ROBOTS: Robo-Fly and Robo-Bee – Putting the Face with the Name

2 October 2014

            Some may have heard that Harvard researchers are working on a robotic bee.  But few have heard that there is also a robotic fly.  Who wouldn’t like a cheerful, honey-gathering, pollinating robot bee?  But why would anyone name a robot after a fly – one of the most hated insects of all time?  To answer that question, let’s take a short walk down the robotic version of “memory lane” and have another look at Robo-Bee

THE LONG ROAD TO ROBO-BEE

            Technologists with Harvard’s “Micro Air Vehicles Project” are working to develop the first robotic bee.  They envision a robo-bee with all the abilities of the organic original.  Someday, they believe their robotic honeybees will be engineered to fly in swarms, live in artificial hives, and coordinate both their target locations and pollination methodologies.  [1]

            But it will be a long road to a robotic bee.  Insects don’t fly like birds.  The wing motions of insects are much, much more complicated.  And the robo-bee’s flight is so brief and uncontrolled that few would recognize it as flight – other than in the most technical sense. 

            There is no usable, on board, power supply, computer, or guidance technology that would allow this robotic insect to fly.  All batteries and computers are too heavy for a robotic insect to lift.  And even if both the power supply and computers were the ideal weight, the battery wouldn’t provide anywhere near the power needed for flight.  And the computer, no matter how light-weight, would have no software that could guide the ‘bot through the complex movements of insect flight.  In fact, a computer small enough fit, couldn’t run any effective software program. 

            And, finally, getting airborne isn’t the biggest challenge of flight.  Flying isn’t the hard part.  The hard part is the landing.  And Robo-Bee still ends every flight with a crash.

            Discouraged yet?  Well, to their credit, the would-be developers of Robo-Bee aren’t the least discouraged.  And, as modest as the current Robo-Bee’s performance may seem, it’s an incredible achievement.  Only with the persistence of the project’s engineers have a host of seemingly impossible challenges and problems been met and resolved. 

            Progress has, and will, be made through a series of small advances over a long period of time.  So, the rumored release of a swarm of robotic bees to replace our honeybees is far, far away.  [2]  It will be a long time before the first Robo-Bee rolls off the assembly line, flies into the fields, and begins pollinating.

ROBO-FLY?

            So, what about the robotic fly?  What lab is working on the “fly” project?  (“Fly project” even sounds like sci-fi/horror, doesn’t it?)  Well, the robo-fly project also belongs to Harvard’s “Micro Air Vehicle Project” researchers.  The same researchers who are working on Robo-Bee are, also, working on Robo-Fly. 

            So, what does the robo-fly have to do with the MAV Project?  Well, the robo-fly came first and the robo-bee came second.  In fact, Robo-Bee doesn’t have the wing movements of a bee at all.  Instead, Robo-Bee has the both the wings and wing-movement of a fly!  So, is Robo-Bee like some sci-fi hybrid -- part robotic bee and part robotic fly?

            No.  In fact, Robo-Bee and Robo-Fly are exactly the same robotic insect. [3]

            So, what’s with the two names?

            Well, no one has said.  At first, the MAV Project’s robotic creation was called a Robo-Fly.  Then, it was called a Robo-Bee. 

            But, why the name change?

            On the one hand, it may be a simple question of public relations.  The public and press enjoy hearing about a cheerful robotic honeybee.  The bee may be the most popular insect on earth.  After all, how can you dislike an insect that makes something as good tasting as honey?  And, when it’s not making honey, the bees are pollinating -- making seed from which plants will grow.  And those plants will produce next year’s fruits, flowers, and agricultural harvests.

            Then, there’s the fly.  Who wants a metal robot that disrupts picnics and outdoor summer activities?  The fly contaminates food with germs and irritates you by flying in your face.  Do we really need a robot version to . . . do it better?

            So, maybe, favorable public attention and support are easier to come by if you’re building a robotic “bee” instead of a robotic “fly.”  Did someone just decide, one day, to change the name from “fly” to “bee?”

            If the MAV Project set out to build a robotic insect to pollinate crops, why would anyone have called it a fly in the first place?  If it was designed to do what a bee does, wouldn’t it have been called a bee from the beginning?

            On the other hand, what if one robotic insect has two names?  What if this robot needs two names because the same robot has two “faces.”  What if it’s . . . more than just a robotic bee?  Maybe, because this ‘bot has another “face,” it needs a different name to go with a different face?

ONE ROBOT WITH TWO DIFFERENT FACES

            In fact, we already know that Robo-Bee has another face.  A face that isn’t particularly bee-like.  The published reports of Harvard’s Micro Air Vehicles Project have always suggested potential military uses for this flying insect sized drone.  So, Robo-Bee, with some market re-positioning, becomes the world’s smallest military flying drone.  And what could be more central to market re-positioning than re-naming? 

            There’s no way to be sure, but consider this.  Could the name (fly or bee) depend on what the ‘bot does?  Look at it this way.  Robo-bee is being developed to pollinate crops - a wholesome and useful activity.  Maybe the same robot, under the name Robo-Fly, will be deployed as a spy drone -- to secretly watch and, perhaps, eavesdrop on some unsuspecting victims. 

            Surveillance is useful but, today, has developed an ugly reputation.  So, when a flying drone spies on “the enemy,” it’s  good.  When it spies on your neighbor, it’s a subject for public debate.  When it spies on you, . . . it’s outright evil.

            So, when this robot is being used as A friendly pollinator, it will be named after a cheerful “bee.”  But, when the same robot starts looking over your shoulder, it’ll be named after an unpleasant “fly.” 

