cherry spent a day in the "Broom Closet," the small office area tucked somewhere in the Redmond campus where a small software development group is trying to do for robotics what Microsoft did for personal computing. Below, a Q&A with Cherry:

Automaton: So Microsoft has set out to dominate the robotics universe with its Robotics Studio, which is not an operating system. So what is it?

Cherry: MSRS, as they call it, has the same goal as an operating system—to create a common platform for developers. And it includes what are in effect libraries of code that let higher-level developers create software without delving much into the physical details of this company’s robotic limbs or that one’s sensors. If you start with one arm and switch to another, for example, the commands for up, down, grasp, release, and so forth will be the same.

Automaton: And who is using it? Or who will use it?

Cherry: The platform is still quite new, but my understanding is there are quite a few companies working with it already, from the German automation giant Kuka to iRobot, which makes the Roomba.

Automaton: You were in the Broom Closet. When did you come out?

Cherry: Very funny.

Automaton: So what's the mood there?

Cherry: Well, for one thing, it’s fun. Imagine you took a regular software group and plunked it down into Willy Wonka's factory. You may see all sorts of things crawling around, but sometimes there are just programmers quietly staring at their screens. The group does believe they're doing something important. That's the atmosphere. They are just 11, actually now 12, people out of 76 000 Microsoft employees. But they are dreaming big.

Photo: David Clugston for IEEE Spectrum

Last year, Blake Hannaford and Jacob Rosen of the University of Washington’s BioRobotics Lab wrote an article for Spectrum about their surgical robot, Raven, and a field test in the California rangelands, where a surgeon commanded the robot remotely.

Early this year, Raven headed out to another extreme environment: the Aquarius underwater habitat off Key Largo, Florida. In the experiment, part of NASA's Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) project, surgeons teleoperated the two-armed robot all the way from Seattle.

Automaton spoke with Hannaford to get the details.

Although some people claim their mouths operate independently of their brains, that's not usually the case. The brain sends neurological signals to the larynx, which converts them into sound. Now, what if we could use those larynx nerve signals to control things?

That's exactly what a company called Ambient is doing. Its Audeo technology basically converts "unspoken speech" (neurological signals flowing through larynx nerves when a person thinks about speaking) into control commands that can be used to guide a motorized wheelchair (video above) or synthesize speech. Pretty amazing!

The company apparently stole the show this month at National Instrument's NI Week in Austin. Ambient's founder and CEO, Michael Callahan, gave a demonstration of the company's "thought-controlled" wheelchair and "thought-to-speech" translation system. (You can see the demo at the NI Week video page; it's the last segment, called "Algorithm Engineering," on the August 7 list.)

To use the system, a person wears a lightweight sensor band around the neck. The band picks up the larynx nerve signals and transmits them wirelessly to a remote computer (don't worry about "mind wiretapping" -- the transmission is encrypted.) The remote computer uses NI LabVIEW and signal processing algorithms to interpret the nerve-impulse patterns and translate them into the right commands.

The system is not plug-and-play. It does require some training until its algorithms learn to "read your mind" (accuracy is above 70 percent). But at least it doesn't require Matrix-style brain interfaces or a tangle of EEG electrodes wrapped around your head.

Callahan, a graduate student at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, hopes to commercialize the technology to improve the lives of severely disable people with spinal cord injuries or such neurological disorders as ALS and cerebral palsy. (The company is backed by the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago.)

OK -- not exactly related to robotics, but very cybernetic nonetheless. I wonder what things we might control with this technology one day. Any guesses?

I finally had time to read Robin Marantz Henig's 8000-word piece on sociable robots in the New York Times Magazine. In the article, Henig, a contributing writer for the magazine, describes what scientists mean when they talk about "sociable robots," how such robots were designed to learn by interacting with their environments, and what are the issues involving robot learning, robot emotion, and robot boyfriends.

