PETMAN robot to closely simulate soldiers (w/ Video)

April 27, 2010 by Lin Edwards report
PETMAN robot to closely simulate soldiers

Enlarge

(PhysOrg.com) -- A freely walking biped robot the size and shape of a human being is being developed to realistically simulate a soldier wearing protective clothing.

The , PETMAN (from Protection Ensemble Test Mannequin), is being developed by Boston Dynamics for the US Army for testing chemical protection clothing. The anthropomorphic robot will be able to balance itself while walking, crawling, doing calisthenics, and generally moving freely like a human while being exposed to chemical warfare agents.

At its current stage the robot resembles a box on legs, but in its final form it will closely resemble a person, having “the shape and size of a standard human,” according to VP of Engineering at Boston Dynamics, Robert Playter. When completed, PETMAN will be the first anthropomorphic robot to move dynamically like a real person, Playter said. The army also wanted the robot to simulate physiological responses inside the suit, such as sweating, temperature and humidity control, and even breathing, to even more realistically simulate a soldier wearing a protective suit.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

The prototype robot walks heel-to-toe just like a human, and remains balanced even when pushed. In tests it has achieved a fast walking speed of 4.4 mph walking on a moving . PETMAN’s walking algorithm and the mechanical design are based on a previous Boston Dynamics robot known as Big Dog, which is designed for carrying supplies over almost any terrain.

Like its predecessor, the PETMAN robot has a hydraulic actuation system and articulated legs with shock-absorbing elements. The robot is under the control of an on-board computer and an array of sensors and internal monitoring systems.

The 13-month developmental period will be followed by 17 months of building, installation, and validation. Delivery of the completed and tested robot is expected some time in 2011. Boston Dynamics is a small company that spun off MIT in 1992. It specializes in robotics, with many of its projects being for military applications. Measurement Technology Northwest, Midwest Research Institute (MRI), Smith Carter CUH2A (SCC) and HHI Corporation are all partners in the PETMAN project.

More information: PETMAN page: http://www.bostond … _petman.html

© 2010 PhysOrg.com

4.6 /5 (17 votes)  

Filter


Move the slider to adjust rank threshold, so that you can hide some of the comments.


Display comments: newest first

El_Nose
Apr 27, 2010

Rank: 2 / 5 (1)
Wow - another game changer -

Combine this with the algorithms already known to the public to exist - such as ability to detect fire from a hostile source -- with these disguised as men and walking among our troops they could provide cover for the men in the open, detect where incoming fire is coming from and retaliate.

To limit these automotons to just testing and chemical agents is a true waste of there potential on the field.

I love it.
random
Apr 27, 2010

Rank: 3 / 5 (1)
I'm sorry, 'Pet Man'? Great technology, poor choice of name, unless they're trying to get the Luddites all riled up.
NotAsleep
Apr 27, 2010

Rank: 3.5 / 5 (4)
El Nose, still one missing component: power source. I'm sure we would've had mechanized robots long ago had it not been for that.

Where are you, Iron Man?
antialias
Apr 27, 2010

Rank: 3.4 / 5 (5)
"The army also wanted the robot to simulate physiological responses inside the suit, such as sweating, temperature and humidity control, and even breathing, to even more realistically simulate a soldier wearing a protective suit."

Why do I feel reminded of this line from The Terminator:

"The 600 series had rubber skin. We spotted them easy, but these are new. They look human... sweat, bad breath, everything. Very hard to spot."

'PETMAN' was obviously chosen as an acronym so it sounds as non-threatening as possible (as do all the words in the acronmym itself..'protection' ...'mannequin'...oh my)

Sometimes I really hate the military. (OK, delete that 'sometimes')
NotAsleep
Apr 27, 2010

Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
Sometimes I really hate the military. (OK, delete that 'sometimes')


Why?
in7x
Apr 27, 2010

Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
"realistically simulate a soldier wearing a protective suit"

Yeah, right, more like hook up to a keyboard and joystick and remotely smack Hadji in the mouth.
antialias_physorg
Apr 27, 2010

Rank: 2.3 / 5 (8)
"Why?"

