cauhape@twg.com (Jeff P. Cauhape) (07/04/90)
A layman asks: Does anyone know if snake-like locomotion has been seriously considered for robotic locomotion? If so, can you point me to references? It seems to me that there could be some advantages to using it: 1) There are no feet to be misplaced or trapped. 2) There are no legs to be broken. 3) Weight can be born over a larger surface area, which is an aid in travelling over a soft surface, or over a surface with irregular compaction. 4) Travelling over or through a liquid requires no change to the morphology of the robot. 5) Self-righting in the case of a spill would be easier. 6) A spill would be easier to avoid in the first place. My _hunch_ is that the while the control circuits would be larger due to the increased number of contractors, the over all design would be simpler, and perhaps more importantly, the control software may be simpler. Thanks for any input on this. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jeff Cauhape | gen: Colonel, have you ever worked for the CIA? cauhape@twg.com | col: I am not now, nor have I ever been employed | by the CIA. Furthermore, if I had, I | couldn't tell you. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
sandman@sun.udel.edu (Bring Me A Dream) (07/04/90)
In article <7482@gollum.twg.com> cauhape@twg.com (Jeff P. Cauhape) writes: >A layman asks: > >Does anyone know if snake-like locomotion has been seriously >considered for robotic locomotion? If so, can you point me >to references? > I like it. The whole idea of using feet only seems to gain us the advantage of speed. Does anyone know if this movement system is complex or if it only requires the "mussle" contrations to be in a sinusoid with a "grip" for a certain section of the movement? -- Mike (Where could I buy a fright-wig) Sandler Un, Znqr Lbh Ybbx
fitz@dirt.frc.ri.cmu.edu (Kerien Fitzpatrick) (07/04/90)
One of the big advantages of walking vs. rolling or crawling (snake) concerns contact with the environment. A rolling or snake-like locomotor is in constant contact with its environment and therefore subject to constraints this imposes. A walking machine makes intermittent contact with the environment and thus the impact of environment constraints can be minimized. The application of snake-like locomotors could be quite extensive and I believe the Japanese have something going in this area. They do have some existing mechanisms in the snake-like manipulator area. My background is in locomotor design and fabrication with all of them falling into the wheeled arena. Yet, I still see the future being legged locomotion of one type or another. Significan insight can be gained by examining nature - she/he/it has been working in this area a lot longer than man and has done the job a heck of a lot better. For locomotion on land, nature predominantly uses legs. Only after man figured out how to modify his environment (roads, paths, etc) did wheels become viable. I personally feel there is quite a bit of pettiness amongst this netgroup which detracts from the possible goals. I do not believe in the truly general machine .... nature says evolve with your environment and optimize. Therefore I believe that almost all configurations have their place whether they are large, small, wheeled, legged, jumping, flying, etc. Too much fingerpointing goes on here - CMU this, JPL that and on and on. I find the ultra-small locomotors interesting, but I am undecided if they are really reality at this snapshot in time. Hopefully, the pettiness will end and this netgroup will truly become a place where ideas can be discussed. Some people are using this netgroup for this purpose and others are taking potshots. Also, people are right when they say that JPL and CMU spent significant time examining the alternatives before settling on something. It is always easy to criticize once a stand has been taken, but a stand must be taken for anything to reach fruition. Sorry for the lecture, its been a bad day.... -- Kerien Fitzpatrick Field Robotics Center The Robotics Institute Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (412)268-6564 Internet: fitz@frc2.frc.ri.cmu.edu
gerry@cive.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) (07/06/90)
I am unaware of snake-like locomtion, but a Sweedish company used to manufacture the Spline robot, which had snake-like motions. gerry -- gerry roston, field robotics center robotics institute, carnegie mellon university pittsburgh, pennsylvania, 15213 (412) 268-6557 gerry@cive.ri.cmu.edu
rdt143e@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (dr s hill) (07/06/90)
cauhape@twg.com (Jeff P. Cauhape) writes: >A layman asks: >Does anyone know if snake-like locomotion has been seriously >considered for robotic locomotion? If so, can you point me >to references? Prof. Yoji Umetani's group at Physical Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology has been working on snake-like locomotion since, at least, 1981. I can't locate any references here in my office, but Umetani showed a video of his work when he visited us in 1981. Then the machines were multi-segmented snakes, each segment had four wheels. The wheels were not powered, the snake-like oscillations provided the motive power to move the machine forward. The machine was tethered to it's power supply and computing system.
schalit@crcge1.cge.fr (Emmanuel Schalit) (07/18/90)
In article <7482@gollum.twg.com> cauhape@twg.com (Jeff P. Cauhape) writes: >A layman asks: > >Does anyone know if snake-like locomotion has been seriously >considered for robotic locomotion? If so, can you point me >to references? > As it might be interesting for anyone reading this newsgroup : There is a good paper by Hirose and Morishima (Tokyo Institute of Technology): "The International Journal of Robotics Research" Volume 9, Number 2 April 1990 Special Issue on Legged Locomotion. "Design and Control of a Mobile Robot with an Articulated Body" pp 99-114. Emmanuel Schalit. Robotics Research Engineer CGE Corporate Labs Marcoussis France. [schalit@crcge1.cge.fr] -- Emmanuel Schalit. [schalit@crcge1.cge.fr]