ANOTHER QUESTION

            Harvard’s MAV Project is well funded.  The Project objectives include the development of sensors to function as eyes and ears.  These “senses” will allow the robotic bees to form colonies and fly in true swarms. 

            But is that enough to make a bee?  Right now, the UK’s Green Brain Project is tackling what, in the end, may be the biggest problem of all – the robotic bee’s brain.  It’s not enough to form a colony or fly in swarms.  A working bee ‘bot would have to be able to “see” and “recognize” a wide variety of flowers.  Every landing and honey extraction would pose a series of unique issues that would have to be resolved.  So, if Robo-Bee is to, actually, do what a bee does, it must be able to deal with an endless series of individually different situations.  Like it or not, if this robot is to act like a bee, it must be able to think like a bee. 

            The well-funded MAV Project’s objectives extend to a wide variety of bee behaviors including colony formation and flying in swarms, but the objectives fall short of what our Robo-Bee would need to replace the honeybee.  The UK’s Green Brain Project picks up were the MAV Project leaves off. 

            The Green Project researchers are not trying to tackle the replication of the honeybee’s entire brain.  Instead, they are focusing on only two functions: vision and the sense of smell.

            But developing cognitive models of even just sight and smell is more than challenging.  To duplicate even part of an actual bee’s brain, you need to study an actual bee or, at least, work with someone who has.  That someone is Martin Giurfa of Toulouse, “an expert in all aspects of bee brain anatomy, physiology, and bee cognition and behavior.” 

            The ultimate goal is a robotic bee that can detect particular odors or particular flowers.  But, more immediately, the researcher are hoping to develop computer models of these processes that, someday, will be downloaded directly into the computerized “brain” of a robotic bee.

            However, the description above understates and ambition of one aspect of this project.  The researchers are attempting to develop models with true artificial intelligence.  That is, they are attempting to develop a computerized intelligence that will allow a robotic honeybee to perform certain basic tasks without pre-programmed instructions.  In other words, these robotic bees would be able to think.

            There’s no getting around the need for at least a basic form of artificial intelligence if the robotic honeybee is to do what a bee does.  But the Green Brain Project is not as well funded as Harvard’s MAV Project.

            One has to ask.  Is there something special about insect sized robots that can coordinate their individual movements even as they fly together in large groups?  Is there something special about small insect sized robots that live together as a colony and can leave their central base of operations in flying swarms?  And, is there something less interesting about a robotic bee that can pollinate crops in a field?

            If you consider the levels of project funding, you have wonder if the some abilities of the robo-bee are more interesting than others – at least to those funding the project.  Could there be an “un-bee-like” objective behind the development of Robo-Bee?  Harvard researchers may be aiming straight at a robo-bee.  But what are the goals of those providing the funds for the development of Robo-Bee?

            One must ask:  Could the U.S. Department of Defense be interested in developing a mini-drones that could live in colonies and fly in swarms . . . like bees.  And could the DOD be less interested in whether or not these bee ‘bots can pollinate?  At least, the U.S.Air Force has revealed that “a swarm of miniature flying robots” is on its “wish list.” [4]

            But, then, why all the talk about bees?  Not that anyone specifically planned or intended a . . .  subterfuge.  However, a robotic “bee” would tend to attract favorable attention.  But a swarm of Robo-Flies that might, one day, be used to chase you or me?  That’s a “less comfortable” vision of the future.

            There’s something almost humorous in the thought that the name “Robo-Bee” might turn out to be a robotic “red herring” – intended or not.  Even the cheerful vision

of a robotic bee has stirred intense interest and, even controversy. 

            Those fearing a bee apocalypse and resulting global starvation are anxiously awaiting the development of Robo-Bee.  In the growing world of super-agriculture, the shakers and movers behind California’s vast (and vastly profitable) almond industry are attentively examining their balance sheets trying to factor in the costs and benefits of Robo-Bee.  

            Of course, environmentalists continue fume and rant over the technological development of a mechanical bee intended to eliminate the natural and organic original -- ushering in a dystopian techno-future.

            Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Defense may be waiting quietly and patiently by the assembly line.  Waiting until the bee robot can establish bases (colonies) and form armies (fly in swarms).  Then, the agency will quickly and quietly snatch the “unfinished” Robo-Bee off that assembly line.  Our Robo-Bee will find itself drafted for military service even before it can be developed into a pollinator. 

CONCLUSION

            So, maybe, this robotic insect is a cheerful “bee” when it’s pollinating.  But, when the same robot starts looking over your shoulder, it’s an unpleasant “fly.”  Just imagine what they would have called this same ‘bot if it were adapted, not just to listen, but to attack?  And, then, read the next post: “The Great Robo-Mosquito Hoax” 

4 October 2014

GCLM5444HOxenia

Next Post on 18 October 2014:  “The Great Robo-Mosquito Hoax” 

ROBOTS: A Robotic Honey Bee?

18 September 2014

NOTE: This article was posted one day later than scheduled due to several security issues that made an earlier posting impossible.  I am sorry for the delay and appreciate the patience of those who regularly read and/or follow this weblog.  This particular blog has had more than its share of security issues.  I am a bit puzzled by the attention.

HOPE AND FEAR

            Technologists at Harvard are well on their way to developing the first robotic bee.  They envision a robotic bee with all the abilities of the organic original: the honeybee. 

