Ground-based robotic systems: Military applications
A new formula from military scientists will lead to a new insight into how to build an energy-efficient teammate systems with legs for the combat fighters that have been dismantled.
In a recent paper reviewed by PLOS One, the US Army Combat Capability Development Command, known as DEVCOM, Dr. Alexander Coot, Sean Garrett, and Jason Possi provide new insights into building independent military robotic operating systems that provide The size of other mobile phones is efficient. Floor systems work.
Its use could lead to potentially significant changes in the development of military vehicles. Scientists say they may not yet know exactly why systems with bases, wheels and worms fit in a curve, but they believe their results will prompt further study.
“If vehicle developers recognize that due to a host of real-world constraints, a particular design may require more energy than it currently may, the new formula could meet specific needs for improved power transmission and production, or “Show the crime needs and speed of vehicles,” Garrett said.
How did four-legged drive systems start?
Inspired by a formula from the 1980s that shows the relationship between mass, speed and effort in animals, the team developed a new formula for a wide range of foot, wheel and caterpillar systems – such as cars and floor robots. It was usable.
Although much of the data has been available for 30 years, the team believes that they are the first to actually collect it and examine the relationships that result from this data. Their results show that legged systems are as efficient as wheeled platforms.
“In the world of drones and smart ammunition, unmanned infantry plays an increasing role, often advancing for several days and in erratic areas such as mountains,” said Cott, who works as a laboratory. “They are attacking dense forests and urban environments.” “Lead scientist” This is because such a site offers the most coverage and hiding from drones. This in turn requires pedestrians to be walked by vehicles that can move easily in such rough terrain. , Be supported.
One of the problems with foot robots, Koot said, is that they appear to have poor energy efficiency, which limits their ability to work with soldiers on fruitless battlefields.
“Over the past 30 years, U.S. military scientists have faced many challenges in producing autonomous vehicles,” Koot said. “Land vehicles maneuvering on wheels or rails, and small aircraft that look like small planes that we call fixed-wing aircraft, and small helicopters, which are rotating wing aircraft, can now be quieter and more comfortable in the formations,” he added. “Power to integrate. But there are still many obstacles for foot platforms.” Unattainable, and a huge factor in saving their energy. “
“Soldiers are not capable of carrying fuel or batteries for ‘energy-thirsty robots with legs,'” he said.
This paper examines whether mobile ground-based systems show a constant trend between mass, power and velocity.
Conception of military robotic systems
As a starting point, the team examined the scaling formula proposed in the 1980s to estimate the mechanical force exerted by an animal of a given mass to move at a given speed, and compared it with a number of artificial mechanical systems in sizes , Compared different weights and powers that are autonomous or driven by humans.
The team found the answer to their research question: A fixed and similar relationship actually applies to ground-based systems that cover vehicles of different types over a wide range of masses.
Coet stated that this relationship is surprisingly the same in systems with legs, wheels, and caterpillars. “These results show that man-made platforms should be as efficient as platforms with wheels and chains,” he said.
To conduct this study, the team collected various data of the terrestrial-mobile system from a review of the literature of previous studies and published the data set.
They looked at different sizes and morphologies in a data set that included systems that included, for example, a 17th-century English cannon, a Ford Model T, an M1 Abrams tank, and an ACELA handle.
Garrett said his research focuses on the development of mobile ground systems because it helps designers determine the deals between power, speed and mass for future ground robots for defensive applications.
One of the army’s goals, he said, is to produce new types of automated or semi-autonomous ground vehicles to supply troops in difficult areas.
“To move equipment, it must be able to carry a certain weight or mass at a certain time or speed,” Garrett said.
The difference is after that. People are much less inclined to reciprocate with artificial intelligence, but use its benevolence to their advantage. Let’s go back to the example of traffic: a human driver gives way to another human, but not a car.
What does this study suggest?
“We put people in a personal position to interact with an artificial substance for the first time, as happens in traffic,” explains the doctor. Jurgis Karpus, actor theorist and behavioral game philosopher at LMU Munich and the first author of the course. “We modeled different types of social interactions and found the same pattern in the systems. People expected artificial agents to work together as their counterparts. However, they were not as reciprocal and used artificial intelligence more than humans.”
Using theories of game theory, cognitive science, and philosophy, researchers have found that “algorithm exploitation” is a powerful phenomenon. They repeated their results in 9 experiments with nearly 2,000 human participants.
Each experiment examines different types of social interactions and allows individuals to decide whether to compromise and cooperate or to act selfishly. The expectations of other players were also measured. In a popular, prisoner dilemma game, people have to trust that other characters will not disappoint them. They risked the same with humans and artificial intelligence, but most likely betrayed AI trust to make more money.
The researchers said the formula could roughly estimate the amount of power a car needs.
“The military needs to create practical but ambitious goals to exchange the performance, speed and mass of future ground-based robots,” Kot said. “It is not desirable to base such goals on current experience, because military hardware systems is often produced and used for years or even decades. Therefore, the designers of such hardware do not necessarily need to fully understand their goals – competitive but feasible. Achievement – based on future technology possibilities at the time of design. “
The formula in this paper sets such a goal and can allow the military to predict the future performance of ground platforms such as foot robots by considering design constraints such as vehicle and engine weight and optimum speed.
Adapted from: Science daily.