11–20 of 83 posts
Interesting, but robotic cranes on the ground would seem to be more efficient and reliable in ordinary circumstances. It's not a question of how to grip it, It's a simple question of weight ratios.
Once GPS gets sub-meter accuracy, then we should start worrying.
Pretty neat! I'm sure they'll get to it eventually, but there's no advantage to having three drones in this demo, since the work isn't pipelined. It seems that a drone has to wait until one finishes picking stuff up before it can pick up something itself.
Interesting, but robotic cranes on the ground would seem to be more efficient and reliable in ordinary circumstances. It's not a question of how to grip it, It's a simple question of weight ratios.
What you say makes sense - robotic cranes should be able to operate with heavier pieces, and will require less energy per piece placement. However, MAVs (micro air vehicles) could reach into places where cranes wouldn't be able - i.e. inside the building. Also you can have many more MAVs working at the same time than cranes, so MAVs might be able to considerably speed up the building process.
Let's imagine they get the machines scaled to the point when they could build an actual habitable structure, and that they sort the power concerns that I suspect would make it insurmountably uneconomic.
Now, imagine a squad of sufficiently large and powerful helicopters buzzing away all day next to your office. How many people are going to be OK with that?
Interesting, but robotic cranes on the ground would seem to be more efficient and reliable in ordinary circumstances. It's not a question of how to grip it, It's a simple question of weight ratios.
What you say makes sense - robotic cranes should be able to operate with heavier pieces, and will require less energy per piece placement. However, MAVs (micro air vehicles) could reach into places where cranes wouldn't be able - i.e. inside the building. Also you can have many more MAVs working at the same time than cranes, so MAVs might be able to considerably speed up the building process.
Generally, the duration of construction is determined by economics and weather. Flying robots probably don't provide an advantage on either front.
There may be some applications for MAV's for the inspection of construction. But there's an off the shelf solution already availible [http://www.amazon.com/Air-Hogs-Hawk-Eye-Channel/dp/B00395EJR...]
Interesting, but robotic cranes on the ground would seem to be more efficient and reliable in ordinary circumstances. It's not a question of how to grip it, It's a simple question of weight ratios.
A couple of years ago I've watched a documentary about crane operators working in a harbors. They were payed incredible salaries and it was stated that they won't be replaced by robots because of their capabilities in decision making.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you say makes sense - robotic cranes should be able to operate with heavier pieces, and will require less energy per piece placement. However, MAVs (micro air vehicles) could reach into places where cranes wouldn't be able - i.e. inside the building. Also you can have many more MAVs working at the same time than cranes, so MAVs might be able to considerably speed up the building process.
There's no reason you can't combine these approaches. Using larger ground-based equipment to move girders and small, flying machines to do things like interior finishing makes a lot of sense.
Make a structure of actual use, like a tiny bridge across a moat that could hold people. The magnets have got to go.