The Roomba for Lawns Is Really Pissing Off Astronomers(wired.com)
wired.com
The Roomba for Lawns Is Really Pissing Off Astronomers
http://www.wired.com/2015/04/irobot-lawnbot/
23 comments
I have pal who did sysadmin work for a radio telescope; they went to amazing lengths to avoid interference. The details escape me now (hopefully some of those folks will chime in with their stories), but I remember being impressed about how thoughtful and serious they were. So between the radio astronomers and corporate lawyers, I'm inclined to believe the astronomers.
I'm all for robotics, but the thought of an unattended machine whirling around my yard with spinning blades (of death) worries me. Granted, my "lawn guy" races around my yard already like a NASCAR driver on crack, but part of me wonders what sort of mishaps this robotic vacuum might get itself into. Small animals, toys, sprinkler heads etc.
It's one thing if your vacuum sucks up a kid's toy, or harasses your cat. Imagine the potential liability if your robotic lawn mower left your yard and entered your neighbors.
It's one thing if your vacuum sucks up a kid's toy, or harasses your cat. Imagine the potential liability if your robotic lawn mower left your yard and entered your neighbors.
Stiga has been making robot mowers for quite a while, and I haven't heard of drunken Swedes who would have been hacked to death by their mowers after passing out on their lawn.
Apparently animals will run away and sprinkler heads can be marked with perimeter wire so that the gadget avoids them.
http://www.stiga.com/products/stiga_en/robot-mowers.html
Apparently animals will run away and sprinkler heads can be marked with perimeter wire so that the gadget avoids them.
http://www.stiga.com/products/stiga_en/robot-mowers.html
I have sprinkler heads all over my lawn, if the lawn mower avoided them I'd have patches of long grass. My sprinkler heads will routinely get stuck in the "up" position due to sand/dirt that gets stuck in the sliding mechanism.
This actually seems solvable by robotics, but it's not a viable solution for beacons or markers as they are meant to be "passed over" by lawn mowers.
This actually seems solvable by robotics, but it's not a viable solution for beacons or markers as they are meant to be "passed over" by lawn mowers.
Right now, Stiga is wondering WTF is going on with their website.
This is from a TechCrunch article published 3 days ago:
http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/13/irobot-is-working-on-a-robo...
"iRobot: “Use of the iRobotRLM [robot lawn mower] will increase lawn mower safety. An estimated 1,517 lethal accidents occurred with lawn mowers through the years 1997 to 2010. It is reasonable to assume that many of these injuries and deaths would not occur if consumers used a robotic mower. More than 17 million gallons of fuel, mostly gasoline, are spilled each year while refueling lawn equipment. Abattery poweredRLM will reduce emissions, gasoline spills, fires and other such accidents.”NRAO: “iRobot cited multiple statistics of grim accidents and spilt gasoline to assert the public benefit of approving its wireless robotic lawn mowers. However, there is already a competitive market for robotic lawn mowers using wire loops [buried edge wire], which has somehow failed to stanch the stream of ghastly accidents and spilt gasoline that iRobot associates with the mundane practice of lawn-mowing.”"
http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/13/irobot-is-working-on-a-robo...
"iRobot: “Use of the iRobotRLM [robot lawn mower] will increase lawn mower safety. An estimated 1,517 lethal accidents occurred with lawn mowers through the years 1997 to 2010. It is reasonable to assume that many of these injuries and deaths would not occur if consumers used a robotic mower. More than 17 million gallons of fuel, mostly gasoline, are spilled each year while refueling lawn equipment. Abattery poweredRLM will reduce emissions, gasoline spills, fires and other such accidents.”NRAO: “iRobot cited multiple statistics of grim accidents and spilt gasoline to assert the public benefit of approving its wireless robotic lawn mowers. However, there is already a competitive market for robotic lawn mowers using wire loops [buried edge wire], which has somehow failed to stanch the stream of ghastly accidents and spilt gasoline that iRobot associates with the mundane practice of lawn-mowing.”"
If you actually read the paragraph you'll find some (contradictory) issues with the NRAO statement (update: see below). Keep in mind we're talking about a statement made by astronomers about lawn mower safety.
"An estimated 1,517 lethal accidents occurred with lawn mowers through the years 1997 to 2010."
No data on the "1,517 lethal accidents" to prove that they were caused by fires or anything that a robotic vacuum solves (although I'd be happy to be sent a link proving this). So it's not "reasonable" to assume that these injuries will be reduced - the icing on the cake is the last sentence which essentially contradicts the first...
