I agree with William for the most part. Having been the user and or technician working on the end product, I am often frustrated with the lack of forethought that sometimes goes into the engineering and design of a product.
For example, It was pointed out that the t-pins were an "unnecessary extra" and that the climbing 'points' could be designed right into the legs... this may be fine for initial usage but what happens when the tip gets blunted or dull over time? Or worse yet, somehow bends? Then you have to disassemble and rework an entire leg rather than replacing a single tip.
There have been many times when I have had to rework some aspect of a product that has failed to meet expectations once it hit a real world scenario. On the one hand, it is good business for me in correcting these flaws, however these flaws are still sad to see when things could have been done so much better.
We as designers and engineers need to remember and actively think about the environment our products will be working in and the abuses to which they may be subjected... this greatly improves the perceived value and noted reliability of our products.
This is a great project and excellent implementation. Its nice to see some engineering enthusiasm in young people. We need the next generation of engineers to be engaged now. Several times I have volunteered as a Science Fair judging in past years. American innovation is alive and well in the youth of America and this tree climbing robot is another great example!
Thanks for the comments everyone. The original sketch showed two legs connected with a gear mechanism, with one leg moved by a motor and the other moving in an equal and opposite motion via the gear. The inventor didn't use that approach due to complexity, but using a single motor for each pair of legs is certainly doable without sacrificing the ability to grip an asymmetrical object. Think about bicycle brakes which are able to grip the rip with two independent arms, using only a single pull. Hopefully the author will enter his project into an Instructables contest (or science fair) because I think it's a winner.
Back in the early 1960's I remember a wiz kid who's science fair entry was an electron microscope. Now that's a device that would really be out of the range of the average child and parent to build.
A simple robot like the tree climber could be built by someone with access to a machine shop or metal working shop in school. Putting together the control electronics and programming the micro processor might be a harder challenge unless the kid's parent or teacher worked in the field or there was access to a good robotic development kit.
I recall a citywide science fair, back in the early 1960's, where I exhibited a simple traffic control system with wireless capability to turn the intersection lights red to permit emergency vehicles the right of way. The model was made of cardboard and construction paper, painted flashlight bulbs and a box of relays I crudely put together along with a 27 MHz model airplane R/C receiver. The brightest student in my school was also there with an entry, a mockup of a heart lung machine with flowing liquid, which her parents and her science teacher collaborated on. They all snubbed me until the end of the day when the prize winners were announced. My entry won the only award for our school. The girl's project with all of her adult help was one of at least three heart lung machines entered in the fair. Mine was crude, hand made by the entrant and was original. The judges were quite astute.
The girl and her parents were eventually graceful enough to congradulate me. Her science teacher was not!
This robot could save cost & time for a tree surgeon to remove old limbs. The robot could carry a cord for a rope, even run it over a bad limb to be pulled down. It may also be good for tree-mounting personal radio antennas. I could see a local HAM club in the future buying one to lease to their members.
If climbing or scaling objects is the intended application, then a commercialized, proven version of this robot could have helped scale the Washington Monument to check for damage this week. If you look at it in that lights, you can envision tons of use cases.
This reminds me of some of the really neat projects out there that encourage kids to be explore robitics and other engeering related fields. The one I can think of off of the top of my head is the Lego League. A group of Girl Scouts from Gilbert started off building a robot to score some points on a competition table and ended up creating a prosthetic hand for a little 3 year old girl and going all the way to nationals and I believe they got to go to Washington D.C.
In many engineering workplaces, there’s a generational conflict between recent engineering graduates and older, more experienced engineers. However, a recent study published in the psychology journal Cognition suggests that both may have something to learn from another group: 4 year olds.
Conventional wisdom holds that MIT, Cal Tech, and Stanford are three of the country’s best undergraduate engineering schools. Unfortunately, when conventional wisdom visits the topic of best engineering schools, it too often leaves out some of the most distinguished programs that don’t happen to offer PhD-level degrees.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.