Automaton

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.

A report from our correspondent Sally Adee, who earlier this month was at DARPATech, the Pentagon's R&D extravaganza, where she met, among other creatures, a little robotic dog called, well, Little Dog:

This little guy was all the rage at the DARPATech 2007 exhibit hall.

“Can I pet him?” a girl asked the researchers standing next to it. “No,” they told her. “Can I have him?” she insisted. “No, sorry." She thought about it for a minute. “Can I talk to him?” she finally asked. “Well, you could,” the researchers said testily, “but it can't hear you.”

If you’re wondering why the researchers appeared so cranky, it was probably because visitor after visitor, fascinated by the little critter’s attempts to negotiate its obstacle course, only wanted to know how the robot was built, how many actuators it had, what sensors and battery it carried. The perpetually exasperated response: "It’s not about the robot! The important thing here is the software."

Little Dog, developed by Boston Dynamics, is part of DARPA's Learning Locomotion program. DARPA selected six teams, each of which received one Little Dog unit. The teams will have to write locomotion software to make the robot traverse an irregular surface with various obstacles.

Alas, it’s a lot harder to get excited about abstract software. The researchers repeatedly tried to redirect our attention to the big screens above Little Dog showing essentially what was going on in his head. The cameras above the display mapped out the terrain in detail and sent a path to the machine’s processor.

This particular version of Little Dog meticulously plans its every move before it takes its first step. It was a peculiar sight: Little Dog standing transfixed at the start of its obstacle course, staring intently at the road ahead, as the screens flashed and changed and check marks were applied to tasks. It's not everyday you can peek into a dog's brain.

And then Little Dog begins to move. One leg tentatively snakes forward and gingerly tests the ground in front of it before the machine puts its full weight on the foot. This software has a lot to keep track of: it has to distribute the machine’s weight properly to keep Little Dog from losing its balance, all the while locating itself within its physical surroundings. Not all Little Dogs will navigate the obstacle course the same way. UPenn’s Little Dog, for instance, has a different locomotion software than MIT’s Little Dog.

Despite its name, Little Dog's shape was a matter of debate -- a Rorschach test of sorts. When observers compared his movements to those of a cat, cat people immediately came out of the woodwork to point out that his movements much more accurately resembled those of a roach. “His legs aren’t articulated at all like a cat’s,” said Spectrum senior editor Jean Kumagai, herself a cat person.

But everyone agreed that the least of all resembled a dog. At which point the beleaguered researchers would again try to steer the conversation back to the abstract code powering the machine.

* Transformer Optimus Prime prevented a burglary in the U.K. This transformer is made of wood and stands 7 feet tall in the living room of one Michael Clarke, in Gravesend, Kent. The robot has motion sensors that activate a stereo, piercing purple eyes, and it matches the owner's couch.

* More robots from iRobot. The Roomba maker says it is mutating. The company wants to keep expanding its product line. Three years ago, it had only one domestic robot, the Roomba; by the end of this year it wants to have six domestic robots in the market. I wonder if Masseur Bot is on that list.

* Peter Crouch, the elongated (2 meters/6 feet 7 inches) British soccer player who celebrated some of his goals with an ridiculous robot dance, said the moves were because he's been "messing about" with robotics since he was a child. He also said no more robotic celebrations this season. That's a good thing.

Having attended a wonderful wine tasting last night at a former professor's house, I've been feeling particularly oenophilic. During the tasting the professor told us about a lot of the technology vineyard owners have started using to track their crops. Since vines produce different fruit depending on shade, temperature, amount of water, type of soil, and so on, a good vineyard owner needs to know all about the different conditions all over his or her vineyard -- and small, cheap sensor technology only makes that easier. This of course led me to the natural conclusion: my wine could only be better if a robot is involved!

So what can robots do for a wine geek like me? I could purchase my very own "Robo-sommelier" to see if I'm actually getting what I'm buying -- using infrared light, it can tell what the type of the wine is without even opening it -- or it could learn my tastes and be able to recommend a wine to pair with my dinner.

Before the wine gets to my table, a vineyard owner might use an automated tractor to care for the vines. It can navigate using the wires that the vines grow on and can tow a sprayer or other equipment, preventing a human from having to do the long, dull task of driving the tractor through a huge vineyard. A 5-DOF robotic hand combined with a vision system might be doing some of the harvesting or care for the bunches of grapes on the vine. A friend at the wine tasting with me mentioned having seen one vineyard in which a robotic system rotated and tipped bottles slightly each day as they aged.

The agriculture industry is really embracing robotics and automation (Rocona is one example; John Deere and others are following suit), but it will be interesting to see if the wine industry actually adopts the technologies being created for them. Vineyard owners pride themselves on understanding their crops and how climate conditions will affect their output; sommeliers and wine aficionados are proud of their tasting abilities and standards. Will these people really want to hand over their art to machines?

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.)