"there is already a competitive market for robotic lawn mowers using wire loops [buried edge wire], which has somehow failed to stanch the stream of ghastly accidents and spilt gasoline that iRobot associates with the mundane practice of lawn-mowing"
Edit: Just realized the fist statement (claiming safety) is by iRoomba, the second statement (disputing this) is by the NRAO.
So iRoomba (the one selling the product) claims it will reduce vacuums. The NRAO pointed out that despite a "competitive market" for robotic lawn mowers injuries have not been reduced.
Edit 2: Data! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16361919
"An estimated 1,517 lethal accidents occurred with lawn mowers through the years 1997 to 2010."
No data on the "1,517 lethal accidents" to prove that they were caused by fires or anything that a robotic vacuum solves (although I'd be happy to be sent a link proving this). So it's not "reasonable" to assume that these injuries will be reduced - the icing on the cake is the last sentence which essentially contradicts the first...
"there is already a competitive market for robotic lawn mowers using wire loops [buried edge wire], which has somehow failed to stanch the stream of ghastly accidents and spilt gasoline that iRobot associates with the mundane practice of lawn-mowing"
Edit: Just realized the fist statement (claiming safety) is by iRoomba, the second statement (disputing this) is by the NRAO.
So iRoomba (the one selling the product) claims it will reduce vacuums. The NRAO pointed out that despite a "competitive market" for robotic lawn mowers injuries have not been reduced.
Edit 2: Data! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16361919
You would assume, though, that most of those accidents are people using or maintainong the lawn mower. It's quite different if it damages someone else entirely. 'Robotic lawnmower runs over neighbour's child' would be a massive story even if it only happened once.
Am I the only one who thinks that iRobot is actually doing a very poor job with the Roomba cleaning algorithm?
Why can't we have a robot that maps the surface and then cleans accordingly? I always get irritated when I look at my Roomba doing it's job.
Why can't we have a robot that maps the surface and then cleans accordingly? I always get irritated when I look at my Roomba doing it's job.
Check out the upcoming Dyson 360 Eye - http://www.dyson360eye.com/
Disclaimer: I worked on it.
Edit: To answer your question directly, you have 3 choices:
1. Don't map (or somewhat guess it) - Roomba.
2. Map first, then clean - Neato.
3. Map as you clean - Dyson 360 Eye.
This is obviously a crude explanation but they get harder going down the list. If you are interested to know more, read up on SLAM (Simultaneous Localisation and Mapping) algorithms.
Disclaimer: I worked on it.
Edit: To answer your question directly, you have 3 choices:
1. Don't map (or somewhat guess it) - Roomba.
2. Map first, then clean - Neato.
3. Map as you clean - Dyson 360 Eye.
This is obviously a crude explanation but they get harder going down the list. If you are interested to know more, read up on SLAM (Simultaneous Localisation and Mapping) algorithms.
How is it better than Roomba and Neato -- what's the cleaning algorithm? Does it map the space? etc.
Edit: thanks, you answered while I was asking. That's a very interesting use case for SLAM. Does it re-map every use (i.e. today there's toys on the floor, but tomorrow there's not)? Does it store the point cloud or convert it to something more manageable? Are you licensing someone's SLAM library or did you roll your own?
Edit: thanks, you answered while I was asking. That's a very interesting use case for SLAM. Does it re-map every use (i.e. today there's toys on the floor, but tomorrow there's not)? Does it store the point cloud or convert it to something more manageable? Are you licensing someone's SLAM library or did you roll your own?
Unfortunately I'm not really able to go in to much more details, but this video explains what's public knowledge - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oguKCHP7jNQ
Sorry!
Sorry!
The Neato vacuum does a back & forth pattern. But after living with a Roomba for a while, I've grown to appreciate their mostly-random pattern - it (eventually) makes sure that the nap of the carpet gets brushed in different directions, so your carpet doesn't look like the greens at the local golf course, with stripes in it.
It does a pretty good job though:
http://www.designboom.com/weblog/images/images_2/jenny/roomb...
I tried a Neato but it was much more prone to getting stuck (every single time actually). Obviously that will vary depending on your furniture.
http://www.designboom.com/weblog/images/images_2/jenny/roomb...
I tried a Neato but it was much more prone to getting stuck (every single time actually). Obviously that will vary depending on your furniture.
Look at the Neato. I switched from Roomba to Neato and never looked back. It actually vacuums in an intelligent manner.
What's better, a brute force algorithm that is cheap and simple but slow, or a highly optimized system that is expensive and complex and fast?
The answer is of course "it depends." Certainly the Roomba could be smarter, faster, and more efficient, but the question is how much more are customers willing to pay for those.