            Begun in 2009, Harvard’s “Micro Air Vehicles Project” is now using titanium and plastic to replicate the functions, if not the appearance, of the familiar honeybee.  The robo-bee pops up, complete with wings, from a quarter-sized metal disk.  The developers predict that these “bees” will be engineered to fly in swarms, live in artificial hives, and coordinate both their target locations and pollination methodologies.  [2]

            In fact, this program’s goals, if achieved, would produce swarms of robotic bees of such organization and efficiency that one writer expressed the wish that the project spokesperson add the phrase “for the good of all mankind” to each progress report.  Without it, readers might be reminded of all the movies “about technology that eventually destroys mankind.”

            While science fiction films have suggested the replacement of human beings with robots, films have never “warned” us about the sinister side of the robo-bee.  Imagine a robotic “Stepford Bee” hiding quietly in the wings plotting an unfortunate end for the last of the world’s honey bees.  And, then, a “brave new” technological world without any “real” honey bees at all!

            There is something definitely creepy about humanly engineered mechanical bees pollinating crops grown from humanly engineered seeds.  One writer described the disturbing vision as “swarms of tiny robot bees . . . pollinating those vast dystopian fields of GMO cash crops.” 

NOT SO FAST

             To read some articles, this robotic bee has not only been perfected, but is poised the replace its natural counterpart in a brave new world full of disconcerting, mechanical replicas of the familiar and comfortable wildlife around us.  However, that future is definitely . . . in the future. [1]

            In the 1950’s, futurists predicted that we would all be operating flying automobiles by 1970.  Similarly, the prediction of working robotic honeybees may be an optimistic fantasy.  But if the goal is never reached, it will be for no lack of effort on the part of the Harvard researchers.  But there are many hurdles, challenges, and obstacles.

             With robotic insects, flight itself is the biggest challenge.  While bird-sized flying drones are being perfected with relative success, flying insect ‘bots present a special aerodynamic problem. 

            It’s the size. 

            If you shrink a bird-sized drone down to the size of an insect -- it won’t fly.  A roboticist at the University of California at Berkeley, Ronald Fearing, told the Washington Post that “the rules of aerodynamics change” with an object as small as an insect. [5]  Unlike bird wings, insect-sized wings must move with amazing precision.  Replicating these precise wing movements is a formidable engineering challenge.  In fact, scientists only recently came to understand how insects fly at all.  Compounding these problems, such precision wing movements require yet larger supplies of portable power. [6]

            In order to create a robot that does what a honeybee does, the ‘bot must be the same size as a honeybee.  Currently, no lightweight, portable power source exists with both the small size and large energy output needed by the robo-bee.  But even with a suitable power source, the ‘bot must also be equipped with a portable guidance system.  And there is no guidance system small enough, and lightweight enough, to do the job. [3]  

            For now, Robo-Bee is a sensation because it can fly.  But the word “fly” is used in the most restricted and technical sense.  For most of the last few years, Robo-Bee has been able to flap its wings, and rise into the air – “fly.”  However, when it does, it shoots from its starting position across the room and crashes into the nearest wall.  Flight over.  Total flight time – about a second.

            This constant crashing is even more discouraging when you realize that the current prototype is stabilized by a fixed wire.  And, without that practical, portable power supply, Robo-Bee still needs “a power cord.”  Figuratively speaking, you still have to plug it into the wall. 

            Recently, however, researchers have figured out how to guide the robo-bee in flight.  Now, with the latest guidance breakthrough, the robo-bee can be made “to pitch and roll in a predetermined direction” and, then, it crashes into the nearest wall.  
            Discouraged yet?  Well, to their credit, the would-be developers of Robo-Bee aren’t the least bit discouraged.  And, as modest as the current Robo-Bee’s performance may be, it’s an incredible achievement.  Only with the persistence of the project’s engineers have a host of seemingly impossible challenges been met and problems resolved. 

            Progress has, and will, be made through a series of small advances over a long period of time.  So, the rumored release of a swarm of robotic bees to replace our honeybees is far, far away.  [4]  It will be a long time before the first Robo-Bee rolls off the assembly line, flies into the fields, and begins pollinating.

ANOTHER HORIZON

            Whether a particular article expresses hopeful optimism or fearful apprehension about a “future” robotic bee, I seem to hear the same description – again and again.  The list of goals extends to the ability to fly in swarms and coordinate swarm maneuvers and strategy.  But a robotic honeybee needs more.  Much more.

A HONEYBEE’S BRAIN

            After all of the above issues are resolved and all the goals reached, there will still be something missing.

            Even with an on-board computer to direct its flight, how will the Robo-Bee pollinate flowers?  Just think about it.  To do so, these robots would have to see and smell.  They’d have to master the varied challenges of the pollination of each individual bloom.  To do that, these ‘bots would almost have to be able to . . . think.  How are they going to do that?  Well, the members of the Green Brain Project are glad you asked them that question.

            Researchers in Great Britain, specifically, at the Universities of Sheffield and Sussex not only know the question but, about a year ago, decided to do something about answering it.  In an article describing the project, George Dvorsky, reports that, late last year, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) put up £1 million (USD $1,614,700) for the development and creation of the “first accurate computer simulation of a honey bee brain.” 

            But, when you consider the challenging goal of the project, even this “front money” is not so very much.  After all, the project couldn’t afford the kind of computer muscle that would seem to be needed to tackle a job like this.  However, a creative solution to the computer problem has been provided by California’s NVIDIA.  That corporation will provide the project with a number of high-performance graphical processing units called GPU accelerators.  This will allow the researchers to simulate aspects of a honeybee’s brain by using a large group of paralleled desktop PCs.  In other words, put together enough desktops and you can approximate some of the functions of a cluster of supercomputers, but at a fraction of the cost.

