Background
This chapter addresses the question of why robotics has failed to
achieve the ambitions and expectations of the early pioneers in the
field. A method is then suggested for circumventing some of the problems
encountered in robotics which sets the context for the implementation
of a web telerobot.
The beginning of robotics
The Czech playwright Karel Capek (pronounced "chop'ek") is usually
credited with inventing the word 'robot' from the Polish and Czeck word
"robota" which means compulsory labour (Lundquist June 1998). The use of
the word 'Robot' was introduced by his play R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal
Robots) which opened in Prague in January 1921 (Dowling 1993).
A scene from one of the early productions of R.U.R. (Paulos 1995a)
Figure 1
In the play, a man named Rossum runs a factory that makes robots by
chemical means which turn out to be excellent workers. At first the
products sell extremely well but later the robots become more advanced
and begin to think for themselves. Eventually they rise up to overcome
their human masters. This has set the scene for much of the subsequent
enthusiasm and fear surrounding real robots. One of the earliest
mechanical robot devices was a mechanical lion built around 1500 by
Leonardo Da Vinci. Since then, many other mechanical devices have
appeared imitating activities from life. Nikola Tesla built the first
teleoperated radio controlled vehicles in the1890's. Tesla is better
known as the inventor of the induction motor, AC power transmission, and
numerous other electrical devices (Dowling 1993). The 1932 London Radio
Exhibition featured several robots that could bow, make speeches and
read newspapers (Marsh 1982:62). According to Dowling (1993) the first
automata in the research community were probably Grey Walter's machina
(1940's).
The first industrial modern robots were the Unimates developed by
George Devol and Joe Engleberger in the late 50's and early 60's.

Unimate - The first industrial robot
Figure 2
The first robotics related patents were taken out by Devol for parts
transfer machines but it was Engleberger who formed the company
'Unimation' and who was the first to market robots. Consequently,
Engleberger has been called the 'father of robotics'. The first robot to
work in a factory was installed by Engelberger in 1961 for unloading
hot castings from a die casting machine in a car factory run by General
Motors at Trenton, New Jersey. Robots differed from existing factory
automation by being flexible rather than purpose built. They were
intended to be general purpose machines suitable for a range of tasks
as with a human worker. Growth was slow for some years thereafter, with
no more than 700 machines worldwide by 1970. The 1970's however saw
substantial growth in the use of industrial robots with about 8,000
robots worldwide by 1978 (Marsh 1982:67).
What was predicted for
robotics
Robotics expanded in the late 70's and early 80's when it was widely
believed that robots would revolutionise manufacturing. Much was written
on robotics and there was almost universal optimism in the future of
robotics. They were considered the key to flexible manufacturing.
Previously machines were specialised. They performed a specific
function or class of functions (eg. milling, drilling, turning etc).
Most machines were manually controlled and generally the more automated
the machine, the more specific the task it could accomplish. With
robots, on the other hand, flexible manufacturing was feasible. The same
machine could be used for many different tasks requiring only
reprogramming and perhaps the fitting of a different tool or
end-effector. This would allow short production runs, and make it easy
to tailor basic products to each customer's requirements. In a
well-argued book, Ullrich (1983) predicts that for small batches, human
labour would be cheaper and for large batches purpose built automation
would be ideal. The opportunity for robotics would lie in the mid range
where they would provide the cheapest production solution as illustrated
in Figure 3.

The shaded area shows the niche in manufacturing that Ullrich believed
robots would fill. For small batches, human labour would be cheaper and
for large batches purpose built automation would be ideal. In the mid
range, robots would provide the cheapest production solution. (Ullrich
1983:39)
Figure 3
Ullrich (1983), provides sales figures for robots in the USA and
presents sales predictions for the next ten years. Ullrich states sales
to be US$100 million in 1980, US$155 million in 1981 and estimates sales
of between US$3.5 billion and US$5 billion by 1992 (Ullrich 1983:39).
He states that "till now the majority of robots employed in this country
have been used in two types of applications - spot welding and
materials handling. However the majority of robots purchased by 1990
will be assigned to materials handling and assembly work." (Ullrich
1983:50). "The implication ...is that the present market for assembly
and materials handling robots of approximately US$80 million per year in
sales will grow, at the outside to, US$3.7 billion per year by 1992."
(Ullrich 1983:50). The major motivation for this growth would be reduced
labour costs.
Osborne (1983) describes the robots used in the early 1980's,
their applications and fairly simple control systems and then goes on to
discuss potential applications and the likely effect on labour
relations. Zeldman (1984) presents similar arguments and is another
example of the prevailing views of the time. There was tremendous
optimism in the impact that robots would have on manufacturing,
predictions of explosive growth, and an expectation that future robots
would be extremely versatile.
Much discussion was directed towards the social impact that this
revolution would bring and how we could handle the leisure age which it
heralded. Marsh (1982) promoted manufacturing robots as the saviours of
Britain. He begins with the history of industrialisation and then
projects forward on the assumption that robots represent the next phase
of the revolution. Simons (1980) thought it likely that intelligent,
versatile robots would emerge and that this would have a major impact on
industry, education, medicine and activities in the home. He believed
that "there will be consequences for our attitudes to human creativity
and intelligence". He acknowledged the limitations of existing robots
and the impossibility of existing robots carrying out simple tasks that
people perform effortlessly. However, he felt that "it seems highly
likely" that people already alive would encounter machines at least as
intelligent and capable as themselves.
Although commentators differed as to the rate at which robotics
would be taken up and what the societal impacts would be, there was a
strong consensus that humankind was at the beginning of a robot age,
that the near future would see substantial growth in robot numbers and
that the impact on society would be significant.
What has occured with
robotics
Robot growth has been substantial since Ullrich's (1983:39)
predictions. This is most notable in Japan where robot usage has been
higher than any other nation. Figure 4 illustrates the numbers of robots
per 10,000 employees in industry in Japan between 1981 and 1995.