The answer is of course "it depends." Certainly the Roomba could be smarter, faster, and more efficient, but the question is how much more are customers willing to pay for those.
This is actually better done with a robot team or swarm. There are several 'frontier' algorithms which use basic particle swarm or metaheuristic algorithms to rapidly move across a landscape or frontier.
Because you need more processing power and sensors to first build the map, and then know where you are on the map.
Wow. That article took 8 paragraphs or so before it explained the issue that was irritating astronomers. Terrible writing.
Yep, completely contrary to everything I learned in journalism school.
TL;DR (from the seventh and last paragraph) — "The frequency band proposed for the lawnbot (6240-6740 MHz) is the very same one several enormous radio telescopes operate on."
TL;DR (from the seventh and last paragraph) — "The frequency band proposed for the lawnbot (6240-6740 MHz) is the very same one several enormous radio telescopes operate on."
Depends on the goal I guess. What you might have been taught: inform your readers.
The writer's goal/task was probably something like "create content" in the broad sense.
My personal opinion: please keep doing what you learned in journalism school :)
The writer's goal/task was probably something like "create content" in the broad sense.
My personal opinion: please keep doing what you learned in journalism school :)
> The writer's goal/task was probably something like "create content" in the broad sense.
Yeah, in the so-called "content marketing" sense of the word, i.e. create whatever random stuff that will get people interested enough that we can monetize them (or get paid by whoever hired us to do the content marketing).
Source: I interact personally with content marketers on a daily basis.
Yeah, in the so-called "content marketing" sense of the word, i.e. create whatever random stuff that will get people interested enough that we can monetize them (or get paid by whoever hired us to do the content marketing).
Source: I interact personally with content marketers on a daily basis.
There are 14 paragraphs in the article.
Indeed there are. I could see them all after checking on my phone; the Wi-Fi in my hotel apparently choked on the full-width ad inserted after the seventh.
Still, I would have put the key info from the seventh paragraph into the first, e.g.:
"WHO CAN HATE a Roomba? Astronomers, that’s who, because the latest models in the domestic robot family interfere with the radio frequencies used by major astronomical observatories..."
Still, I would have put the key info from the seventh paragraph into the first, e.g.:
"WHO CAN HATE a Roomba? Astronomers, that’s who, because the latest models in the domestic robot family interfere with the radio frequencies used by major astronomical observatories..."
Filling space is how they justify their jobs. The entire article could have been a few small paragraphs.
Can we just get rid of grass lawns already... replace it with something that looks good and doesn't need water and weekly cutting
If the alternative is some more appropriate local plant or plants, then great. If the alternative is concrete or astroturf, please don't.
The trend of people paving over their front gardens for car parking is causing a lot of flooding problems in the UK (because water runs straight off concrete, and isn't absorbed). It also makes the general environment much less pleasant and human if everything surrounding roads is paved as far as the eye can see, rather than filled with gardens, whether they're wild or highly tended. You end up with these grim concrete tunnels of development where no one wants to spend their time. That in turn damages pedestrian culture, and the health and social benefits which go with it.
The trend of people paving over their front gardens for car parking is causing a lot of flooding problems in the UK (because water runs straight off concrete, and isn't absorbed). It also makes the general environment much less pleasant and human if everything surrounding roads is paved as far as the eye can see, rather than filled with gardens, whether they're wild or highly tended. You end up with these grim concrete tunnels of development where no one wants to spend their time. That in turn damages pedestrian culture, and the health and social benefits which go with it.
Not sure if this was sarcasm or not, but having a lot of landscaping architecture friends it's an interesting idea.
In places where grass is hard to grow (Southwestern US) you see a lot of rock varieties and other materials that they substitute for grass and it looks great.
Just Google, "las vegas yards" and look at the image search.
The last place I lived, my neighbor was tired of his grass in his bakyard (about a 1/4 acre) so he created a huge concrete terrace in his back yard, along with a large rubber hard court for basketball and other activities for his and the neighborhood kids. He still kept his small front yard grass, but the entire backyard was now completely utilitarian.
In places where grass is hard to grow (Southwestern US) you see a lot of rock varieties and other materials that they substitute for grass and it looks great.
Just Google, "las vegas yards" and look at the image search.
The last place I lived, my neighbor was tired of his grass in his bakyard (about a 1/4 acre) so he created a huge concrete terrace in his back yard, along with a large rubber hard court for basketball and other activities for his and the neighborhood kids. He still kept his small front yard grass, but the entire backyard was now completely utilitarian.
