
Walking Truck - colinmegill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_truck
======
ckastner
> _The stepping of the robot was controlled by a human operator through foot
> and hand movements coupled to hydraulic valves._

> _The walking truck was one of the first technological hardware design
> applications to incorporate force feed-back to give the operator a feel of
> what was happening._

This might sound primitive in today's autonomy-driven mindset, but in contrast
to autonomous robots, this is a technology that could be delivered today (or
was already delivered in 1965, according to the article).

So if infantry really does need hardware to move stuff from A to B, the 1965
approach -- primitive as it is -- might be the simplest solution.

~~~
icebraining
I'm sure that approach is simpler, but from what I can tell, the (semi?)
autonomous technology can also be delivered today:
[https://www.bostondynamics.com/ls3](https://www.bostondynamics.com/ls3)

~~~
ckastner
I thought of that example, too, but thought that it had been cancelled as
unsuccessful.

Turns out it was cancelled for mainly other reasons. Quoting [1]: "By late
2015, the Marines had put the LS3 into storage because of limitations with the
robot including loud noise, challenges in repairing it if it breaks, and how
to integrate it into a traditional Marine patrol"

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legged_Squad_Support_System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legged_Squad_Support_System)

~~~
taneq
Turns out the marines don't really need a loud, expensive, fragile machine to
haul their gear when they can just use a quad bike.

Robots are awesome but integrating practical robotics with mission critical
operations is really _really_ hard, especially because you're automatically
competing with battle-tested best in class solutions.

~~~
Mvhsz
Actually turns out Boston Dynamics had a good idea and over-engineered it. LM
built a cheaper, wheeled, semi-autonomous troop support vehicle that ended up
selling pretty well.

[https://defense-update.com/20070529_smss.html](https://defense-
update.com/20070529_smss.html)

~~~
taneq
That thing looks an awful lot like a quad bike with two extra wheels.

~~~
steverb
AKA a "6 Wheeler". At least that's what we called them when I was kid. They
use differential steering, which makes them a good fit for automation. Don't
have to worry about turning a steering column, just shift the power around
which the off the shelf ATV already handles.

~~~
taneq
Yep, there were ads for them in the back of Popular Science magazine. They
were fully amphibious too and could float.

Don't get me wrong, I love my fellow kinematically-complicated meatbags but I
do kind of think wheels win this round.

~~~
cr0sh
There are still a couple of companies that sell 6WD (and 8WD) vehicles like
these - Argo is one of them (and that machine up-thread looks like they just
strapped some stuff to one of those):

[https://argoxtv.com/](https://argoxtv.com/)

The other kind of "extreme off-road differential steered" ATV that people both
want (and then seemingly want to sell soon after - almost like a boat) is the
Russian Sherp:

[https://sherpatv.com/](https://sherpatv.com/)

I'd love to have one of those - but they are a bit out of my budget (and my
wife would probably divorce me if I brought one home, even if I could afford
it).

~~~
taneq
I love the Sherp! Also the roughly-equivalent bike version:
[https://canadamotoguide.com/2016/08/03/russian-2wd-bike-
is-a...](https://canadamotoguide.com/2016/08/03/russian-2wd-bike-is-
apparently-now-on-the-market-and-its-not-a-ural/)

------
alex_young
Video:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMGCFLEYakM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMGCFLEYakM)

The thing looks a little top heavy to me. I wonder if there are airbags :)

Also - external hydraulics seems like quite a limitation.

~~~
beardog
Between the old footage (minus the basic color), music, and narration this
feels like it could be a scene from the twilight zone or a doctor who episode

------
bwaine
Interesting, perhaps the inspiration behind the walking battle machines[0] in
my favourite table top board game "Scythe"[1].

Interesting to see a real life Mech!

[0] - [http://www.heavymetal.com/news/these-amazing-paintings-
raise...](http://www.heavymetal.com/news/these-amazing-paintings-
raised-1-8-million-for-a-board-game/) [1] -
[https://stonemaiergames.com/games/scythe/](https://stonemaiergames.com/games/scythe/)

------
retSava
> It alternatively bore the name of "CAM", an acronym for "cybernetic
> anthropomorphous machine"

now that's a seriously cool name!

The pic makes me think of Strandbeests and derivatives:
[https://www.strandbeest.com/](https://www.strandbeest.com/)

~~~
Hitton
It's the opposite of cool name. Anthropomorphous means resembling human being,
this was nothing like human, it was quadruped.

~~~
Insanity
That just makes it an incorrect name but not necessarily not a cool one.

The Death Star isn't a star but the name is cool.

------
booleandilemma
They look vulnerable to snowspeeders.

~~~
HenryKissinger
That armor's too strong for blasters.

------
globuous
The reminds me of this video [1] where the guy builds these out of wood and
paper and powers them with wind. Increadible.

[1]
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LewVEF2B_pM](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LewVEF2B_pM)

------
PinkMilkshake
That thing looks amazing! A similar concept was these walking harvesters
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pJwDZXasKU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pJwDZXasKU)

~~~
Animats
That was an interesting idea. Deere acquired them, and built a prototype.[1]
But Ponsse's approach[2] was more practical. The dual chassis articulated
8-wheel system is unusual but very effective.

