Newsgroups: comp.robotics
From: Joe@stellar.demon.co.uk (Joseph Michael)
Path: brunix!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uknet!demon!stellar.demon.co.uk!Joe
Subject: Re: PROGRAMMABLE MATERIALS / Shape Changing Robotics Technology
References: <768426734snz@stellar.demon.co.uk> <nagleCpIHrz.I0H@netcom.com>
Organization: Stellar Drive
Reply-To: Joe@stellar.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.27
Lines: 117
Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 19:26:25 +0000
Message-ID: <768770785snz@stellar.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk

In article <nagleCpIHrz.I0H@netcom.com> nagle@netcom.com "John Nagle" writes:
>Joe@stellar.demon.co.uk (Joseph Michael) writes:

>>>                     INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS REQUIRED
>>_________________________________________________
>______________________________
>>       A recent patent application has been filed for a SHAPE CHANGING ROBOT.
>>If anyone is iterested in commercial partnership in developing these robots
>>please email me - Joe@stellar.demon.co.uk.
>
>      Anybody ever heard of this guy?  This sounds like somebody who just
>read Michael Crighton's "Demon Seed".

I had the ideas on paper 16 years ago! 


>>       The product is called PROGRAMMABLE MATERIALS. Under computer control,
>>you instruct programmable materials to for example turn into a walking
> machine.
>>Alternatively, you can turn into a wall or a flat surface etc.
>>It can usefully deform around objects e.g. you can take several tons of
>>programmable materials up the stairs and through a narrow door entrance
>>into a failed nuclear power station to prop up the ceilings, erect lead
>>walls, pump out dust and smoke, install lighting and cameras etc.
>
>      There are a few things already working along these lines, but the
>existing technology isn't very good.  Mark Yin at Stanford just built
>a cute little machine made up of a number of 2"x2" cubes, each of which
>has two actuators that can deform it.  By assembling enough of these cubes,
>you can make some interesting gadgets.  Each has a CPU, and they form a
>network.  

Well, yes and no. There have been a few papers that deal with cellular
robotics but nothing spectacular. The patent I have filed for refers only my 
versions of a particular design of cellular robot and its movment
methods. But be warned, the concepts expressed in the patent are 'atomic'
and any attempt to copy it would infringe.

>      Another approach is materials that deform when electric or magnetic
>fields are applied.  A number of such systems exist, magnetic-particle
>clutches being the most useful.  There are the shape-memory alloys, which
>are slow, magnostrictive materials, which have a small dimensional change,
>and a few other schemes.  I recall reading about some approaches involving
>organic fluids (starch?) but don't recall hearing about that in recent
>years.  
>
>      This sort of thing is a standard claim for nanotechnology, but the
>state of the art there is nowhere near doing this.

Written by pipe dreaming experts perhaps? Hmm? The chemicals they
propose are environmentally unsafe. The money they need to build their
pipe dreams are ginormous. In the mean time, their thunder is stolen
by shape changing robots built with 1960's conventional technology.

>      But with the exception of magnetic-particle clutches, none of this
>stuff is useful enough to show up in "Machine Design" magazine, which is
>the trade journal for actuators and such.
>
>      If this stuff is for real, make and market a simple actuator based
>on it, and see if it goes anywhere.

In about a week, orders for mechanical parts are going to be placed.
I have about $500 equivalent to spend on it a week. In about four months
I hope to have mechanical models ready minus CPU control boards and 
software.

>>       In military applications ...
>>       In big civil engineering projects, ...
>>       Programmable materials are highly fault tolerant robots. ...
>
>       A bit ambitious for phase I.
>
>>       If you going to post a proposal, please remember that it will take
>>about a year to put the hardware and software together. A more realistic time
>>scale is three years for commercial products because the operating system
>>I am proposing require complete rewrites from normal commercial products.
>
>       Nah.  Concentrate on the actuator for now.

Bah! Sorted out ages ago!
        
>>The electronics would be cubersome using normal CPU technology and for that
>>reason, I am also proposing a new RISC CPU and ASIC glue logic to get the
>>job done. The initial costs of bringing the technology to market is around
>>$3 million per year for three years. That timescale can be brought down to
>>1.5 years with investment running at $5 million per year. The costs are
>>recovered quickly through access to publicity, demonstations, seminars
>>and sales of prototype kit. Huge orders from the Nuclear Industry are
>>expected because there are no competing systems, and the patent is fresh.
>
>       I wouldn't expect "huge orders from the nuclear industry".  There
>are in fact a number of companies making robots for the nuclear
>industry.  Remotec, in Oak Ridge, TN, makes a rather nice machine.
>Some others come from the Field Robotics Lab at Carnegie-Mellon.  But
>the market is tiny.  

I'm afraid the TOYS that the nuclear industry have are NO match for the
functions and features present in programmable materials. 
I'll tell you this, these guys with their toys are going to be wetting
their nappies when faced with REAL danger.
I'm proposing a machine that can cap a blown reactor dome for instance
in a couple of hours. It presently would take weeks.
Standard robotic rovers are cannot get past
even the simplest of obstacles such as a metre high object or metre wide hole.

>       If you're serious about this, make an appointment with Arthur Rock,
>at 3000 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA, who is generally considered to
>be one of the smarter venture capitalists.  If Rock
>will put money in, others will follow.
>
>                                                John Nagle

Thanks for the suggestion, if you know of any other individuals or for that
matter high tech firms, I'd appreciate a quick post.

-- 
Joseph Michael