Yay for (sub?)urban heat island growth! :(
Not sure where the last place you lived was, but I hope that if it were the desert, that there's some sort of aesthetically pleasing option that exists between a water hungry green grass lawn, and an asphalt or impervious concrete surface. Even if it's not the desert, permeable paving sounds like a win-win solution for aesthetics, functionality, and environmental impact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeable_paving
Not sure where the last place you lived was, but I hope that if it were the desert, that there's some sort of aesthetically pleasing option that exists between a water hungry green grass lawn, and an asphalt or impervious concrete surface. Even if it's not the desert, permeable paving sounds like a win-win solution for aesthetics, functionality, and environmental impact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeable_paving
It was in North Dakota, and I wonder if this is what he was using. I remember him going on and on about how environmentally friendly these pavers were and how they could filter water and last a longer than normal concrete pavers have have virtually no maintenance costs.
Either way, it looked really nice and had me thinking about the maintenance and costs of my yard.
Either way, it looked really nice and had me thinking about the maintenance and costs of my yard.
When I lived in the New Mexico in the early 90's people started overhauling their grass yards with rock landscaping (with a few plants dotted in). The results tended to look great. I'm surprised this hasn't taken off in more places across the country.
Mind your own business! http://www.bbc.co.uk/gardening/plants/plant_finder/plant_pag...
Yeah, an Astroturf home lawn is what we want.
Seriously, lawns, like other parts of gardens, are something that people do for hobby - they like the work. Yes, it is somewhat contradictory that then people also want to avoid the chores of mowing. A rock garden may be better but anything will need maintenance work to look neat.
Seriously, lawns, like other parts of gardens, are something that people do for hobby - they like the work. Yes, it is somewhat contradictory that then people also want to avoid the chores of mowing. A rock garden may be better but anything will need maintenance work to look neat.
Agreed. I think it's so amazing we actually make up work for ourselves.
It's not "making up work". People value a lawn, and put in work to maintain it. I find it funny that so many people on hacker news don't understand this concept. I'm sure a lot of people here would love to live in a concrete cube and drink soylent all day long while plugged into the internet on their oculus VR, but it's shocking to me that you can't comprehend how other people can value different things from yourself.
You're presenting a false dichotomy. Sure, you may value a lawn, but it comes at a price with little return. There's environmental issues with lawns. No, that doesn't mean putting in concrete would be better. Here's some examples: http://www.sunset.com/garden/earth-friendly/lose-the-lawn-lo...
You can have a space filled with vegetables, fruits, shrubs etc.
You can have a space filled with vegetables, fruits, shrubs etc.
There is a lot of work involved in vegetables and fruits, and to some degree shrubs. Most anything that you like, deer will also like. You also can't as easily run around and play various games in something that has shrubs all over it. All of the examples you are showing are, in my opinion, trying to create an outdoor sitting room; which is not what many families want (in my case, I have a deck for that).
I don't water my grass, and it isn't as pretty as some people's yards; but it is perfectly fine for playing in; and looks decent enough.
The whole "sprinkler systems are bad" argument doesn't hold much water in suburban NY.
I don't water my grass, and it isn't as pretty as some people's yards; but it is perfectly fine for playing in; and looks decent enough.
The whole "sprinkler systems are bad" argument doesn't hold much water in suburban NY.
> with little return
Isn't that the entire point of my post? That different people value things differently? You may see it as "little return", but other people may not.
There are environmental issues with lawns in some locations. I don't suggest having a lawn in the desert. There are a ton of areas throughout the US where having a lawn is just fine, and is environmentally neutral.
Isn't that the entire point of my post? That different people value things differently? You may see it as "little return", but other people may not.
There are environmental issues with lawns in some locations. I don't suggest having a lawn in the desert. There are a ton of areas throughout the US where having a lawn is just fine, and is environmentally neutral.
In Arizona and other water starved states they use artificial grass in their lawns, and some of them look reasonable. I am starting to see the trend in the bay area as well.
Instead of not having grass yards, maybe people should just go the full mile and not live in areas completely inhospitable to human life?
A watered desert is actually extremely humanly hospitable for the majority of the year (probably more so than less temperate areas like central & eastern europe or the midwest).
Like New England in the winter?
Water is not scarce in a lot of areas.
Also, you make it sound like the government is paying for people to cut their yards. People do it themselves out of their own free will.
Also, you make it sound like the government is paying for people to cut their yards. People do it themselves out of their own free will.
>People do it themselves out of their own free will.
In many places in the US, you are legally required to keep your lawn below a certain height, and not just in HOA neighborhoods, it is often enforced by the city.
In many places in the US, you are legally required to keep your lawn below a certain height, and not just in HOA neighborhoods, it is often enforced by the city.