Henig does a great job explaining how the robots work, sometimes by "peeking behind the curtain" -- the robots are mostly MIT robots, old and new, including the metal torso Cog, the bushy-eyebrowed Kismet, the talkative head Mertz, the mop-topped Autom, the Gremlinlike Leonardo, the skyscraperish Domo, and the rubbery bulgy-eyed Rodney (OK, joking about this last one).

More interesting, perhaps, Henig describes instances in which the robots misbehave, or work in a somewhat disappointing way, and hey, that's how engineering happens in the real world, so it was neat to see that in the article as well (by the way, I loved the cover headline, which to me captures the essence of this emerging field: "It Understands (Sort Of)." An excerpt:

Today’s humanoids are not the sophisticated machines we might have expected by now, which just shows how complicated a task it was that scientists embarked on 15 years ago when they began working on a robot that could think. . . . They are, instead, hunks of metal tethered to computers, which need their human designers to get them going and to smooth the hiccups along the way.

But these early incarnations of sociable robots are also much more than meets the eye. Bill Gates has said that personal robotics today is at the stage that personal computers were in the mid-1970s. . . . In much the same way, the robots being built today, still unwieldy and temperamental even in the most capable hands, probably offer only hints of the way we might be using robots in another 30 years.

After reading the article, I wanted to see some of those machines in action, and it's just great you can find so many videos of them (the Times posted a bunch on the article's web page). But as a writer myself I also wanted to know more about Henig's experience writing the article. Having just returned from vacation, she was kind enough to promptly answer my questions -- thanks, Robin! (Follow the link below to read the Q&A.)

And speaking of robots on the battlefield, Wired's Danger Room points to a Defense News story about a U.S. Army $280 million contract to buy 3000 Negotiator robots from Robotic FX. The Negotiator tactical robot [photo above] is a "45-pound bomb detector with infrared cameras used by hundreds of state, local and federal law enforcement agencies around the U.S.," Defense News reports, adding that an "initial delivery order will be for 101 Robotic FX Negotiators, marking their first use with the U.S. military on the battlefield," where they will be used to clear caves and search for explosives.

Great robotics article this month in Spectrum. Senior editor Jean Kumagai and photo editor Randi Silberman traveled to a cactus-studded ranch in Mexico to find out how a research group is using an underwater robot to explore deep sinkholes.

The researchers, led by Bill Stone [above], best known for his daring cave diving expeditions, were field-testing DEPTHX, a 1.3‑metric-ton autonomous underwater machine that can draw 3D maps of its surroundings and also collect solid and liquid samples. (And as Kumagai notes in the article, the robot, encased in pebbly orange syntactic foam, "looks kind of like a giant tangerine.")

From the article:

There’s never been an aqueous robot quite like DEPTHX. Most autonomous underwater vehicles look the same, Stone says. “Some have fat midsections, some are more elongated, but they pretty much all look like weird torpedoes.” [...] “Their design is dictated by their mission: traveling in straight lines at relatively high speed to survey the ocean floor or gather bathymetry data,” he continues. But for exploring uncharted territory, that shape can get you in trouble. You can back yourself into a tight spot where you can’t turn around. [...] DEPTHX, by contrast, is designed not for high speed but for complicated maneuvering in unfamiliar environments. Hence its shape: a squashed sphere with no protruding parts to catch on things.

Read the full article, titled "Swimming to Europa," to learn how DEPTHX performed in Mexico. Oh, and don't miss the intrepid Spectrum correspondents' account of their encounter with Toilet Frog.

STriDER is a three-legged robot that walks by ... uh, well, the best way to understand its patent-pending "tripedal gait" is to watch the videos below. Basically the robot steps forward by swinging one leg between the other two while flipping over its top body and then doing the same with another leg and so forth. Wicked!

The robot generated quite some buzz at this year's ICAR in Korea [read the excellent paper here, in pdf] and more recently in the robotics blogosphere.

