Developing an underwater robot to save people from drowning
1–10 of 28 posts
Re: Developing an underwater robot to save people from drowning
#2If it is using computer vision to detect a drowning person, why not just signal an alarm so people can help?
Re: Developing an underwater robot to save people from drowning
#3If it is using computer vision to detect a drowning person, why not just signal an alarm so people can help?
This is also a good idea. People might not always know what to do or be able to reach the person, but it couldn’t hurt.
Re: Developing an underwater robot to save people from drowning
#4If it is using computer vision to detect a drowning person, why not just signal an alarm so people can help?
This is also a good idea. People might not always know what to do or be able to reach the person, but it couldn’t hurt.
People who don't know what to do are in danger of being dragged under by the drownee.
Re: Developing an underwater robot to save people from drowning
#5I think this kind of a system is extremely unlikely to be applied in practice, at least in the United States--it's just too costly. You can reasonably train a 16-year-old to be a lifeguard in less than 30 hours[0].
Meanwhile, even the most basic of prosumer ROVs (remotely-operated underwater vehicles) like the BlueROV2 costs almost $3000[1], that that's without including the fancy computer vision tech and/or acoustics features that they're describing in here, which probably won't even be able to take advantage of the economies of scale for spare parts like thrusters, etc. That doesn't take into account the eventual maintenance costs, replacement, etc.
There's some places where marine robotics offer benefits for replacing humans--deep sea diving, oil rigs, etc. But that only works because the cost of training and employing humans is so much higher, there's support equipment costs anyway, and the risk involved warrants it. I don't see any of those factors here making this likely.
[0] https://www.redcross.org/take-a-class/lifeguarding/lifeguard...
Re: Developing an underwater robot to save people from drowning
#6I think this kind of a system is extremely unlikely to be applied in practice, at least in the United States--it's just too costly. You can reasonably train a 16-year-old to be a lifeguard in less than 30 hours[0]. Meanwhile, even the most basic of prosumer ROVs (remotely-operated underwater vehicles) like the BlueROV2 costs almost $3000[1], that that's without including the fancy computer vision tech and/or acoustic…
> BlueROV2 costs almost $3000[1]
If they could do this for as cheap as $100,000 and 10% maintenance then it would sell out.
I think even with millions of dollars it wont work well enough to deploy.
Cost of just the cameras to detect drowning -
"The cost to install Poseidon will vary depending on the size, specifications and number of pools. The average cost to manufacture and install the system in a standard pool is between $150,000 – $350,000." - https://drowningprevention.com.au/#:~:text=Cost,pool%20facil....
Here's $6,000,000 for shark spotting using an easier tech -
https://www.zdnet.com/article/au8m-fleet-of-shark-spotting-d...
(A SMART drumline is a buoy that sends a sms when the hook gets pulled on - https://www.sharksmart.nsw.gov.au/technology-trials-and-rese...)
Re: Developing an underwater robot to save people from drowning
#7If it is using computer vision to detect a drowning person, why not just signal an alarm so people can help?
That already exists.
Re: Developing an underwater robot to save people from drowning
#8> "During testing at the Hufeisensee lake, the dummy did not slip out of the securing mechanism as it was taken to the surface."
> A mechanism for fixing the rescuee in place prevents lifeless bodies from sliding down as they surface.
That looks and sounds like a deathtrap. Does it really try to strap the person to a hospital bed, underwater...?
Won't that drown the person if the robot is too slow or malfunctions?
> Many swimming pools in Germany do not have enough trained lifeguards and in many places, this skilled labor shortage is even leading to closures.
> One reason for this is the countrywide lack of trained life-guards to watch over pools.
So the reasoning is: job training for lifeguards is not feasible (why?), so we should develop super expensive robots that local pools can't afford.
Honestly this sounds like a made up problem, used as an excuse to get public funding for a pet project. I wish science was open and not commoditized, as then projects and efforts like this (computer vision) could more easily find actually useful real world applications.
Re: Developing an underwater robot to save people from drowning
#9I think this kind of a system is extremely unlikely to be applied in practice, at least in the United States--it's just too costly. You can reasonably train a 16-year-old to be a lifeguard in less than 30 hours[0]. Meanwhile, even the most basic of prosumer ROVs (remotely-operated underwater vehicles) like the BlueROV2 costs almost $3000[1], that that's without including the fancy computer vision tech and/or acoustic…
You are mixing up a one off cost (buying the robot Vs training a lifeguard) with the most likely much more significant ongoing cost of the lifeguard wages.
Re: Developing an underwater robot to save people from drowning
#10I think this kind of a system is extremely unlikely to be applied in practice, at least in the United States--it's just too costly. You can reasonably train a 16-year-old to be a lifeguard in less than 30 hours[0]. Meanwhile, even the most basic of prosumer ROVs (remotely-operated underwater vehicles) like the BlueROV2 costs almost $3000[1], that that's without including the fancy computer vision tech and/or acoustic…
You are mixing up a one off cost (buying the robot Vs training a lifeguard) with the most likely much more significant ongoing cost of the lifeguard wages.
[deleted]