
The first autonomous, entirely soft robot - krnekdo
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/08/the-first-autonomous-entirely-soft-robot/
======
jaredraby
I love project and it's a great implementation of novel ideas all slapped into
one package, but I do take some issues with how they describe it.

It might make it under a liberal definition of 'robot', but it certainly
doesn't fit under what people think of as robots in a modern society. Also,
it's just an oscillator in a novel implementation, not 'autonomous'. It's like
saying my oscillating fan is autonomous.

Awesome progress, look forward to future development, but a little to hyped up
for my tastes.

~~~
beambot
Even among experts, there is no consistent, widely-accepted definition of
"robot"...

~~~
slowmovintarget
The term is actually very well defined:

>> a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions
automatically, especially one programmable by a computer.

The Mars rovers... robots. Squishybot here is a technology platform
demonstrator. It shows that you _could_ build one with these techniques.

~~~
beambot
So... your dishwasher, printer, washing machine, oven, and thermostat? All
carry out "complex actions automatically" and are controlled by computers. No
one would consider these "robots".

With all due respect, there is no agreed-upon definition. (As someone with a
PhD in robotics, CEO of a robotics company, & robotics journalist for 10+
years. Even my old academic advisor and I had contention around 3D printers.)
If that's not enough, here's a proper source: [http://robohub.org/robohub-
roundtable-why-is-it-so-difficult...](http://robohub.org/robohub-roundtable-
why-is-it-so-difficult-to-define-robot/)

The best definition I've ever heard: A robot is a device that doesn't work
(yet); as soon as it works, it is renamed (Vacuum robot => Roomba; clothes
cleaning robot => washing machine; etc.)

~~~
sndean
> washing machine, oven, and thermostat? ... No one would consider these
> "robots".

> clothes cleaning robot => washing machine; etc.

So do you think a washing machine is a robot?

~~~
beambot
Nope. It already works.

~~~
sndean
But that would mean that washing machines were at one time considered robots,
but now they aren't ... Ohh, okay, I like that definition too.

------
codeulike
From metafilter: "They call it the first fully autonomous soft-bodied robot,
but I prefer to think of it as the first pneumatically self-propelled Wacky
Wall Walker." (user 'Strange Interlude')

Actually pretty true.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
It is. And when you think of it that way, why not replace the pretty unsafe
[1] hydrogen peroxide with compressed air instead? Academic exercises aside, I
don't see how a flow control valve is any less "soft" than having a platinum
catalyst. But hey, they're chemists, and when what you have is a hammer...

[1] Wikipedia says "pure hydrogen peroxide will explode if heated to boiling,
will cause serious contact burns to the skin and can set materials alight on
contact." Not to mention it's been widely used for bomb manufacture by
terrorists, so today trying to obtain anything stronger than 1% H2O2 as a
normal person gets you on a watchlist, or even a phone call from the FBI/local
equivalent.

------
trymas
Great idea, though it probably comes to description of things like 'robot'.

To be more precise, from the article I understood that this is a 'soft
equivalent of a simple electronic oscillator'.

So, probably, I will not call this a robot (but probably we would never have
heard of this if not the click-baity title), but it's neat idea which could be
worked on further.

~~~
adrusi
That's its control system. What's interesting is that all of its actuators are
soft. You can imagine that a set of simple soft components like that simple
oscillator, combined with some small rigid components containing a
microcontroller, would belike a full soft robot.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Some definitions of 'robot' require a sensor too?

~~~
tmptmp
In the broadest definition, a sensor is an object whose purpose is to detect
events or changes in its environment, and then provide a corresponding output.
[1]

If we follow the above definition given on the Wikipedia then some important
and interesting issues arise:

Is sensor not a device that behaves in certain manner to some energy stimulus
and thus allows us to connect outer energy to the autonomous system (robot)
being developed?

Should a sensor always transduce to electronic energy form?

e.g. a gear lever in a bike is not a sensor? it senses (may be pressure) and
thus allows the system (the bike) to sense some outside stimulus.

Please feel free to define sensor in a different manner if you disagree with
[1].