To learn more about the robot, Automaton went straight to the source: Dennis Hong [right], director of the Robotics & Mechanisms Laboratory (RoMeLa) at Virginia Tech, in Blacksburg, who leads the team developing STriDER (if you're wondering, that's short for Self-excited Tripedal Dynamic Experimental Robot).

Next, a Q&A with Hong on STriDER's development and applications, and also videos showing the robot's first step and hypotrochoid-based joint mechanism.

For anyone in the Boston, Mass area, you might be interested in this event at MIT tomorrow (Wednesday) night, a session called "Robots: The Next Wave of the Robot Revolution" that will "explore the advancing robot invasion across all of those sectors." There's a panel of speakers from a few robotics companies, networking receptions, and recruiting (I'll be there representing Bluefin). There's a small registration fee, though it's free for students.

NASA today announced the recipients of their SBIR ("Small Business Innovation Research") grants, among which were quite a few robotics projects. Lots of them have to do with power sources or sensors, but one I found particularly interesting is the DC brushless motor that can withstand the harsh atmosphere of Venus. From the proposal:

Honeybee Robotics proposes development of high temperature scoop and joint; and continued development of an extreme temperature brushless DC motor and a resolver. All hardware will be demonstrated in simulated Venus surface conditions. During Phase I, a first-generation prototype BLDC motor and resolver were designed, built and tested in Venus-like conditions (460oC temperature, mostly CO2 gas environment). The Phase I tests demonstrated the feasibility of the design through verification that the motor and the resolver can operate at 460oC for an extended period of time. A further developed and optimized version of this motor and resolver could be used to actuate sample acquisition systems, robotic arms, and other devices outside of an environment-controlled landed platform on the surface of Venus.

460 deg C? For the non-metric among us, that's 860 deg F. Wow.

The rest of the robotics-related SBIR grants can be found here and here.

The previous DARPA Grand Challenge competition -- a trip through the Nevada desert taken by autonomous vehicles-- took two tries to get right; the first year, not a single vehicle made it across the finish line. The second year was a much better showing -- four vehicles finished -- and winner Stanford University took away the $2 million prize.

This year's DARPA Urban Challenge took the robots out of the desert and into a (simulated) city. Teams had to build vehicles capable of "executing simulated military supply missions while merging into moving traffic, navigating traffic circles, negotiating busy intersections, and avoiding obstacles." Since this was the first year of this style of competition, many people wondered if it would have the same problems as the first year in the desert -- lots of failures and no one completing the course.

We needn't have worried. Of the 11 vehicles that were allowed to enter the final round of the competition, six finished the course -- though only three teams, Carnegie Mellon, Stanford, and Virginia Tech, finished under the 6 hour time limit.

The MIT vehicle waits at an intersection as a (human-driven) car makes a turn.
Photo Credit: JOHN VOELCKER

So what drives these vehicles (since it's not humans)? The short answer: lots of sensors and lots of computing power. Nearly all the vehicles had some sort of array of laser range scanners arranged on the front -- though while MIT used more than 10, the UPenn entry got away with just 2. A key player in that technology was Velodyne, developers of a high-def LIDAR unit based on their work in the first two DARPA Challenges -- they stayed out of this year's event in order to continue developing their LIDAR technology. Additionally, LIDAR units designed by IBEO and SICK (an old favorite of DARPA teams) were other popular additions to the sensor suite. Stereo vision complimented the laser sensors, and of course, differential GPS receivers and inertial measurement units (IMUs) were must-haves.

While hardware integration is no easy task, software was just as daunting. A layer of hardware interface ("What does the LIDAR say?") under a layer of navigation and control ("Where am I, where do I have to go, how far do I turn the steering wheel, and how fast do I have to go?) under a layer of behavior ("Hm, a stopped car. Wait behind it, or drive around it?") makes for some intense coding. Take the Carnegie Mellon vehicle, which required over 300,000 lines of code to run the 2007 vehicle. Some COTS tools made this easier for teams such as Virginia Tech, who used LabView to "provide the major functions of the vehicle including image acquisition and processing, systems communication, vehicle health monitoring, and vehicle control. A NI Compact RIO system [provided] steering, throttle, and braking control, as well as reading CAN-bus sensors," said NI representative Trisha McDonell.