            No matter how much or little money and equipment are involved, this part of the Robo-Bee project, building the bee’s mind, is an even more formidable challenge than building a robotic insect that just flies.  The mind of even an insect is breathtakingly complex, but the Green Project researchers are not trying to tackle the replication of the honeybee’s entire brain.  Instead, they are focusing on only two functions: vision and the sense of smell.

            Researchers are attempting to develop cognitive models of sight and smell.  To duplicate even part of an actual bee’s brain, you need to study an actual bee or, at least, work with someone who has.  That someone is Martin Giurfa of Toulouse, “an expert in all aspects of bee brain anatomy, physiology, and bee cognition and behavior.”  The ultimate goal is a robotic bee that can detect particular odors or particular flowers.  But, more immediately, the researcher are hoping to develop computer models of these processes that, someday, will be downloaded directly into the “brain” of a robotic bee.

            However, the description above understates and ambition of one aspect of this project.  The researchers are attempting to develop models with true artificial intelligence.  That is, they are attempting to develop a computerized intelligence that will allow a robotic honeybee to act autonomously.  Put yet another way, these robotic bees would have the cognitive ability to perform certain basic tasks without pre-programmed instructions.  In other words, these robotic bees would be able to think.

            These types of cognitive models are more than a few steps beyond simple programming.  But why bother?  Why do researchers need models of cognitive processes associated with vision and smell?  Couldn’t they develop an artificial intelligence without these senses?

            The surprising answer is . . . probably not.

“EMBODIMENT” – SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT

            What do we think about?  We think about what we see, smell, hear, feel and taste.  Could a human intelligence ever be “designed” without senses and sensory input?  No. 

            So, in order to develop a real artificial intelligence — an intelligence that thinks -- that intelligence must be “embodied” with those senses that provide the necessary sensory input (something to think about).

            Simply put, the concept termed “embodiment,” applied to robotics, “holds that any true artificial intelligence is impossible unless the robot has sensory and motor skills that connect it to the world.”  In other words, without a sensory interface with an environment, cognitive intelligence, as we know it, wouldn’t exist.

CONCLUSION

So, if Robo-Bee is going to pollinate, Robo-Bee will have to be able to think.

POSTSCRIPT

            As I made my way through each layer of technological development necessary to launch that first Robo-Bee into the meadows and fields, I couldn’t help but notice a strange contrast.

            The goals of Harvard’s MAV project include perfecting an insect-sized robot and that flies like an insect.  This finished Robo-Bee would even be able to fly in swarms with other Robo-Bees -- adapting its responses to changing conditions.  But reaching these goals, alone, wouldn’t produce a practical robotic honeybee – one that could go into agricultural fields and pollinate. 

            The Green Brain Project, on the other hand, picks up where Harvard’s MAV project leaves off tackling the daunting task of perfecting the artificial intelligence needed to make the robotic bee do what a bee does.

            The contrast is in the funding. 

            Harvard’s MAV project is quite well funded and has allowed researchers to work their way, slowly, around and through an amazing number of obstacles.  And, a lot of slow progress is still ahead.

            The Green Brain Project is certainly funded, but not anything like Harvard’s MAV project.  The Green Brain Project has to run desktop PC’s in tandem instead of being able to afford the computer “muscle” ideally required.  The accommodations are adequate, but considering the importance of the cognitive functions to a working robotic bee, why the “dip” in financial interest when it comes to the Green Brain Project?

            Maybe the answer can be found in the story of the mysterious Robo-Fly.

Thursday 18 September 2014

GCLM5444HOxenia

The Next Post Is Coming On: 4 October 2014

ROBOTS: The Insectothopter – The First Miniature Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

4 September 2014

The Insectothopter

THE RUMOR

            There is rumor about a flying robot.  At recent political events in Washington D.C. and New York, several persons have reported sighting something that they described as a cross between a slightly oversized dragonfly and a miniature helicopter.  Perhaps, these reporters have mistaken real insects for robots . . . or perhaps not.  [1]

            There are no insect sized UAV’s.  The smallest is a bird-sized 'bot -- the Nano Hummingbird. Formally named, the “Nano Air Vehicle” (“NAV”), this bird 'bot was the developed, in 2011, by AeroVironment, Inc. under the direction of DARPA.

"Nano Air Vehicle" or Robo-Hummingerbird

THE PROBLEM IS FLIGHT

            So, why not just shrink Robo-Hummer down to the size of an insect?  The problem is flight.

            With robotic insects, flight itself is the biggest challenge.  While bird-sized flying drones are being perfected with relative success, flying insect ‘bots present a special aerodynamic problem.  It’s the size.  If you shrink a bird-sized drone down to the size of an insect -- it won’t fly. 

            A roboticist at the University of California at Berkeley, Ronald Fearing, told the Washington Post that “the rules of aerodynamics change” with an object as small as an insect.  [2] Unlike bird wings, insect-sized wings must move with amazing precision.  Replicating these precise wing movements is a formidable engineering challenge.  In fact, scientists only recently came to understand how insects fly at all.  Compounding these problems, such precision wing movements require yet larger supplies of portable power.  [3]

SOME HISTORY

            While robotic insect flight, in reality, eludes modern technologists, in science fiction, the technology was mastered in 1936 in Raymond Z. Gallun’s The Scarab.  Gallun’s robotic beetle flew like any other insect, but transmitted to its “manipulator” what it heard and saw through its “ear microphones” and “minute vision tubes.”