Is there anything to love about people who contemplate killing others?

As a scientist (and an engineer) it makes me ashamed that some of my 'brethren' would even contemplate working for such outfits - no matter the monetary benefits.
DozerIAm
Apr 27, 2010

Rank: 3.9 / 5 (8)
"Why?"

Is there anything to love about people who contemplate killing others?

As a scientist (and an engineer) it makes me ashamed that some of my 'brethren' would even contemplate working for such outfits - no matter the monetary benefits.

I'm having a hard time understanding how you could possibly equate those who fight to protect their society from those who kill for money/fun/religion/psychosis/whatever. Huge difference. Violence in the cause of peace is not an oxymoron - its a requirement in world in which we are all imperfect.
CSharpner
Apr 27, 2010

Rank: 4.4 / 5 (5)
"Why?"

Is there anything to love about people who contemplate killing others?

As a scientist (and an engineer) it makes me ashamed that some of my 'brethren' would even contemplate working for such outfits - no matter the monetary benefits.


Do you feel the same about police? Or about big brothers that protect their smaller siblings? or about parents that protect their children? or about people that stand up to bullies? Would you have a free society lie down and be taken over by bad guys? To hate everything about the military makes no sense whatsoever. There ARE bad guys out there and our free societies have to protect our citizens and the military is how we do it. If it weren't for the allied forces in WWII, we'd either be all Nazis or under the old Japanese imperial army. No telling what evils would have evolved to this time had Hitler been allowed to pursue his desire to take over everything. I contemplate how to kill home invaders should the need ever arise.
LuckyBrandon
Apr 27, 2010

Rank: not rated yet
Yea simulate all those packs so they cn identify exactly what agents and weapons will affect their new robot soldiers...
antialias_physorg
Apr 27, 2010

Rank: 2.8 / 5 (9)
'Fighting to protect' is just a euphemism. What they really are is the bodyguards for the biggest bullies on the block. There is no difference here.

I expect scientists and engineers to understand that by having weapons you DONT make the world a safer place (I have given up on others being able to grasp this). But these groups should have the necessary brainpower to make the connection.

'Fighting for peace' is a short-term non-solution. Leading by _peaceful_ example (as in parenting) is the long term REAL solution.

Keeping up a military completely blocks that and we'll always live in fear. Violence (no matter with what intention) begets only more violence.
NotAsleep
Apr 27, 2010

Rank: 3.4 / 5 (5)
Antialias, you sound like someone that hasn't had to sacrifice a whole lot in your life. If someone came to your house and started taking everything you own, I suspect you wouldn't just stand there and let them do it.

Also, your anger is misguided. An overwhelming majority of military members don't WANT to be fighting a war. They do what they're told by leadership, by the President, on faith that he has a greater understanding and a more complete picture than they do. If you don't like the world the way it is, tell your senator.

In a realistic world, it's impossible for perfect equality in society. As such, you can be guaranteed that only the dead have seen the end of war
antialias_physorg
Apr 27, 2010

Rank: 3.6 / 5 (9)
They do what they're told by leadership, by the President, on faith that he has a greater understanding and a more complete picture than they do.

Great. So they are basically hitmen for whoever is in charge. That inspires my confidence. Not.

Someone who hands his brain in at the door and effectively says: "Tell me whom to shoot and I'll do it - no questions asked" does not command my respect, sorry.

The type of robotic research above basically leads to mechanized/robotic soldiers which make wars ever more palatable (the only reasons more wars aren't waged is because some soldiers come home in bodybags - and that might swing some voters the other way).

No, I have no confidence that politicians have a 'greater understanding' or are looking out for the 'good of the people'.