With the impressive success of the vehicles on Saturday, is my human-driven car suddenly old fashioned? Not so, say the experts. Forbes had a nice article on the competition, and specifically quoted Stanford team leader Sebastian Thrun:

In the eyes of Stanford's team leader, Sebastian Thrun ... the world is still years away from driverless autos. "I'm positively enthused that this race has a winner," he said. "But we’re witnessing the painful birth of a new technology, and this is the first of many hours of labor."

Fair enough, Dr. Thrun. I'll settle for a car that can park itself for the time being.

Special thanks to John Voelcker for insight and photos from the field

Spectrum ran a feature on exoskeletons two years ago with some interesting details on the Sarcos system's force sensors, power unit, and hydraulic actuators, below:

For its part, the Salt Lake City–based Sarcos team, led by roboticist and inventor Stephen C. Jacobsen, has been working on what may be one of the strongest exoskeletons ever built. Earlier this year, at the demonstration the group did in Fort Belvoir, an engineer wearing the Sarcos robotic system was able to carry 84 kg [185 lb]—about the weight of an average size washing machine—without feeling the payload at all. Jacobsen, Sarcos's CEO and a mechanical engineering professor at the University of Utah, says that the new exoskeleton supports the payload's entire weight even if the wearer stands on one leg.

Like Bleex 2 [the UC Berkeley exo], the latest Sarcos system is a second-generation model that improves substantially over its predecessor. Jacobsen says that while wearing the exoskeleton, you can walk and run, and if you stumble, the system is fast enough to readjust its powered limbs to keep the payload's weight off your body.

The exoskeleton relies on a network of force sensors that are in touch with the wearer's body at certain points, such as underneath the feet. These special sensors, developed by Sarcos, feed data to a control computer that in turn commands the robotic limbs to move in harmony with the wearer's arms and legs without ever obstructing them. Jacobsen calls this method "get out of the way" control, and he says using the robotic suit requires no training. "You can step into the exoskeleton, and you can immediately run it," he says.

According to Jacobsen, what makes an exoskeleton an extremely hard problem is that conventional, off-the-shelf components won't work. Sarcos had to design and fabricate each piece and, in parallel, integrate all of them into its system. The exoskeleton's power unit was one of these many pieces the company had to engineer painstakingly. It's a special internal-combustion engine that can use a variety of fuels and deliver enough hydraulic power to the actuators to meet the great strength and speed the robotic limbs require.

But even more challenging, Jacobsen says, was developing yet another component: the servo valves that control the flow of the hydraulic fluid into the actuators. The valves had to be small, extremely reliable, resistant to high pressures, and highly efficient to preserve precious power, not to mention that some of their parts had to be machined to micrometer tolerances. To make things even harder, so many complex physical processes occur in the valves, Jacobsen insists that simulation software couldn't help in the design. His group, therefore, had to go through several iterations of prototypes to get the valve it needed.

Sarcos is now preparing for demonstrations scheduled over the next few months. Team members are especially busy with the exoskeleton's upper-extremity system, which will add strength to the wearer's arms. A person wearing the full-body system will be able not only to carry a payload on a backpack but also lift heavy items, a capability that is particularly useful for logistics operations such as loading and unloading cargo vehicles and moving things in a warehouse.

PS: When my colleague Harry Goldstein and I spoke with Sarcos for that article, the company had just began developing their exoskeleton's upper-extremity part. Now, as the video shows, it seems they've made significant progress. One thing, however, hasn't changed. Note in the video: the exo has a tether attached to it, probably feeding power or control signals to the suit. Sure, it's a prototype. It will be interesting to see how exoskeleton researchers will cut the umbilical cords of their creations.