MIT grad student Conor Walsh and the leg exoskeleton he and other researchers have developed. [Photo: Samuel Au / MIT News]

MIT researchers have created a wearable robotic exoskeleton to help soldiers carry heavier loads on their backpacks. Powered legs like those could one day help elderly and disabled people gain more mobility and carry things around more easily, but since this is DARPA funded work soldiers have priority. Sorry, grandma.

The MIT exoskeleton consists of a pair of mechanical legs with a mounted backpack frame. The mechanical legs strap to the user's own legs and support much of the pack's weight by transferring it to the ground. The MIT researchers, led by Hugh Herr at Media Lab's Biomechatronics Group, report in the September issue of the International Journal of Humanoid Robotics that their prototype can take on 80 percent of an 36-kg load carried on a person's back.

And how does it work?

iRobot announced two new products today, adding to their already pioneering line of home robots.

First up is the Looj, a gutter-cleaning bot. It's remote-controlled; that is, a user puts it up in a gutter, steps down the ladder, and from there directs its movement along a gutter, moving both forward and backward. From the website:

iRobot Looj uses a powerful 3-stage auger, spinning at 500 RPM, to break up sludge and clogs, lift out debris and brush your gutters clean. The hard plastic disruptors break apart clogs, while natural rubber ejectors lift and throw the debris from your gutters, finally, sturdy polypropylene bristles brush your gutters clean.

Gutter cleaners are all well and good, but I am REALLY excited about this next one: ConnectR, the Virtual Visiting robot. Thus spake iRobot:

ConnectR enables real-time virtual visits over the Internet. Equipped with high-quality audio and a video camera, the robot is located on-site in the home of the “host” party. Using a computer keyboard, mouse or joystick, the remote (“visiting”) party can drive the robot around and interact with those on-site, virtually participating in activities at home or wherever the device is located (for example, in the home of your grandchildren). The on-site host party can also direct the robot’s movements with a remote control.

The Looj is available now, but ConnectR isn't out yet -- and robot aficionados have the opportunity to be part of a pilot program this year. They'll choose pilot users from a pool of applicants here -- sign up!

Looj currently sells from $99 to $169, depending on the accessories. ConnectR will be $200 for those involved with the pilot program, and "just under $500" once it's on the market.

Images from irobot.com

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.

Continuing the theme of year-end robot roundups, Scientific American has a nice long article highlighting the big stories in robotics for 2007. Their thoughts on some of the technology for the upcoming year:

This sampling merely scratches the surface of the past year's advances in robotics that whet the appetite for what's to come: Early next year, for instance, researchers at the University of Colorado at Boulder will benchmark robotic devices to precisely mix and measure medications used in treatments such as chemotherapy. The robotic Mars rovers Opportunity and Spirit are currently hunkering down in anticipation of the harsh Martian winter season but will soon resume their exploration of the Red Planet. And Scandanavian research firm Sintef is developing artificially intelligent equipment to help offshore oil and gas drilling platforms run more safely and efficiently.

I'll be traveling to CES in Las Vegas to check out the robots this week. I have a few appointments with some of the companies boothing at the event to see what they're up to, and I'll be updating as often as I have time and Internet access. Can't make the show, but still want to hear about a particular demo, keynote, or display? Leave a comment to let me know what to check out and report back on!

I've long been a little skeptical of Wowwee, makers of the Robosapien. Their black and white toys seemed rather basic and the little dog I have didn't appear to be much advanced beyond the walking and mooing cow I had when I was a toddler (my first robot. It annoyed my parents so much they removed the batteries and told me it died. I've never gotten over it). Frankly, they just seemed boring.

I am very pleased to report that I have been proven wrong. Wowwee's next generation of robot toys on display here at CES are, in a word, awesome.

My favorite is Robosapien's newly developed girlfriend, the Femisapien.

Georgia Tech announced today that it has established an interdisciplinary doctoral degree in robotics. The program, scheduled to start in the fall, is part of Georgia Tech's new Center for Robotics and Intelligent Machines. Georgia Tech, in Atlanta, says this is the first program of its kind in the United States. From the press release:

Reaching across disciplines and drawing from curricula in computer science, electrical and computer engineering, aerospace, biomedical engineering and mechanical engineering, the doctoral degree is designed to educate a new breed of multidisciplinary researchers who will enter the market best prepared to chart a new course for robotics in the United States.

Georgia Tech says the program expects to admit approximately 15 candidates per year, eventually building it to 60 enrolled students. The program consists of 36 semester hours of core research and elective courses, a comprehensive qualifying exam with written and oral components, and a piece of original research and doctoral thesis.

PS: In October, as we reported, the Worcester Polytechnic Institute, established the first undergraduate robotics engineering degree.

Sarah Adee's article on Dean Kamen's Luke Skywalker-like bionic arm created quite a buzz, but her video report is even better:

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/video?id=221