Giving them puppets that ask even _less_ questions than the current crop of brain-washed military dolts? Not a brilliant strategy.
rgw
Apr 27, 2010

Rank: 2.8 / 5 (6)
"Why?"
Is there anything to love about people who contemplate killing others?

All humans in all of evolution have contemplated killing others. Every ONE, Even you! Killing was mandated by nature, enjoyed by your enemies, justified by the church, subsidized by the aristocracy and mandated by the military. Only since Allies destroyed the Nazis and the Man-Diety mentality of Japanese military; only since America politically castrated the delusional 'Communist' oligarchies; and now America and a few allies, with a historically unprecedented, minimal degree of violence, are pacifying the religious lunatics by giving their subjugated masses total access to information.
'Dozing' you are as the first true attempt at eliminating historically rampant mass murder takes a step up the ladder of peace. Go back to myopic dozing, but feel free to be as stupid and arrogant as you like in a world where, for the first time, your idiocy is tolerated.
trekgeek1
Apr 27, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (10)
I think a couple of Ewoks could take that thing down with a log or two.
El_Nose
Apr 27, 2010

Rank: 4 / 5 (6)
@ant

I think most people agree with you in spirit just not in reality. Much like Communism is great on paper but makes for a purely corrupt government.

Ant I think you will agree Hitler had to be stopped. and it is for these needs that militaries are formed- and the main reason is protection of sovergnty being able to protect and defend you own borders is the true purpose of the beast.

Unfortunately we, the US, are fighting wars in other coutries in hopes to defer war on our shores and everyone from the top down recognizes it is futile except McCain and rqw

You are right we should strive for peace- but not at the cost of our children being enslaved. And while that statement might seem radical and outdated make no mistake slavery still exists on this planet and not as a metaphor.

Honestly why did everyone jump on this guys back for stating he is for peace. weren't we talking about the applications of the robotic
Sadistic Animalistic Targeted Killing Others Machine ;-)
CSharpner
Apr 27, 2010

Rank: 2.6 / 5 (5)
Just to be clear: We don't fight for "peace". We fight for "freedom"... Peace is easily achieved by surrender.

El_Nose is right. You have to have militaries to stop the Hitlers of the world. Not sure why El_Nose said that everyone but McCain recognizes our current wars are futile. I certainly don't believe that. But man, we are WAAAAY off topic now. :)
DozerIAm
Apr 27, 2010

Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
@rqw - are you picking on me with those "dozing" jabs? I think we are on the same side here.

@antialias_physorg - I suspect you are high school or college aged. As such, I am tempted to say "come back in 20 years and see if you feel the same", but I won't, because I just don't care THAT much about what you think. But, while you may be a useful idiot for some, you are just dangerous to me.

If you are truely pacifistic, I would respect you - but you're not. You are another one of those "we just need the right benevolent dictator" types. No thanks. I'll take my messy and needs to be protected freedom over your peace at the price of no freedom.
LuckyBrandon
Apr 27, 2010

Rank: not rated yet
ant-
so you just effectively every single veteran there is in the world....
Here's the thing...they have a thing called a PRISON TERM, which you do if you dont follow your orders (assuming the orders were important enough, such as a black ops mission)....

I myself am ex infantry, and went there with the specific goal of going to war...MOST infantry soldiers do, its entrenched so deeply into our brain that there's not much else to think about (since it is our job there)....I agree with the statement earlier though that many soldiers dont want to go to war..it just doesnt apply to infantry since without war, they dig holes...

