AnandY, I agree about the robot's adaptability. It's designed to be an industrial robot that's safer for humans than the current ones, although it doesn't have anywhere near their speed and force. Although the supermarket app was designed primarily for R&D purposes, it's pretty convincing for an end-application.
The approach in Baxter 2.0' programming, wherein the robot can learn new ways to do things throughout its life (within the limits its joints allows) means that this robot has the potential to be adapted for almost any job that is purely mechanical and does not need any artificial intelligence.
This is pretty impressive. The fact that you can set specific trajectories depending on the object being moved and the environment in which its being moved means that Baxter wont just cost people jobs, it might cost many of the present day assembly line robots their jobs as well. They are simply not as flexible as Baxter.
Reducing cost and programming complexity while increasing capability is the real news here:
"What used to cost $50k and required programming by experts now costs $20k and can be setup by a relatively unskilled user in 1/x the time."
The problem is that un-informed journalists start to drink the cool-aid and run-away with the speculative uses that the promoters of the technology champion:
Journalist/blogger: "What can you do with this technology?"
Scientist/Engineer: "It will change the world as you know it..."
One of my favorite examples of over-hyping is the "Segway". It was going to revolutionize how people got around. Parking problems and intercity traffic would be greatly reduced. Urban planning would have to take this exciting new technology into consideration when designing new public spaces. Did the journalist's come up with all these ideas or were they provided them by the Genius's that devised the technology? How much excitement would there have been on this product if instead it was pitched as a great way for tourists to see more of the locales they are visiting or for Police to patrol urban neighborhoods?
It is the inventor's job to think of all the possible problems that can be solved by their technology. It is the Journalists responsibility to vet the "pie in the sky" scenarios and ask the hard questions. But pragmatism won't get you page views.
Yes, I think Baxter has many more practical applications than Amazon's drone-delivery service, at least at the moment. Baxter is already becoming a proven technology whereas Amazon has some technology and logistical hurdles to face.
You're quite welcome, William. I think bagging would be more difficult for Baxter to do than checking, although the 2.0 software upgrade we wrote about here http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1392&doc_id=268173 lets him move objects vertically as well as horizontally. That upgrade's Pick and Place capability would allow Baxter to pick items off a shelf and place them in a box, movements that resemble bagging. But as Chuck points out, it's complicated because of the different weights and fragility of items involved.
Cadman-LT, interesting idea about programming a checkout robot to not handle some items, like a knife. I agree with you about not trusting them much myself. However, like a production line, the focus is on speed and accuracy combined. Just like in a production line, where you don't want special stations humans have to carry something to for inspection, having to wait for a human to arrive to bag a knife or other exception item would slow the line down. Like waiting for someone ahead of you with a zillion coupons or an expired credit card.
Last thing about this. It's one thing if the bot glitches and breaks your eggs. It is an entirely different matter if he accidently slices your face! Scary to me! They shouldn't be allowed to handle dangerous objects. I still love the idea though! Ohh untill I get smacked in the head with a sack of potatos!...lol
Engineers at Fuel Cell Energy have found a way to take advantage of a side reaction, unique to their carbonate fuel cell that has nothing to do with energy production, as a potential, cost-effective solution to capturing carbon from fossil fuel power plants.
To get to a trillion sensors in the IoT that we all look forward to, there are many challenges to commercialization that still remain, including interoperability, the lack of standards, and the issue of security, to name a few.
This is part one of an article discussing the University of Washington’s nationally ranked FSAE electric car (eCar) and combustible car (cCar). Stay tuned for part two, tomorrow, which will discuss the four unique PCBs used in both the eCar and cCars.
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.