The number of robots in Japanese industry is higher than other nations.
Numbers continue to increase but the growth rate is declining (Robotics
and Europe 1997).
Figure 4
The number of robots in Japanese industry has expanded every year for
this period. The growth rate, however, has declined in most years and
the rate of growth is small from 1993 to 1995. Other nations where robot
usage is high are Sweden, Germany, Italy and Korea but remains
considerably lower than Japan where, in 1995, the number of robots per
10,000 employees in industry is more than three times higher than the
next largest country, Korea. The number of robots employed per 10,000
employees in industry in Sweden, Germany, Italy and Korea is shown in
Figure 5.

The number of robots in use in Sweden, Italy Germany and Korea is less
than a third of the numbers used in Japan. Additionally, the period of
high growth differs between nations (Robotics and Europe 1997).
Figure 5
Figure 5 also shows that the period of high growth in the use of
robots has occured later in some nations. Sweden had a high number of
robots in use by 1981 but has experienced slow growth since. By
contrast, relatively few robots were used in Korea until 1990 but then
five years of high growth has lifted the number of robots in industry to
higher levels than most other countries. The differences between
countries are explained partly by substantial government promotion and
support for robot technology in some countries and not others. The best
example is Japan where the government has provided special leasing
arrangements, depreciation rates, tax reductions, loans, and grants for
robotic initiatives. Japanese government funded research projects
include "Robots in Extreme-Environments" which ended in March 1991 and
focused on robot use in nuclear power plants, oceans, disasters,
petroleum ($145million US) and "Micromachine Technology", 1991-2001
($181million US) to develop microtechnologies for medical and industrial
applications (Kahaner 1991). Such support is likely to explain the
higher numbers of robots in Japan.
In addition, the European Community has provided substantial
support for robotics which is a major component of three framework
programs: 1984-87, 1987-91, and 1990-94. The funding for the third
framework program was US$6,840 million (Kahaner 1993). Italy had a
national program called the Italian Targeted Project on Robotics funded
by the National Research Council over 5 years commencing in 1989 with
funding of US$52 million (Cugini et al. 1996). Another country with
substantial government sponsorship for automation is Singapore with
incentives (Deloitte & Touche 1994) including:-
- The Investment Allowance Scheme, a tax incentive scheme that
provides an allowance of up to 50% of the cost of new automation
machinery.
- The Design for Automation Scheme which provides grants of up to
70% of approved costs
- The Extended Automation Leasing Scheme provides low-interest
financing of automation investment.
- The Industry-Wide Automation Development Program provides
grants of up to 70% of approved project costs.
This has led to sales in Singapore of 8000 robots in 1995, (Robotics
and Europe 1997) a significant proportion being for the assembly of disk
drives.
It seems likely that, over time, the differences in robot usage
between countries will diminish as government support is reduced and the
more successful applications are adopted throughout the world. As the
use of robot technology is continuing to increase, the tendency will be
for the countries with lower robot densities in manufacturing to
approach those with higher densities.
Investment in robotics can also be compared to investment in
machine tools and investment levels generally. Figure 6 shows the
relationship between the percentage change in output, general investment
levels, machine tool investment and robot investment in the USA.