Husqvarna have been making robotic lawnmowers since 1995, do they work differently? http://www.husqvarna.com/us/products/robotic-mowers/husqvarn...
So why can't they just use a different frequency?
Exactly. What makes the 6Ghz spectrum so attractive to iRobot? If they are asking the FCC for an exception anyway, isn't there another frequency they could use with the same method of location finding?
Kind of my question. Why can't they use one of the standard open frequencies like 433mhz? I assume there is some reason, maybe broadcast distance and strength for bigger yards?
I'm not sure why they're so obstinate about using a very-high-frequency band of RF for this. Is GPS not accurate enough? How about a more mechanical method, or near-field communications?
the only way to get them to work is to dig a trench along the perimeter of a lawn and install a wire that creates the electronic fence needed to ensure the automaton don’t wander beyond the property line.
If they really want to implement that method, shopping cart locking systems have done it before, and they don't need 6GHz+ RF:
http://www.wired.com/2007/07/hack-remote-sho/
the only way to get them to work is to dig a trench along the perimeter of a lawn and install a wire that creates the electronic fence needed to ensure the automaton don’t wander beyond the property line.
If they really want to implement that method, shopping cart locking systems have done it before, and they don't need 6GHz+ RF:
http://www.wired.com/2007/07/hack-remote-sho/
GPS accuracy on its own is nowhere near good enough. Differential GPS can give you 1cm accuracy: http://www.blackroc-technology.com/technologies/gnss/dgps/
It seems like installing the base station for differential GPS would be easier than installing the electronic fencing descried in the article.
Yes, although it may be more expensive (I suspect you have to license a whole pile of patents)
Easier, maybe? But it would cost tens of thousands of dollars and be subject to even more regulations, so I don't think that is a good solution.
Why would it be subject to more regulations? You just need two GPS receivers and a way to link them (e.g. WiFi).
Sorry, but I don't think you know how differential GPS works. It is not just using two GPS devices and averaging their location. Wikipedia is a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_GPS
I've got to believe there's good reasoning from iRobot, even though none of the articles I've seen have covered it (tsk tsk IEEE Spectrum). Perhaps wanting to bury the transceivers rules out 2.4GHz and 5GHz, while needing tight directionality and small antennas rules out the lower stuff?
Having said that, radio interference is taken pretty seriously (eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Radio_Qu...). The free-for-all that we're familiar with is really just a few tiny consumer bands.
DGPS seems like a better idea (even easier to install a virtual border by manually driving the robot around the edge), but would probably require some above-surface beacons. I'd imagine iRobot is trying to cater to the type of people who think grass needs to be mowed every week and wouldn't want even a few beacons sticking up.
Still I'm sure there's another way. And if iRobot wants to win in even just the court of public opinion, they have a steep argument to make.
Having said that, radio interference is taken pretty seriously (eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Radio_Qu...). The free-for-all that we're familiar with is really just a few tiny consumer bands.
DGPS seems like a better idea (even easier to install a virtual border by manually driving the robot around the edge), but would probably require some above-surface beacons. I'd imagine iRobot is trying to cater to the type of people who think grass needs to be mowed every week and wouldn't want even a few beacons sticking up.
Still I'm sure there's another way. And if iRobot wants to win in even just the court of public opinion, they have a steep argument to make.
GPS isn't enough. A lot depends on the receiver, antenna, how many satellites are in view, and what's going on with the atmosphere, but unaugmented GPS is generally considered accurate to about 15 meters. Not good enough for a lawn unless you're in a rural area or your neighbors don't care if you cross the property line.
GPS in your car only appears to be more accurate than that because they're typically "snapping" the GPS signal to an underlying road map.
GPS in your car only appears to be more accurate than that because they're typically "snapping" the GPS signal to an underlying road map.
Tomorrow's World, 1979: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ade1JYpscl0
I wonder if the real reason is that they can't get a patent for simpler methods because it's all been done decades ago?
I wonder if the real reason is that they can't get a patent for simpler methods because it's all been done decades ago?
I so wouldn't be surprised if that would be the actual reason.
I would wager they are using UWB for position tracking, as seen in the DecaWave devices, which can operate in the 6GHz spectrum. No GPS required, but you do need multiple nodes to range against.
http://www.decawave.com
http://www.decawave.com
> Is GPS not accurate enough?
It really isn't.
It really isn't.
Or optical, even? Once you've accepted that there will need to be a stake in the ground, you'd already eliminate a lot of the line-of-sight problems.
You mis read it, they want to _avoid_ having a buried wire system. They are instead proposing a stake system which is what they are requesting a waiver for.
Your quote is of exactly the method they do not want to use.