If you think the soldiers coming home in body bags have any real influence on whether or not to go to war, or how often, you are sadly mistaken. Uncle Sam need only to reinstitute the draft to get as many soldiers as he wants...
rgw
Apr 27, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Dozer... Sorry if I misread. Getting old and short tempered, if not senile. Slowly dying of congential heart defect, (in spite of the open heart surgeries) after an extremely interesting life and eight kids and five grandkids so far. No chance to be a hero, just a grumpy old man who can not even wish for changes in his past as the consequences of such wishes/changes on the future of his children are too terrifying to contemplate.
Wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then...
blento
Apr 27, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
A=jump, B=duck, X=use, LT=aim, RT=shoot.
Give this robot and xbox controller to few million kids and none would be the wiser. Scary..... Can't wait for that old, scared, generation to die off.
Go_monkeys_
Apr 27, 2010

Rank: not rated yet
What an interesting discussion...
It seems like the flouridation program is working...
The point that got everyone excited was the suggestion that support of the military was indirectly support for war...
Now basically as a species on this planet, if we cant get over killing each other, i dont think we will last much longer. Oh yeah, then we get armies of robots to fight the wars for us... yeah that will work...

NeptuneAD
Apr 27, 2010

Rank: 1.3 / 5 (4)
Hmm, a functional algorithm for walking etc, get enough of those and some serious computing power and we will have a Terminator/Cylon.

In my opinion, the reasons we don't have a suitable long term power source yet are because one it would upset the oil industry and two it would have to be invented at a time when it fitted in with other technology or it would be obvious it was alien technology.
ffrankblu
Apr 28, 2010

Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
two Bloom boxes - each the size of a grapefruit - could wirelessly power a US home, fully replacing the power grid; one box could power a European home.
give it just 1-3 yrs, anything that can power a house can power a car and really power a exo-suit or robot.
NotAsleep
Apr 28, 2010

Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Two Bloom boxes, each the size of a grapefruit, would still require fuel to run. Unfortunately, even bloom boxes can't turn air into power... yet. Either way, I'm excited to see how effecient Bloom Energy can get their devices to run!
PinkElephant
May 01, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
I'll chime in, in support of antialias_physorg. I do believe that a viable and functional military must be maintained, as a weapon of last resort for the purposes of SELF-defense. However, that's not what our current military does, nor what it had done ever since the end of WWII.

The U.S. has by far the world's largest and most expensive "peace-time" military on the planet. And they're "defending our freedom" in all the oil-producing countries of the world. Any place that isn't producing large quantities of oil, no matter how oppressed and genocidal otherwise, doesn't get entangled in "our freedom" and isn't on our geopolitical radar. But those that are indeed oil-rich, must be inexorably subjected to U.S.-sanctioned despotism. When, after a few decades of rape and pillage, they finally get riled up and murderously pissed off, and lash out at us in retaliation, we go in deeper still and "protect our freedoms" even harder. Rinse, repeat. How very noble of us, to be so "free".
PinkElephant
May 01, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
It's also worthwhile to know that a decade of warfare in Afghanistan ultimately bankrupted and politically undermined the Soviet Union to the point of its disintegration.

Now, almost a decade of warfare in Afghanistan is bringing the U.S. no closer to resolving the mess. We find ourselves supporting a corrupt government dependent on an opium-fueled economy. In the meantime, our nation is going bankrupt, and squandering world-wide every ounce of political capital it has earned over the previous century.

Meanwhile the nation truly at the root of the problem -- Saudi Arabia -- which is the origin of Al Qaeda's vendetta against the West, and the sponsor of extremist Wahhabi Islamic indoctrination schools world-wide, remains our staunchest ally in the Middle East second only to Israel -- the other flaming torch in the Muslim beehive, and the epicenter of the modern resurrected Crusade for geopolitical control of the Middle East by the West.

Let's just cry "freedom", and avoid thinking.
gwrede
May 02, 2010

Rank: not rated yet
The picture is flawed. Obviously the artist is not familiar with engineering or mechanics.

The power and data cable is attached to the heel. This causes excessive wear on the cable, an asymmetric and chaotic moment on the feet, and loses energy by dangling violently during fast walking.

A real scientist would of course attach the cable in the back, somewhere between the neck and the waist.