            Philip K. Dick refers to a commercial robotic fly in his novel, The Simulacra.

            Fast forward to the 1970’s.  America’s CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) had developed a eavesdropping (listening) device, but needed a way to use it.  In other words, the agency needed a way to “deliver” it to the target locations.  Needless to say, the delivery had be unnoticed if the device was to serve its purpose. 

Insectothopter

THE FIRST MINI UAV

            An insect-sized mini UAV seemed ideal.  Of course, making the UAV look like an actual insect solved another problem - camouflage.  It wasn't enough to get the listening device to the target.  The target must, also, not know that the device was there.   At first, the bumblebee was to be the model for the mini UAV, but this bee was rejected due to its erratic flight.  One project member, reasonably familiar with insects, suggested the dragonfly.  This proved to be the almost perfect solution.

            One has to admire the simple ingenuity that went into the construction what would become and insectothopter.  Even with all the grants and theoretical computer models of today, the quest for the insect sized drone still eludes.   Yet, in the 1970’s, a group of project technologists just did it – in rather short order. 

            Today, we are just learning exactly how insects manage to fly.  But, again, the CIA technologists designed a set of wings with up and down movements that gave the insectothopter both lift and thrust.

            Today, the development of a light, yet powerful, propulsion system for small drones remains a daunting task.  But in those far off days of the 1970’s, the CIA technologists simply used a gasoline engine to power the insectothopter.  Certainly, the engine was loud, but the project members had selected their "model" insect well.  Have you ever heard a dragonfly?  The gasoline engine might make considerably less noise than the real thing.. 

            But how could you design a gasoline (or any other kind of) engine that small?  Today, it would require a staggering amount of dollar grants and a consortium of research facilities to design a computer simulated prototype.  But, in the 1970’s, you just found a good watchmaker.  And project did just that. 

            The result was a miniature oscillating engine that would make the wings beat.  A fuel bladder carried the engine's liquid propellant.  Not only did the liquid propellant power the engine, but the excess gas was vented out the rear of the mini UAV providing added thrust.  The insectothopter was directed using a laser beam and, finally, was hand-painted to look like a dragonfly.

Insectothopter

            But the insectothopter never made it into the field.  It’s downfall was its inability to withstand cross-drafts.  Real insects can drift a bit with the wind, but the operator of a surveillance drone must be able to direct it to a target if any meaningful surveillance is to take place.  Only a five mile per hour crosswind would throw the insectothopter off course.

            Today, the smallest operational UAV is AeroVironment’s “Nano Air Vehicle” (“NAV”).  With the story of the insectothopter in mind, it’s easier to understand why DARPA’s project specifications for that project required that the “Nano Air Vehicle” demonstrate the ability to hover in a 5 mph side-wind without drift of more than one meter.  

"Nano Air Vehicle" or Robo-Hummingerbird

THE END?

            So, with the retirement of the insectothopter, the development of robotic insects ended -- only reappearing with the modern resurgence of robotic research. 

            But remember those recent political events in Washington D.C. and New York, at which several persons reported seeing something that they described as a cross between a slightly over-sized dragonfly and a miniature helicopter.  Perhaps, these reporters have mistaken real insects for robots . . . or maybe not.

            Is it possible that the CIA secretly continued to develop insect drones?

            Has some U.S. Government agency developed a secret, advanced version of the insectothopter?  Sources at the CIA have declined to comment.  When questioned about the possibility of the secret development of flying drone insects, an “expert in unmanned aerial vehicles,” retired Colonel Tom Ehrhard, simply said, "America can be pretty sneaky.”  [4]

See, also, this blog: Flying Robots – Part 1 – The Original: Nano Hummingbird

Thursday 4 September 2014

GCLM5444HOxenia

Next Post: September 20, 2014

ROBOTS: A "Hex-a-What”?! Hexacopters! When 4 Rotor Blades Just Aren’t Enough!

21 August 2014



Quadrotor
 

            I was amused when quadrotors (or quadcopters) made a comeback a few years ago.  Suddenly, the media seemed to be filled with images of these rather strange looking mini-UAV’s (unmanned aerial vehicles) with four “helicopter-type” blades instead of one. 

            I said, “made a comeback,” because quadrotors have been around for a long, long time.  The reason why they never made it to the “first string” in aircraft design wasn’t their mechanical complexity.  Instead, it was the difficulty of piloting these vehicles.  Older designs required a pilot to manipulate the blades, either angle or speed, individually.  This translated into a lot of distractions which, for the pilot, were a nightmare.

            But with the introduction of complex guidance mechanisms and, then, computers to coordinate the rotor angles and speed, the piloting issues vanished.  And the quadrotor was back!  But why would anyone want four rotors anyway.  The simple helicopter only had one, and it does ok.  Doesn’t it? 

            Actually, the familiar helicopter has always had a lot of problems.  The “one” bladed helicopter was a derivative developed from early quadrotor designs.  And, the helicopter has more than one rotor – there’s that little one on its tail.  Small as it is, that little rotor is extremely important because it allows the helicopter to maneuver horizontally.  The problem is that, with the reduced number of blades, helicopters are difficult to maneuver and tend to drift too easily.    

            So, what’s so great about a quadrotor?  Two things: (1) stability in the air, and (2) maneuverability – you can safely operate a mini quadrotor indoors!  So, with the addition of computers to coordinate the pitch and/or speed of the rotors, you have an ideal UAV. 