It comes down to some engineer choosing a certain chip and antennae. iRobot, come on, choose a different vendor and end this silliness.
The "internet of things" is just going to make this worse and there's really no fighting it. My question is considering how many billions are pissed away tossing men and women into the ISS for reasons not apparent to me, why don't we have a radio telescope on the far side of the moon yet? I keep hearing about all these manned missions, COTS money handed to SpaceX, etc but the one thing that would be a gamechanger for radio astronony is not even on anyone's radar.
I'd love to see the next POTUS make this a priority. Yeah, Orion and the SLS are impressive, but they're mostly fighting yesterday's battles - pretty much a souped up Apollo for similar big feel-good missions where men and women go into LEO/moon/asteroids/maybe-mars for a very short time and fly right back. Why can't we also fund a farside telescope that could work for decades 24/7 providing space science advantages we simply cannot get any other way?
I'd love to see the next POTUS make this a priority. Yeah, Orion and the SLS are impressive, but they're mostly fighting yesterday's battles - pretty much a souped up Apollo for similar big feel-good missions where men and women go into LEO/moon/asteroids/maybe-mars for a very short time and fly right back. Why can't we also fund a farside telescope that could work for decades 24/7 providing space science advantages we simply cannot get any other way?
The moon is a pretty bad place for any long-term base...lunar dust is really hard on equipment. The l4/l5 points, though, are very interesting and there's a bunch of projects putting probes at the various l4/l5 points in the solar system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_objects_at_Lagrangian_p...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_objects_at_Lagrangian_p...
There's no atmosphere, so its unlikely Lunar dust would contaminate any equipment. It settles immediately after landing and doesn't blow around. Minimal shielded for touchdown would be all that's necessary.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. This would be an unmanned telescope. We're talking a one time landing of a piece of equipment. Dust will be a non-issue after the initial landing.
Not necessarily. One of the interesting results from LADEE was that the measured lunar dust increased a few hours before the probe landed (attributed possibly to the geminid meteor shower). There's lots of stuff that can kick dust off the lunar surface.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Atmosphere_and_Dust_Envir...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Atmosphere_and_Dust_Envir...
"Internet of things" devices mostly use cellular, WiFi or Bluetooth, and those frequencies are already in heavy use so I doubt it will make much difference for astronomers.
About the far side of the moon, there is little reason to put a telescope there. It is much easier to put one in orbit around the earch, sun or an earth-sun Lagrange point.
As for manned space exploration versus robotic, I think that is a debate for an other day.
About the far side of the moon, there is little reason to put a telescope there. It is much easier to put one in orbit around the earch, sun or an earth-sun Lagrange point.
As for manned space exploration versus robotic, I think that is a debate for an other day.
Those other locations still be susceptible to stray radio transmissions, especially an Earth orbit which would also have issues with Earth's ionosphere. All that moon rock is going to be a great radio insulator.
I also imagine there are cost savings by having it sit on the surface of a moon than being its own satellite. No need for worry about orbit corrections or strict weight limitations. The Tsiolkovskiy crater is pretty flat and would make a good candidate for a telescope which would have long antenna arrays laying on the surface.
I also imagine there are cost savings by having it sit on the surface of a moon than being its own satellite. No need for worry about orbit corrections or strict weight limitations. The Tsiolkovskiy crater is pretty flat and would make a good candidate for a telescope which would have long antenna arrays laying on the surface.
I doubt there are cost savings in siting it on the lunar surface. Yes you save on station-keeping, but it's very costly and dangerous to descend into a gravity well like that. Weight is definitely still important to make sure it doesn't hit too hard.
L2 point would give you almost all the benefits with a lot less risk and cost.
L2 point would give you almost all the benefits with a lot less risk and cost.
I'm curious why it needs beacons when we have things like self-driving cars and machine learning? Is it just a matter of cost?
Because I don't have a double-yellow line painted between my property and my neighbors? Machine learning is fine and all, but you need something for the machine to learn from. Without some kind of outside influence, my grass looks the same as the grass across the invisible property line.
Not only that, but you need a system to account for wheel slippage, etc. No matter how accurate your compass, how awesome your internal map, you're eventually going to go off course. Best case, your bot mows your neighbor's property. Worst case, it wanders into the busy street, or into your pond. Systems like these beacons or underground wire help ensure this doesn't happen.
Source: I have a half-built robot lawnmower on my workbench.
Not only that, but you need a system to account for wheel slippage, etc. No matter how accurate your compass, how awesome your internal map, you're eventually going to go off course. Best case, your bot mows your neighbor's property. Worst case, it wanders into the busy street, or into your pond. Systems like these beacons or underground wire help ensure this doesn't happen.