I hope the artist, Lin Edwards, isn't on PhysOrg payroll.
DozerIAm
May 03, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
A real scientist would of course attach the cable in the back, somewhere between the neck and the waist.

Agree with your issue with the artest's depiction, disagree with your preferred location, as it would result in a non neutral stance (the pull and weight of the power/data lines would make it have to compensate mechanically).

Better to have it in a place that would be neutral in terms of balance impact. That leaves 2 places - top of the head or straight down from the groin area, between the legs.

Please, let it be from the top of the head!
Rank 4.6 /5 (17 votes)
Related Stories
Relevant PhysicsForums posts
  • Calling function with no input argument
    created2 hours ago
  • Force free body diagram problem on gym equipment
    created3 hours ago
  • Empirical data regarding shower heads and water
    created11 hours ago
  • feed hold button on CNC lathe
    createdFeb 09, 2012
  • RFAC in Fortran
    createdFeb 09, 2012
  • dynamics 2/32
    createdFeb 08, 2012
  • More from Physics Forums - General Engineering

More news stories

Japan scientist makes 'Avatar' robot

A Japanese-developed robot that mimics the movements of its human controller is bringing the Hollywood blockbuster "Avatar" one step closer to reality.

Electronics / Robotics

created 8 hours ago | popularity 5 / 5 (5) | comments 4

Google to make home entertainment system: report

Google will mirror Apple's winning hardware-software formula with an Android-powered entertainment system that wirelessly streams content through homes, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.

Electronics / Consumer & Gadgets

created 20 hours ago | popularity 4.5 / 5 (2) | comments 0

Barriers fall between TV, Internet

You say TV, I say Internet. Toe-mate-o, toe-mah-to.

Electronics / Consumer & Gadgets

created 22 hours ago | popularity not rated yet | comments 0

Intel packs performance and reliability into its latest SSD 520 series

Intel Corporation announced today its fastest, most robust client/consumer solid-state drive (SSD) to date, the Intel Solid-State Drive 520 Series (Intel SSD 520), a 6 gigabit-per-second (gbps) SATA III SSD ...

Electronics / Hardware

created Feb 07, 2012 | popularity 5 / 5 (1) | comments 4

Google rumored to have built Heads-Up-Display glasses prototype

(PhysOrg.com) -- 9to5Google is reporting that they have received a tip from someone they believe to be a reliable source saying that Google is working on a Heads-Up-Display (HUD) pair of eye-glasses. The per ...

Electronics / Consumer & Gadgets

created Feb 08, 2012 | popularity 4.3 / 5 (8) | comments 2 | with audio podcast weblog


Hovering not hard if you're top-heavy, researchers find

Top-heavy structures are more likely to maintain their balance while hovering in the air than are those that bear a lower center of gravity, researchers at New York University's Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences ...

Grass to gas: Researchers' genome map speeds biofuel development

Researchers at the University of Georgia have taken a major step in the ongoing effort to find sources of cleaner, renewable energy by mapping the genomes of two originator cells of Miscanthus x giganteus, a large perenn ...

Drug halts organ damage in inflammatory genetic disorder

A new study shows that Kineret (anakinra), a medication approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, is effective in stopping the progression of organ damage in people with neonatal-onset multisystem inflammatory disease ...

Cochlear implants may be safe, effective for organ transplant patients

Cochlear implants may be a safe, effective option for some organ transplant patients who've lost their hearing as an unfortunate consequence of their transplant-related drug regime, researchers report.

Researchers develop new method for creating tissue engineering scaffolds

Researchers at Northwestern University have developed a new method for creating scaffolds for tissue engineering applications, providing an alternative that is more flexible and less time-intensive than current technology.

Molecular profiling reveals differences between primary and recurrent ovarian cancers

There is a need to analyze tumor specimens at the time of ovarian cancer recurrence, according to a new study published in Molecular Cancer Therapeutics. Researchers used a diagnostic technology called molecular profiling to examine ...