            Still, foolishly, I thought four blades would be enough.  But when computers started coordinating the four rotors, someone realized that computers could coordinate almost any number of rotors.  So, why not add a few more rotors?  After all, too much is never enough.
 

Hexacopter

 

            And the hexacopters are here!

Hexacopter: Reconnaissance, Surveillance or . . . Amateur Photography?

            Concerns have been raised about the use of UAV’s, particularly mini UAV’s, for certain purposes.  To use a mini-UAV for reconnaissance in a combat situation is one thing, but use by law enforcement or even private security firms for surveillance purposes could, in some contexts, be a real danger to individual privacy rights. 

            But as the debates rage, many other uses for mini-UAV’s seem to popping up.  Among others, photographers were delighted with the possibilities offered by the quadrotors.  The applications are almost limitless.       Consider nature photography, as one example.  With a relatively silent approach from above, you may observe and photograph wildlife at distances that would never be possible on foot.  And, from the air, you can capture angles that also would be impossible -- without an aerial vehicle.      Photography of many difficult to access locations with picturesque geographical features have become, not only possible to photograph, but easy with a quadrotor. 

            Of course, if you’re familiar with photography, you know that stability is extremely important to good photos.  In other words, the camera has to stay still when snapping the picture.  Some of the steady camera issues can be compensated for with high shutter speeds that catch images so quickly that the camera has less time to move. 

            But is a quadrotor stable enough to allow clear photography?  Well, sometimes, yes, and, sometimes, no.  No aerial vehicle can be perfectly stable under all conditions, but the quadrotor does an amazing job.  Again, a mini-UAV version of a quadrotor can be so precisely controlled that it can be flown in-doors without breaking anything. 

            Stability and precision are the quadrotor’s strengths.  So, when the quadrotor is used, it yields good photographic results more often than not.  But what if it could be made even better?

            Yes, better.  A more stable vehicle, in the air, would yield an even greater percentage of good photographs.  But what could make a mini-UAV more stable? 

            More rotors.

            Enter the hexacopter.  More stable in the air than its ancestor the quadrotor, the hexacopter can produce more high quality photos.
 

Hexacopter for Professional Aerial Filming

 

            And even greater stability is a real boost for another new group of mini-UAV users – filmmakers.  Mini-UAV’s offer an inexpensive and, even, easy way for filmmakers to get aerial camera angles without building expensive scaffolding or loading cameramen and equipment onto even more expensive cranes to be lifted into elevated positions to capture aerial angle shots. 

            When you need to capture motion, stability becomes even more important and, again, the hexacopter becomes not just a welcome, but valued, addition to the family of mini-UAV’s.

Hexacopter: A Political Leveler?

            But there is still a lot of controversy and debate about the possible misuse of mini-UAV’s in government and industry with resulting violations of individual privacy rights.  But, at least, one seller sees the hexacopter mini-UAV as a great “leveler.”  In other words, besieged with potential privacy violations by government and commercial enterprises, now, a private person can afford their own small fleet of mini-UAV’s.  With these, the citizen may be able to better “watch the watchers” -- so to speak. 

The Hexacopter and Flower Power                 

            But I know every reader is asking a key question: Sure, you can use a hexacopter for reconnaissance and surveillance . . . and . . . for photography . . .  and . . . in the dramatic arts like film production, but . . . where’s the romance?

            At least one manufacturer, India’s OM UAV Systems, markets their “Pushpak hexacopter” for more than aerial photography.  Their list of “Civilian applications” include “Flower dropping.”  What is “flower dropping?”
 

OM Pushpak Hexacopter

 

            A group of remote controlled hexcopters carrying a payload of flower petals are carefully maneuvered into position at the special event of your choice.  At a selected moment, the hexacopters release flower petals onto the area below.  The release is a gradual one with petals falling like snowflakes and continuing over a short but substantial period of time.

The Hexacopter: Absolutely the Last Word in Mult-Rotor UAV’s

            And so, six engines have solved all the possible issues that could ever come up with this type of mini UAV.  Now, we can rest assured that there would be no reason to add any more rotors to our mini-UAV’s. 

            But wait.  There’s the octocopter.  Yes, you guessed it -- eight rotors. 

Octacopter from OFM
 

            The German made “E-Volo” is the first electrically powered vehicle to achieve manned flight.  And it has . . . (gulp) . . . 16 rotors.
 

"E-volo erstflug" by Johnescalade

 

            A “hexadecarotor”?!

            And . . . , and . . .

            Where will it all end?!

No Post Next Week.  Next Post: September 6, 2014

Thursday 21 August 2014

GCLM5444HOxenia

ROBOTS: Mini UAV Quadrotors for Everyone?

14 August 2014



OM’s Curiosity Quadcopter UAV

            Robotic technology is advancing in all directions.  All you need to do is look at DARPA’s website and, then, the website of one of DARPA’s primary contractors, Boston Dynamics, to get your head spinning with so many, and such a variety of, exotically new and different projects.   But, before we go, let’s get some terminology out of the way.

            UAV’s come in all sizes.  When they’re small, they are often, logically, called “mini” UAV’s.  Although I’ve never seen a UAV as small as a nano particle, for some reason, the prefix “nano” is being used more and more to describe small UAV’s.  So, a small surveillance drone designed to fly like and hummingbird and camouflaged to, also, look like a hummingbird, is called the “Nano Air Vehicle.”  Now, any small UAV may be called a “nano” UAV. 