Source: I have a half-built robot lawnmower on my workbench.
Self-driving cars barely exist as prototypes. It's not production-ready tech.
Don't Tesla already have their autopilot tech released?
It doesn't steer. It augments the cruise control, accelerating and decelerating in stop-and-go traffic (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcwObeGB_mU). Which isn't nothing, but it's not driving you to work.
I've heard them claiming that it could indeed drive you from home to work using public roads and that it is capable of finding you and driving the car to you when you call for it (aka. "Batmobile mode").
Hm, I didn't know that. (Edit: it doesn't seem to be out yet?) And some cars can steer around corners on the highway. But it's very limited, doesn't necessarily work in the dark or in bad weather - and most relevantly it doesn't actually navigate by itself. It just follows marked roads. To use the self-driving lawnmower, you have to mark out an area for it to mow.
http://techcrunch.com/2015/03/19/the-tesla-model-s-will-get-...
It's not out yet, but they are claiming this summer it will be.
It's not out yet, but they are claiming this summer it will be.
Indeed. Easier on customer service, too: "and are you SURE that you have your beacons positioned correctly?"
> we have things like self-driving cars
On the planet I live on we don't have cars that are able to drive themselves.
On the planet I live on we don't have cars that are able to drive themselves.
How are you going to know where someone's property ends? You're not going to equip a lawn mower with a mounted laser range finder and sophisticated image processing capabilities.
How do you machine learn your property boundaries? It's an abstract concept of personal ownership.
Why don't they just use the WIFI spectrum?
Have legitimate messages so that it doesn't mess up existing systems, and send periodic pings whose radio signals the lawnmower can track. As an added bonus, you'd have a full communications network to talk to it with.
Have legitimate messages so that it doesn't mess up existing systems, and send periodic pings whose radio signals the lawnmower can track. As an added bonus, you'd have a full communications network to talk to it with.
How will the lawnmower know where it is with just WiFi?
By analyzing differentials in the signals from each beacon, which is how WiFi positioning systems work now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi_positioning_system
Anyway, WiFi actually operates in unlicensed spectrum, not in WiFi-specific spectrum, so continuous carrier waves would be legal too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi_positioning_system
Anyway, WiFi actually operates in unlicensed spectrum, not in WiFi-specific spectrum, so continuous carrier waves would be legal too.
The same way it would know where it is with the 6240-6740 MHz beacons.
The beacons probably output a continuous wave of a certain amplitude at that frequency. This would be classed as interference on at least the wifi spectrums so it is not allowed.
That's why you send actual 802.11 messages instead of a continuous wave.
And how do you determine your location based on an 802.11 message?
The same way you determine a location based on any regularly occurring radio signal (in fact, the same way they propose to determine location in their requested spectrum). The only reason to encode a proper 802.11 message would be so as not to interfere with other devices in range.
It's nice that RFI is being taken seriously. In many, many cases it is not: Noisy utility transformers, plasma TVs, poorly designed wall-wart supplies, touch lamps, and broadband over power lines, just to mention a few troublesome sources.
> In a later response, iRobot added that NRAO observatories usually are surrounded by desert or forests, not environments where residential lawn equipment is used—a claim the NRAO called “silly.”
I don't get what's silly about this. Astronomers are already well known for hating nearby human residences, because they give off visible light that makes it difficult to see the sky. Radio communications are the exact same thing at a different frequency.
But we've got a strong system going of "astronomers can suck it, and if they want to look at the sky without our light getting in the way they can live up on a remote mountaintop where nobody else ever goes". And that's what they do, because imagine if someone could build a telescope near your house and then get laws passed saying you were prohibited from using electric lighting... ever. We like being able to see at night. Maybe we also like having automatic lawn maintenance. Why should astronomers get to stop us?
I don't get what's silly about this. Astronomers are already well known for hating nearby human residences, because they give off visible light that makes it difficult to see the sky. Radio communications are the exact same thing at a different frequency.
But we've got a strong system going of "astronomers can suck it, and if they want to look at the sky without our light getting in the way they can live up on a remote mountaintop where nobody else ever goes". And that's what they do, because imagine if someone could build a telescope near your house and then get laws passed saying you were prohibited from using electric lighting... ever. We like being able to see at night. Maybe we also like having automatic lawn maintenance. Why should astronomers get to stop us?
Because RF spectrum is big and there is really nothing forcing iRobot to use the same band radio astronomers need (who need that particular band because physics) - they're probably either too lazy to pick a different radio chip for their product or looking for a clever way to avoid the good solutions we have since like 70s, so they could patent something here.
iRobot really should use a different frequency. Radio Telescopes should have the prior claim and are more useful and valuable.