A big problem with those heavy legged machines is very low road speed. The
Ponsse machine is much faster when you aren't in difficult terrain, so you can
get it to the job under its own power. Deere copied that and now makes those,
too.

[1] [https://agmetalminer.com/mmwp/wp-
content/uploads/2012/04/wal...](https://agmetalminer.com/mmwp/wp-
content/uploads/2012/04/walking_harvester_large.jpeg)

[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE1f1GydafQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE1f1GydafQ)

~~~
DoctorOetker
The Ponsse machine: it would be cool if they could recover the gravitational
potential energy of the tree for the cutting operations, say by storing the
energy in a flywheel

------
jonah
There was a walking logging machine developed by Finnish company Plustech Oy
in the mid-nineties and later bought by John Deere who tried to commercialize
it but it didn't meet much success.

"[It] was designed with sensitive or by other means harder to reach terrain
with minimum impact on the environment in mind."

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pJwDZXasKU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pJwDZXasKU)

[http://www.theoldrobots.com/Walking-
Robot2.html](http://www.theoldrobots.com/Walking-Robot2.html)

[http://www.unusuallocomotion.com/pages/museums/museum-of-
lus...](http://www.unusuallocomotion.com/pages/museums/museum-of-lusto-in-
finland-forest-machinery.html) (Near the bottom)

~~~
cr0sh
The was also the OSU Adaptive Suspension Vehicle:

[http://cyberneticzoo.com/walking-machines/1984-osu-asv-
adapt...](http://cyberneticzoo.com/walking-machines/1984-osu-asv-adaptive-
suspension-vehicle-mcghee-american/)

[https://library.osu.edu/documents/university-
archives/subjec...](https://library.osu.edu/documents/university-
archives/subject_files/Adaptive%20Suspension%20Vehicle.pdf)

------
dmix
I’ve always wondered how much money consultants made off the “cybernetics”
buzzword in the 60s and 70s.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
Was it a buzzword at the time? Stuff like this is actually closer to the
original definition--very roughly, a system that uses continuous feedback
loops to keep itself in a stable, functioning state--than to the way we use
the word now.

------
timonoko
Why are these walking machines always so slow? I think Neal Stephenson
described a skateboard with hundreds of tiny feet, moving faster than wheels
on any surface. I want to see that.

~~~
krapp
Progress takes time, and ambulatory motion is a finicky, delicate nightmare
that only seems simple in humans and animals thanks to millions of years of
evolution. CAM was created in the 1960s[0], but BigDog[1] and other recent
Boston Dynamics quadrupeds that aren't designed for human passengers are much
faster[2], but still awkward.

Also remember these are expensive prototypes designed to test things other
than speed. Making them faster only guarantees that they break themselves
harder when they run into a wall or trip over a cliff or something.

[0][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMGCFLEYakM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMGCFLEYakM)

[1][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww)

[2][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OKZ_n8QW4w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OKZ_n8QW4w)

>I think Neal Stephenson described a skateboard with hundreds of tiny feet,
moving faster than wheels on any surface. I want to see that.

I am neither Neal Stephenson nor a physicist but I'm pretty sure the friction
caused by the increased surface contact of "hundreds of tiny feet" versus
wheels would still make the wheels faster and more efficient. Geckos and
things can stick to vertical surfaces and move quickly because they're
lightweight. Anything capable of sticking to an arbitrary surface _and_
supporting human weight is going to be slow. And if moving downhill, wheels
don't really need to do work - gravity does the work. Something with "hundreds
of tiny feet" either has to slide or "walk."

~~~
timonoko
I disagree. Centipedes and other many-legged critters can move very fast.
Every leg is just a tiny lightweight thing with its own balanced dynamics,
just a part of a wheel basically. First thing that came to my mind is a
plastic brush with flexible back. If you move a rollers along the back the
bristles extend downwards and move backwards in a walking motion, just like a
sea urchin does. Scale that and you have a walking machine moving amazingly
fast. Tiny bristles yield and conform to any surface.

~~~
Qworg
CWU's "whegs" are much in this vein:
[http://biorobots.case.edu/projects/whegs/](http://biorobots.case.edu/projects/whegs/)

~~~
cr0sh
I could also see Brook's Genghis platform being extended to "centipede"
multiples of legs and probably working well.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Robot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Robot)

EDIT: fixed mistake - put "Dante" but meant Genghis...