            Then, we have quadrotors.  These are those UAV’s, mini or quite large, that sport 4 helicopter type rotor blades.  Again, quadrotors have another name, “quadrocopter” or “quadcopter” and, then, a catch-all name, “quadrotor helicopter.”   

            When I first saw a quadrotor, I found it “different” in a quaint sort of way.  I love aircraft from the early days of aviation because of the diversity and, yet, simplicity of the designs.  Somehow, I get that same feeling when I watch quadrotors in flight.  And my instinctive association of the quadrotor design with the designs of early aviation was, surprisingly, accurate.

            Aircraft designing pioneer, Etienne Oehmichen, designed and built 6 helicopters in the 1920’s.  The second of the 6 was a quadrotor.  Named “Oehmichen No. 2,” this first quadrotor demonstrated remarkable stability and logged more than a thousand flights.  These fights were only tests because, in spite of its relative “success,” the Oehmichen No. 2 could only remain airborne for a few minutes at a time and achieved a range of just a bit over a half-mile.

"De Bothezat Quadrotor" by National Park Service

            Another quadrotor, the de Bothezat helicopter, was built by the U.S. Air Service in 1922.  It sported the, now, characteristic X-structure with the each rotor at the far end of the one of the X’s four legs.  It flew no higher than 5 meters.  Although the de Bothezat quadrotor’s performance was thought to be good enough to demonstrate feasibility, this quadrotor suffered from several problems that would haunt all quadrotors for decades.

            All helicopters, including the quadrotor, are relatively complex machines.  Their complicated designs and mechanisms made them much more susceptible to problems than their “winged” counterpart, the typical airplane. 

            The pilot was required to manipulate four rotors in order to maneuver the quadrotor.  Since navigation required continual adjustment of the direction of each of the four rotors at the same time, it was impossible for the human pilot to do much of anything else.  In other words, the piloting of a quadrotor was a nightmare. 

            With all these problems, you might wonder why the quadrotor design would be revisited again and again.  The reason was that, in spite of the complexity of both the mechanics and operation, the quadrotor was an amazingly stable helicopter.  The four rotor design gave the quadrotor a remarkable ability to maneuver with great precision – a precision that put the conventional helicopter to shame. 

            In fact, the conventional helicopter is a kind of watered-down version of the quadrotor.  For mechanical and operational simplicity, the four rotors were reduced to only one.  This made piloting much easier.  Horizontal maneuvers were accomplished though a second, much smaller rotor mounted on the tail. 

            These modifications increased reliability and made piloting the conventional helicopter a manageable task.   But these same “improvements” came at a cost by creating stability and drift issues that remain with the conventional helicopter to this day.

            Because of its potential advantages, quadrotors continued to appear as prototypes into the 1950’s.  But the 4 rotor design would only “take off,” figuratively and literally, when computers assumed the burden of navigation.  Computer manipulation of the individual rotors took the seemingly impossible task of piloting the quadrotor substantially off the shoulders of the pilot.  Then, computers moved into the pilot’s seat. 

            Sophisticated military quadrotors (and most all UAV’s) only require two instructions.  The first instruction directs the quadrotor to the coordinates of the target.  The second instruction directs it to the coordinates of the location to which it will return.   

            The mini (or sometimes “nano”) version of modern UAV quadrotor has an amazing number of military applications.  Ideal for surveillance and reconnaissance, the mini versions of these vehicles can be controlled so precisely that they can be safely operated indoors.  The quadrotor’s potential uses in search and rescue operations brought it the attention of law enforcement. 

            A perfect fit for a variety of industrial and commercial applications the quadrotor quickly jumped into the private sector.  In agriculture, for example, a quadrotor can examine conditions in many specific locations scattered over vast tracks of cultivated land -- without the cost, in terms of time and money, of physically sending a human being to each location. 

            And, finally, could you or I own one? 

            Yes, we could.  For some readers, one question comes to mind.  How much would one of those defense contractors charge for a quadrotor?  But many readers already know that you don’t have to go to a defense contractor to find a good quadrotor.   

            Now, dozens of manufactures are producing and marketing quadrotors.  Some offer entire packages.  Others even offer packages that can be packaged or packed into luggage and carried by any traveler – one who likes to keep their quadrotor handy. 

            So, you can even take your quadrotor to India with you.  Or if you find yourself in India without a quadrotor, you can buy one from a local manufacturer – one like OM UAV Systems of Delhi, India. 

            OM’s Curiosity Quadcopter UAV is designed to be portable as well as inexpensive to buy and use.  With on-board still and video cameras, it can be instructed to “visit” and photograph up to 80 locations (“way points”) on a single trip. 

            The “Curiosity” allows the operator to “manually override” the programmed instructions at any time in a particular “mission.”  But if the operator chooses not to interfere, the Curiosity will operate automatically: taking off, flying to its waypoints, and landing – all by itself.  

            But don’t let the technical specifications fool you into believing quadrotors aren’t . . . romantic.  OM Curiosity’s manufacturer offers a unique service in which several quadrotors are remotely controlled by specially trained pilots to produce a . . . “Flower Shower.”

            Loaded with flower petals – yes, I said flower petals – these quadrotors are precisely positioned to release their botanical “payload” at a just the right moment.  But no one has to worry about being bombarded with a load of petals because the release is a gradual one with petals gently wafting down around the guests at . . . whatever the special occasion . . . over a period a period of time – like a gentle snowfall.

            To assure the proper ambiance, the petal-dropping quad’s are equipped with quiet electric motors.  Then, the speed of the motors is slowed to make their operation even quieter. 

