From: S.J. Van Sickle (sjvan@csd.uwm.edu)
Date: Sun Jun 01 2003 - 21:38:57 MDT
On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> Besides, are you suggesting that a 100+ extropes with extreme
> technical abilities could not define a set of robots to deal with these
> issues in this day and age of robotic dogs, robotic faces, robotic
> insects, etc.
I'm suggesting that it may not be that easy, just yet. See:
http://www.rec.ri.cmu.edu/projects/stripper/
> A dumb robot with good Vis & IR sensors should be able to do
> a much better job than a human with respect to removing unbonded
> paint and applying new paint to a proper depth.
Yep, they seem to have already done it for drydock work on the hull.
> Go ahead, slap me across the cheek with your other pinkee finger...
O.K. A recreational boat is a far cry from a large ship. When I worked
on the R.V. Shell America, a sizable fraction of the crew spent all day,
every day, working from one end of the superstructure to the other. The
flate surfaces were rarely a problem. It was the welds, around doors and
portholes, deck equipment, masts, etc. That alone was more than enough
work. The hull was done during annual drydock by contractors.
A robot that could only do a regular area (like a vacuum cleaner robot)
would not significantly reduce the amount of work at sea (as opposed to
drydock). It would have to deal with serious irregularities, deep
crevices, corners, both vertical and horizontal surfaces (underneath and
overhead). Developing such a robot would, in my opinion, be as large or
larger a project as purchasing and outfitting the boat to begin with.
On the plus side, if you did create such a robot, it might pay for the
ship. Merchantmen wouldn't be interested...overseas labor is too cheap.
But the Navy might like it.
sjv
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 01 2003 - 21:51:54 MDT