I was wondering when this would come up. I led a team building autonomous lawnmowers for a major outdoor power equipment company.
To answer some questions:
Autonomous lawnmowers are remarkably safe - far safer than standard lawnmowers by a wide margin.
iRobot's potential solution isn't a new one by any means - but the requirement of getting FCC approval for transmission is a rough requirement to overcome.
GPS isn't sufficient and DGPS can't fix multipath problems. Bosch's lawnmower had GPS "straight line" algorithms in it and it had to be pulled because it was destroying people's lawns.
Decawave is an interesting technology, but not what they're using.
Fully autonomous lawnmowers have been around since the 1950's and haven't changed overmuch: http://file.vintageadbrowser.com/tg2i5rpfzmy0yj.jpg
To answer some questions:
Autonomous lawnmowers are remarkably safe - far safer than standard lawnmowers by a wide margin.
iRobot's potential solution isn't a new one by any means - but the requirement of getting FCC approval for transmission is a rough requirement to overcome.
GPS isn't sufficient and DGPS can't fix multipath problems. Bosch's lawnmower had GPS "straight line" algorithms in it and it had to be pulled because it was destroying people's lawns.
Decawave is an interesting technology, but not what they're using.
Fully autonomous lawnmowers have been around since the 1950's and haven't changed overmuch: http://file.vintageadbrowser.com/tg2i5rpfzmy0yj.jpg
iRobot's waiver request: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001028220
NRAO comment on waiver request: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001039394
iRobot reply to comment: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001041441
NRAO reply to reply to comment: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001042025
I see nothing in the iRobot filings that indicate why they cannot operate in the 5.725-5.875 GHz ISM band. Their system is based on simple time of flight measurements of the signal, and that should work just as well at 5.7-5.9 GHz as it would at 6.2-6.7 GHz.
NRAO comment on waiver request: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001039394
iRobot reply to comment: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001041441
NRAO reply to reply to comment: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001042025
I see nothing in the iRobot filings that indicate why they cannot operate in the 5.725-5.875 GHz ISM band. Their system is based on simple time of flight measurements of the signal, and that should work just as well at 5.7-5.9 GHz as it would at 6.2-6.7 GHz.
It would be nice to crack down on the lawnmower and, especially, leaf blower emissions in the 40Hz - 10KHz band. Where's the outrage?
Why can't we just manually "walk" the mower around the border so it knows where it's boundries are?
Because the hard part is figuring out where it actually is relative to these borders when it runs around later. If the border is actively detectable (beacons, buried wire, ...) that becomes easier.
It would still need one or more fixed points of reference to keep track of its position. It wouldn't be able to reliably tell where it currently is in relation to where it's been.
Problem is probably not in boundary setting, but in bot positioning. Anything fancier than beacons would raise production or support costs too much for mass consumer product
I don't think lawn bots will take off. I live in a nice neighborhood. I am 100% certain that a $500 to $3,000 lawn bot would be stolen within a month.
Also, it is far cheaper and more efficient to pay a gardener for lawn maintenance. They take care of far more than just mowing the lawn.
Also, it is far cheaper and more efficient to pay a gardener for lawn maintenance. They take care of far more than just mowing the lawn.
Not an expert, but isn't this the exact problem Bluetooth LE was designed to solve?
They even refrained from the clickbait of mentioning methanol in the headline:
"... pissing off astronomers looking for a drink"
"... pissing off astronomers looking for a drink"
Would GPS augmentation not work for this case? Don't airport runways use a system like that?
Is this the same technology used by invisible fences intended to contain dogs in a yard?
Yes, but they are arguing that using the invisible fence wire is too costly/difficult for a lawnmower. I can see that argument. A basic consumer lawnmower is probably $200-600 right now. An installed pet fence is quite a bit more.
Also, installing a pet fence, e.g. across driveways and paths can involve asphalt/concrete cutting, and a bunch of trenching. That is the kind of thing that even if you're willing to pay may have you say that it is just not worth it, compared to sticking some stakes in the ground.
The market is interesting here; you have to have someone who will spend enough on a fancy lawnmower, but not so much that they would outsource it to a landscaper.
Also, installing a pet fence, e.g. across driveways and paths can involve asphalt/concrete cutting, and a bunch of trenching. That is the kind of thing that even if you're willing to pay may have you say that it is just not worth it, compared to sticking some stakes in the ground.
The market is interesting here; you have to have someone who will spend enough on a fancy lawnmower, but not so much that they would outsource it to a landscaper.