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

~~~
semi-extrinsic
I agree you can have completely non-electronic sensors. Case in point: the
sensor wand on a Flying Moth sailboat:

[http://www.sailmagazine.com/racing/regattas/learning-to-
fly-...](http://www.sailmagazine.com/racing/regattas/learning-to-fly-2/)

~~~
empath75
Or, you know, eyes.

------
cs702
This is a soft, squishy octopus robot with a translucent skin that is super-
simple and does almost nothing, but as I was watching it on video, all I could
think was that, sooner or later, we will have soft and squishy (and perhaps
translucent) robots around us, doing all sorts of things. _All_ of this
robot's components are soft.

I don't know if it will take 10 or 50 years, but the _soft_ robots are coming;
and they will have supple skin and squishy synthetic organs, not metal
surfaces and 'boxy' components.

~~~
pron
And they will take over all jobs requiring soft skills.

~~~
dotancohen
Pleasurebots?

~~~
frandroid
Will still require some hard parts.

------
Animats
This is "autonomous" at the windup toy level.

Festo, the German robotics company, is way ahead in autonomous soft robots.
See their "Air Ray" fly around[1] Each year, Festo makes motion controllers
and robots, especially high-precision pneumatic devices. Each year, they build
something awesome. They do have some rigid components, but if they wanted to
build one with fluidic logic, they certainly could.

Their Smart Bird is spectacular.[2]

Festo is a big, family-owned engineering company. 18,700 employees. founded in
1925. Annual sales €2.64 billion. One of the most innovative companies in
mechanical engineering, yet a totally different business model than Silicon
Valley's.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3-wIICjAhE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3-wIICjAhE)
[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnR8fDW3Ilo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnR8fDW3Ilo)

------
Koshkin
Fluidics [1] has a long history. For better or worse, it has had a very
limited use so far. With the advent of 3-D printing, I am hoping to see more
interesting projects based on it. On the other hand, fluidics may not be able
to stand on its own as a viable technology; it is possible that the most
promising ideas will come from combining fluidics, micro-mechanics,
electromagnetics, electronics, and optics.

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

------
foobarbecue
If that's "completely autonomous", then steam engines are artificially
intelligent.

Can it actually walk? The video just shows it waving its arms.

~~~
bnegreve
"Autonomous" in the sense that it does not requires external power supply,
rather than intelligent.

I agree that the title is a bit missleading, but the rest of the article is
clear about this: (e.g. when they say: “Fuel sources for soft robots have
always relied on some type of rigid components,” )

Edit: clarity

------
xchip
Nice! but I'm not sure whether we can call that a robot :)

------
gene-h
What I don't understand is how this got published in Nature. This work, while
cool isn't that novel. Microfluidic logic and soft actuators have been around
for some time. Combining the two is not that impressive and more worthy of an
engineering journal than nature.

------
a_c
It is my first time hearing the term soft robot and had a hard time realising
what a "soft" robot means as "robot" is hardwired to mechanical and electronic
parts in my mind. After reading the article, absolutely eye opening!

~~~
ryw90
There's a subfield called soft robotics, which Baymax from the film Big Hero 6
was inspired by:
[http://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2014/october/octobe...](http://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2014/october/october29_baymax.html).

------
qwertyuiop924
I see a lot of people arguing about the significance of soft robotics. What
none of the seem to understand is the real significance for most people: The
ability to build Baymax IRL.

Seriously, it would be adorable _and_ useful. Somebody help out CMU so that
this happens sooner.

------
beat
Completely autonomous and no electronics?

That's not a robot, that's a child.

------
Ffaine
Is that considered to be a robot?

------
yladiz
Can we change the URL to [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-08/hjap-
tfa08161...](http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-08/hjap-
tfa081616.php) ? The Eureka Alert page is much more detailed.

~~~
sctb
We've updated the link from [http://sciencenewsjournal.com/new-soft-robot-
completely-auto...](http://sciencenewsjournal.com/new-soft-robot-completely-
autonomous-no-electronics/) to the Harvard release page. There was also a
previous submission which got a good number of upvotes, but not much
discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12341843](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12341843).