            Many of us may not need any flower petal dropping services in the near future but, certainly, there are those times when many of us could use a quadrotor.  And, in the future, many of us may own one.

Thursday 14 August 2014

GCLM5444HOxenia

ROBOTS: KMel’s Quadrotors: Flocks of Small Flying Drones

7 August 2014

            Everyone has a wish list and so, apparently, do branches of the military.  What’s on the United States Air Force’s wish list?  Well, it’s not exactly your typical Christmas list.  Instead of “visions of” dancing “sugarplums,” the Air Force dreams of “flocks.”  Flocks of small flying drones.  At least, this is what’s on the Air Force’s “wish list” according to TechNewsDaily.com.

            And if this remarkable (and “must-see”) video is any indication, the U.S. Air Force is a few steps closer to getting its wish with one of the latest developments of the University of Pennsylvania’s GRASP Lab.

            The small drones in the video are called “nano” drones because they are small.  But, specifically, these are called nano “quadrotors.” 

            What’s a quadrotor?

            Well, first of all, a quadrotor is also called a “quadrocopter” – a name that gives you more of “feel” for what the drone looks like and how it operates.  Maybe the best solution is to call these things “nano quadrotor helicopters.”

            Anyway, quadrotors of all sizes are helicopters “lifted and propelled” by four rotors (or four sets of spinning blades).  The four sets of blades offer some real advantages.  Quadrotors have two sets of identical propellers.  Two rotate clockwise and the other two rotate counter-clockwise.  Lift and motion are controlled through changes in the speed of each individual set of blades. 

            Surprisingly, quadrotors aren’t a new idea.  In fact, in the history of heaver-than-air flight, quadrotors are a very old idea.   And the “quad’s” got off the drawing board and off the ground.  In the 1920’s and 30’s quadrotors became some of the first successful vertical take-off and landing vehicles. 

            And that was the problem. 

            They were great at vertical take-offs and landings, but impossible to maneuver in any other way.  Well, maybe, not impossible.  Just impossible for any human pilot.   The physical, moment to moment, individual manipulation of each of the four rotors was impossibly complicated.

            The recent re-emergence of quadrotors resulted from (1) sophisticated on-board sensors and (2) computers.  With the ability to precisely track the quadrotors position in relation to the ground and computers to just as precisely manipulate the rotor speed, the UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) version of the quadrotors has become not just practical, but popular.  The amazing stability provided by the four rotor design is so good, that you can even fly mini (nano) versions of the quadrotor indoors.

            But back to the swarm of quadrotors.  Let’s start with the University of Pennsylvania and peal back a few layers of the “development onion.”

            The University operates the GRASP Lab.  GRASP stands for General Robotics, Automation, Sensing and Perception (Laboratory).  The lab integrates computer science, electrical engineering and mechanical engineering.   GRASP is staffed by the University’s students, researchers and faculty.  

            The Lab’s “Scalable Swarms of Autonomous Robots and Mobile Sensors” Project was explained by U of P Professor Vijay Kumar as an effort to describe the swarming habits found in nature and reproduce these “habits” in “networked groups of autonomously functioning vehicles.”

            But let’s peal back yet another layer.

            In 2007, two U of P graduate students, Alex Kushleyev and Daniel Mellinger met and both worked in the GRASP Lab.  After graduating, they continued their collaboration and focus on quadrotors.  In late 2011, they founded KMel Robotics and rented office space from the University.  For now, KMel continues to develop swarming robot technology.  Both Kushleyey and Mellinger, still, work with the GRASP Lab and the University on particular projects. 

            But KMel is self-supporting -- without producing a regular line of products.  And they’re not planning to jump into the mass-produced drone market.  KMel is well ahead of the curve in Nano UAV technology, and they both market and sell “their lead.”  KMel designs and builds custom quadrotor hardware (and software) for other researchers who don’t have the time or the expertise to do so on their own.   

            But to the point.  How does the “swarm” work?  The secret of the swarm is in the use CGI technology borrowed from Hollywood.  Each of KMel’s quadrotor carries a small mirror-like sphere which is tracked by motion-capture cameras.  In Hollywood film-making, a computer uses the tracked positions of these spheres on film to create and insert computer generated motion graphics.  But with KMel’s system, each quadrotor’s position is fed into a laptop which, in turn, commands each quadrotor to move in coordination with the group.  And, viewing the video, the resulting precision movements of that group are impressive.

 Quadrotors Hollywood Style

            KMel is more than a few steps ahead of the curve in “quad-swarm” technology. But another step will have to be taken before the U.S. Air Force gets its wish.  KMel’s precision flying quadrotors, still, are not a “true swarm.”  Each quadrotor is controlled from a remote laptop.  The laptop’s transmitted commands to each quadrotor cause the group to imitate the behavior of swarm.  And that’s the problem.  The individual quadrotors aren’t doing what swarming creatures do – in nature.

            To be a swarm, each quadrotor would have to individually sense the position and movement of the quadrotors around it, directly, and respond to their movements.  Instead, the current technology uses a camera to remotely observe the group.  The camera’s images are read by a computer.  Then, the computer transmits commands that choreograph the quads into predefined patterns of group position and movement.       Can quadrotors be developed to operate together as a “true swarm?”  Although such technology doesn’t exist, KMel is working on it -- as I write.

            Someday, soon, the U. S. Air Force will get its wish.  And, I can’t wait to see that video.  A swarm of flying drones would really be cool to see – as long as it’s not chasing me.

Vijay Kumar: Robots that fly ... and cooperate