h a l f b a k e r yThis product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
[edited:] The robots should be simple, only controlled by
RC with barely any internal "intelligence", so that the
cost is low. All that is needed is to keep the staff safe,
and thus preserve a continuous control on the reactors,
even during quakes.
Hey, it's Japan. The mother of man made robots,
gadgets and "accessories"!!
They have all the technology to bake this halfbaked idea.
Of course it would be the secure communication that
would be most important.
Moshe
[link]
|
| |
I really don't think that the problems in these reactors are due to the fact that operators had to leave eventually, for their own safety. The problem is that systems, like simple robots, failed under extreme conditions. The humans continued to function as normal and (if there was anything worth doing) would have been able to suit up and return to the reactor to do anything that could be done by some robot. Shit would have been wicked bad if it had been robots running the plant and then they had failed at the same time that other plant systems did. It's not like there is a big ON/OFF switch in the reactor chamber and everything would have been fine if ASMOV could just save the day by walking in there and turning it off. |
|
| |
I'm talking about robots connected to humans
wearing an exoskeleton type of interface. Each
robot is totally controlled by a human, but can
move easier and pick up or do things humans
cannot. |
|
| |
There are similar simulators for teaching to use
heavy equipment which I have used years ago. You
get the feeling your there, by controlling the
machine in the sandbox. |
|
| |
My mother in law told me in 1991 that 10 years
before that she saw a working robot at
Disneyland. It even shook hands and said hello. Of
course it was just a simple 4 wheel robot with a
hand, a remote controlled motor, and a walkie
talkie inside. |
|
| |
Ya' know... If you actually /mentioned/ the human
operator and the exoskeleton and whatnot in the original
description, you might not... |
|
| |
...oh, nevermind. So not worth it. |
|
| |
I'm giving a plus vote simply because it doesn't involve wood or fabbers at any point. |
|
| |
This point was brought up in a talk not so long ago. The reason they don't exist, in large numbers, is that they are cumbersome and expensive. Radiaion plays havoc with electrical systems. You have to engineer protection into these devices. Expensive and heavy. |
|
| |
Also they exit the system quite radioactive themselves so you have to scrap and store the waste carefully. A use once only, expensive, heavy thing. Not great. |
|
| |
This is backwards thinking. Why design robots that are humanoid so that they
work with systems designed for humans who are never going to be present? If
you are going to make a remotely-controlled robot power plant, design the
power plant for simpler, more plausible robots from the beginning so you don't
have to overcome the great engineering difficulties of making all the robots
human shaped. |
|
| |
//Why ... humanoid shaped ?//
//remotely-controlled//
Okay so.... operated remotely by snakes ? |
|
| |
Thanks for remark in no particular. Edited. |
|
| |