Why Dyson's robot vacuum took 16 years, and why it's headed to Japan first
1–10 of 87 posts
Re: Why Dyson's robot vacuum took 16 years, and why it's headed to Japan first
#2I appreciate the extra detail here. Having built small robotics platforms for more than a couple of decades I completely agree with much of what Dyson is saying, things really have changed tremendously in the last 5 years. Between $0.75 32 bit MCUs with 64K of flash and 8K of ram, to $3.00 6DOF IMU chips, to $5 HD video cameras, the ability to put high resolution sensors, better compute, and getting more watts per gram than ever before, it is a great time to take another look at what mobile robotics can and cannot do.
I should have known, robots have always been held back by the weight of power and compute.
Re: Why Dyson's robot vacuum took 16 years, and why it's headed to Japan first
#3This was a disappointingly light read. I was hoping for lots of fascinating technical details and a heartening, Apple-esque story of biding one's time with a product (along with an analysis of what technical advancements make now the right time for the Dyson robot vacuum). And there was exactly one paragraph about why it's launching in Japan first.
Re: Why Dyson's robot vacuum took 16 years, and why it's headed to Japan first
#4I appreciate the extra detail here. Having built small robotics platforms for more than a couple of decades I completely agree with much of what Dyson is saying, things really have changed tremendously in the last 5 years. Between $0.75 32 bit MCUs with 64K of flash and 8K of ram, to $3.00 6DOF IMU chips, to $5 HD video cameras, the ability to put high resolution sensors, better compute, and getting more watts per gr…
Interestingly enough, for robotic vacuums _low_ weight is also a problem: the better your suction, the worse your ability to drive!
The tank-tread wheels on Dyson's model are meant to help mitigate against this, but I gather from (now ex-) insiders that this is still a buggy sticking point (ha!) that needs to be solved before release.
Re: Why Dyson's robot vacuum took 16 years, and why it's headed to Japan first
#5if you're interested in the product you'll get about 1000 times more information via their website than this article
Re: Why Dyson's robot vacuum took 16 years, and why it's headed to Japan first
#6I appreciate the extra detail here. Having built small robotics platforms for more than a couple of decades I completely agree with much of what Dyson is saying, things really have changed tremendously in the last 5 years. Between $0.75 32 bit MCUs with 64K of flash and 8K of ram, to $3.00 6DOF IMU chips, to $5 HD video cameras, the ability to put high resolution sensors, better compute, and getting more watts per gr…
Interestingly enough, for robotic vacuums _low_ weight is also a problem: the better your suction, the worse your ability to drive! The tank-tread wheels on Dyson's model are meant to help mitigate against this, but I gather from (now ex-) insiders that this is still a buggy sticking point (ha!) that needs to be solved before release.
Wouldn't high suction give you better traction (ie. by adding an additional downward force to the force of gravity) and hence mitigate any disadvantage of low weight ?
Also with sufficiently well-controlled motors you should be able to optimize suction and drive, say to minimize power consumption or maximize speed/vacuum power.
Re: Why Dyson's robot vacuum took 16 years, and why it's headed to Japan first
#7if you're interested in the product you'll get about 1000 times more information via their website than this article https://www.dyson360eye.com/
Everything except pricing information and independent verification of their superiority claims. Dyson's have traditionally come with a premium for their "technology". I'll be patiently waiting for the reviews to trickle in.
Re: Why Dyson's robot vacuum took 16 years, and why it's headed to Japan first
#8I appreciate the extra detail here. Having built small robotics platforms for more than a couple of decades I completely agree with much of what Dyson is saying, things really have changed tremendously in the last 5 years. Between $0.75 32 bit MCUs with 64K of flash and 8K of ram, to $3.00 6DOF IMU chips, to $5 HD video cameras, the ability to put high resolution sensors, better compute, and getting more watts per gr…
Interestingly enough, for robotic vacuums _low_ weight is also a problem: the better your suction, the worse your ability to drive! The tank-tread wheels on Dyson's model are meant to help mitigate against this, but I gather from (now ex-) insiders that this is still a buggy sticking point (ha!) that needs to be solved before release.
I'm not sure the ability to drive is that much worse -- for constant curvature surfaces it should just increase traction. I guess the suction could be regulated if a certain varying inclide causes trouble.
Re: Why Dyson's robot vacuum took 16 years, and why it's headed to Japan first
#9if you're interested in the product you'll get about 1000 times more information via their website than this article https://www.dyson360eye.com/
Yikes, what did they do to the page's "scroll" function?
Do people actually find that usable? It definitely made me think the page was broken at first... The slideshow seems like a 'play' (right-arrow) much more than a 'scroll' (down-arrow).
Is this a metaphor for Dyson vacuums in general? (Technically-clever, shiny, but not necessarily the most effective)
Re: Why Dyson's robot vacuum took 16 years, and why it's headed to Japan first
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interestingly enough, for robotic vacuums _low_ weight is also a problem: the better your suction, the worse your ability to drive! The tank-tread wheels on Dyson's model are meant to help mitigate against this, but I gather from (now ex-) insiders that this is still a buggy sticking point (ha!) that needs to be solved before release.
Wouldn't high suction give you better traction (ie. by adding an additional downward force to the force of gravity) and hence mitigate any disadvantage of low weight ? Also with sufficiently well-controlled motors you should be able to optimize suction and drive, say to minimize power consumption or maximize speed/vacuum power.
Or better, modulate the suction based on your desire to adjust course. Suck more on the left, less on the right, and heave on the rudder for a hairpin. :)