------
t0astbread
It had force feedback. Did it have any sort of protection in the case of rapid
movement of tge legs?

~~~
cr0sh
I personally don't know if it did - I've never seen any information on
operator safety of this machine, though I have read a lot about it and Ralph
Mosher over the years.

He's also the guy behind the GE Hardiman exoskeleton:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardiman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardiman)

...which was another system much like this truck. For that one - and I don't
know how true it was - it was said that it could get into a feedback loop that
could cause injuries to the user, but it wasn't clear if that was for the
entire "suit" or for the mounted arm test assembly (they had built a single
arm up to the shoulder and mounted it on a stand to test it separately from
the "suit").

GE was heavily into this field of what they called "man amplifiers" \- several
of the later ones spearheaded by Mosher:

[http://cyberneticzoo.com/man-amplifiers/1953-g-e-o-man-
manip...](http://cyberneticzoo.com/man-amplifiers/1953-g-e-o-man-manipulator-
american/)

[http://cyberneticzoo.com/man-amplifiers/1958-9-ge-
handyman-r...](http://cyberneticzoo.com/man-amplifiers/1958-9-ge-handyman-
ralph-mosher-american/)

[http://cyberneticzoo.com/walking-machines/1962-64-ge-
pedipul...](http://cyberneticzoo.com/walking-machines/1962-64-ge-pedipulator-
ralph-mosher-american/)

[http://cyberneticzoo.com/man-amplifiers/1965-g-e-lifting-
boo...](http://cyberneticzoo.com/man-amplifiers/1965-g-e-lifting-boom-edwin-e-
ziegler-ralph-mosher-american/)

[http://cyberneticzoo.com/teleoperators/1969-g-e-man-mate-
ind...](http://cyberneticzoo.com/teleoperators/1969-g-e-man-mate-industrial-
manipulators-ralph-mosher-american/)

This was also the same time period as Hughes Aircraft's MOBOT systems - which
were meant as remote manipulators for working in nuclear research, underwater
repaid, and similar harsh environments:

[http://cyberneticzoo.com/teleoperators/1959-mobot-1-hughes-a...](http://cyberneticzoo.com/teleoperators/1959-mobot-1-hughes-
aircraft-american/)

[http://cyberneticzoo.com/teleoperators/1962-underwater-
mobot...](http://cyberneticzoo.com/teleoperators/1962-underwater-mobot-hughes-
aircraft-american/)

[http://cyberneticzoo.com/teleoperators/1963c-mobot-hughes-
ai...](http://cyberneticzoo.com/teleoperators/1963c-mobot-hughes-aircraft-
american/)

[http://cyberneticzoo.com/teleoperators/1964-%e2%80%93-mobot-...](http://cyberneticzoo.com/teleoperators/1964-%e2%80%93-mobot-
mark-ii-%e2%80%93-hughes-aircraft-american/)

What we now know as "ROVs" (and UAVs, UGVs, and other names) all stem from a
lot of this research back then (and earlier). Hughes' system was actually kind
of innovative; there is a paper you can dig up (in fact, I think it's linked
on one of the above articles) that detail how these systems were controlled:

They needed to control a lot of various servo and other actuators, but they
couldn't use a long cable with tons of wires - they needed the cable to be
flexible and not weigh a ton (which is still an issue today). But they didn't
have the modern electronics we have today to accomplish it. What they ended up
doing was using a synchronized motor-switching system that had two rotary
switches driven by synchronous motors on both ends. There was a mechanism in
place to keep them "in sync" so that the switch connected on one end would be
the same as on the other end. The controller at the transmitter would thus be
connected to the proper motor or actuator at the other end, many times a
second, and the umbilical only needed a few wires (plus wires for power -
which IIRC was AC and served as part of the sync system - plus wires for video
feeds). In a way, it was an early form of electro-mechanical multiplexing.

It quickly gave way to more electronic methods (likely things more closely
resembling serial PPM, used in hobby radio control systems - once reliable
transistors became common; while such a thing could have been done with vacuum
tubes, it wouldn't have been reliable on such machines and environments) - but
reading that paper was an interesting insight on how to do things differently!
In fact, it's similar in scope to how Westinghouse did something similar for
telemetry monitoring and control back in the 1920s and 30s - and showcased in
their "robot" Electro - by using sounds and tuning forks, in a similar was to
electrical coherer systems - they could control relays remotely using tones
sent down telephone lines. Why Hughes didn't use a similar approach is a
mystery - could have been patent reasons, or reliability issues or something
of that nature.

It's a fascinating period of history in robotics, control theory, computation,
and more in my opinion (also at this time, you have a large interest going on
in artificial intelligence - such as it was in those years - and deep behind
the scenes, there was certain interest in so-called "artificial neurons" \-
hardware implementations of the McCulloch-Pitts neuron model. At one time,
around 1956 IIRC, RCA even made a "frog's retina" model using similar models -
when you look at it and how it was wired and works - it really looks like a
CNN made of hardware for image recognition...

~~~
t0astbread
Hey, that's very cool. Thank you!

------
shireboy
Discontinued when they realized the enemy could just fly around it’s feet with
a tripwire. ;) Inspiration for the AT-AT?

------
bischofs
Is this better than a Driving Truck?

------
rishabhd
Metal Gear? : )

