Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.

The New Robotics Technology Set to Change the Construction Industry

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday January 23 2018, @02:31PM   Printer-friendly
from the building-a-more-robotic-tomorrow dept.

Phoenix666 writes:

Hadrian is not the first large-scale industrial robot that can complete a whole build from start to finish. It's not even the first outdoor construction robot.

What's remarkable is it's both. As Mike told me, "Anything you can build inside a factory ... we're getting really, really good at. Trouble is, nothing's happening outdoors."

That's because environmental factors like wind and temperature variations can make life difficult for robots outdoors.

Most robots can't adjust to small, quick changes in wind or temperature fast enough to keep up.

That's fine if little wobbles won't make a big difference. But when you're working on something as large-scale as building a house and a light breeze could lead to bricks being laid way out of position, it can get very dangerous.

So up till now, any robot building on such large scales had to be indoors in minutely controlled environments.

Hadrian has overcome this problem using the precision technology Dynamic Stabilisation Technology (DST). DST was developed in Perth by Mike's cousin, Mark Pivac, back in the early 2000s. The computer program measures environmental factors an astounding 2000 times per second, then accounts for them in real time.

If robots replace the construction workers, who then will wolf whistle?

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The New Robotics Technology Set to Change the Construction Industry | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 128 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 25 2018, @01:05AM (3 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 25 2018, @01:05AM (#627490)

    For most definitions of most.

    OPEC was a cartel, they only controlled a large fraction of the market, but by (legal in their countries) collusion they manipulated the market price - when they could manage to not undercut one another.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 25 2018, @01:09AM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 25 2018, @01:09AM (#627491) Journal

    For most definitions of most.

    By population. You're not going anywhere with the AT&T meander.

    OPEC was a cartel, they only controlled a large fraction of the market, but by (legal in their countries) collusion they manipulated the market price - when they could manage to not undercut one another.

    And no one here disagrees with that. A cartel is not a monopoly because it consists of multiple competing members.

    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 25 2018, @01:32AM (1 child)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 25 2018, @01:32AM (#627505)

      A cartel with enough market share to manipulate market prices, acting together to manipulate the market does run afoul of US anti-trust laws - when anybody steps up to enforce them.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 25 2018, @03:17AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 25 2018, @03:17AM (#627527) Journal
        Nobody is quibbling over the definition of cartel. And OPEC, despite being a cartel, isn't running afoul of US anti-trust laws because it is not subject to US jurisdiction.