World Industrial Robots 1996 (Robotics and Europe 1997)
Figure 6
Prior to 1981 rates of growth in investment generally and machine
tool investment were high. Growth rates of investment in industrial
robots were greater than fifty percent annually. With the recession of
1983, investment contracted at an annual rate of 20% generally and
machine tool investment contracted at close to 40% but industrial
robotics maintained a 20% growth rate. As general investment bounced
back in 1984, investment in industrial robotics soared again. However,
in 1987, everything changed. Investment in machine tools again
contracted but investment in industrial robotics contracted even more
sharply reaching negative 30%. Investment growth became positive again
in 1988 and from then on investment in industrial robotics has largely
matched the investment trends in machine tools. Interestingly, the two
periods of high growth in robot investment coincided with declines in
the growth rate of gross output.
Robotics is still growing at a healthy rate but is now a maturing
industry. Robots have never achieved the generality of purpose
originally anticipated, however machine tools and materials handling
equipment have become more 'robot like' as sophistication increases so
that the boundaries between robots, machine tools and materials handling
equipment are blurring. Table 1 shows the market for robots in the
major industrial countries and worldwide in 1993 and 1995. This enables a
comparison with Ullrich's predictions of 1983.
The Market for Robots US$ millions
|
|
1993
|
1995
|
Japan
|
1,788
|
2,487
|
USA
|
559
|
898
|
Germany
|
391
|
577
|
Italy
|
173
|
232
|
France
|
71
|
116
|
UK
|
32
|
54
|
Subtotal
|
3,015
|
4,364
|
Total World
|
3,700
|
5,700
|
World Industrial Robots 1996 (Robotics and Europe 1997)
Table 1
The sales figures for robots show that Ullrich's predictions for the
market have never been realised. In 1993, US sales reached half a
billion dollars compared with Ullrich's predictions of US$3.5 billion to
US$5 billion by 1992. This suggests that Ullrich (1983:39) was
publishing towards the end of the large growth phase in US robot
investment rather than at the beginning as he supposed. The golden age
of growth in industrial robotics finished in the USA in 1987. However
Table 1 also shows that robot sales worldwide continue to expand at a
healthy rate with more than 50% growth in sales between 1993 and 1995.
The sales figures show the value of robots sold but the numbers
sold also depends on the unit cost. Table 2 illustrates changes in the
unit price of robots between 1991 and 1995.
Unit Price of Robots US$1,000
|
|
1991
|
1995
|
USA
|
105
|
88
|
Germany
|
103
|
79
|
Italy
|
131
|
74
|
France
|
115
|
84
|
UK
|
79
|
68
|
Total
|
108
|
82
|
World Industrial Robots 1996 (Robotics and Europe 1997)
Table 2
As shown above the unit price of robots is declining having decreased by
24% between 1991 and 1995. Therefore, the increase in numbers of robots
sold between 1991 and 1995 worldwide is greater than would be indicated
from the sales data alone. The drop in unit costs is also consistent
with a maturing industry. The operational stock of robots depends on the
accumulated sales less the number of robots retired from service. Table
3 presents figures on the number of units for the six major
industrialised countries individually and totally and for East and West
Europe, Asia and worldwide.
Operational Stock of Robots
|
|
1000 Units 1995
|
Growth Rate 1995/94
|
Japan
|
387
|
2.7
|
USA
|
66
|
16.1
|
Germany
|
51
|
13.3
|
Italy
|
23
|
11.5
|
France
|
13
|
8
|
UK
|
8
|
2.4
|
Big Six
|
550
|
5.6
|
W Europe-8
|
22
|
12.7
|
E Europe-6
|
1
|
11.1
|
Asia-4
|
38
|
40.7
|
World
|
650
|
6.2
|
World Industrial Robots 1996 (Robotics and Europe 1997)
Table 3
Table 3 shows that by 1995 there was a worldwide operational stock of
650,000 robots worldwide and the majority of the operational robots were
in advanced industrialised countries, with more than half in Japan
alone. However, it also shows the high growth rates were in Asia where
the operational stock is low. This is consistent with Figure 5, which
also showed high growth rates occurring at different times in different
nations.
An alternative to comparing nations for the level of robot usage is to
compare industries. This comparison is made in Figure 7 which shows
robot usage per 10,000 employees in automotive, electrical, machinery,
metal products, mechanical and electrical and other manufacturing
industries in a variety of countries.

World Industrial Robots 1996 (Robotics and Europe 1997)
Figure 7
Figure 7 shows that in 1994 the number of robots per employee was
lower overall for non automotive manufacturing. It is possible that the
greater use of robots in the automotive industry is a historical legacy
of their early use in this sector. However, the capital investment
required for automotive manufacture is much greater than many other
forms of manufacture and the large capital cost of robots may be less of
a disincentive to a more complete adoption of the technology than in
other manufacturing industries. As the number of robots employed
continues to increase and the cost of robot technology continues to
decline it is likely that the use of robot technology in other
industries will approach the levels achieved in the automotive industry.
It was anticipated by Marsh (1982), Ullrich (1983), Osborne
(1983), Zeldman (1984), and others that the driving force for growth
would be cost saving from the replacement of human labour. This
initiated the public interest in robotics at the time, which focussed on
ideas of reduced future requirements for human labour and the
consequent social impacts. Almost all robotic publications at the time,
including those cited above, discussed the social impact of the
widespread redundancy of human labour.
In 1993, at the 24th ISIR Special Session on National Policy for
Promotion of R&D and Diffusion/Popularization of Industrial Robots,
the focus remained on the labour related cost savings that could be
achieved with robotics. Mr. Toshio Adachi (Ministry of International
Trade and Industry Japan) predicted (Kahaner 1993) that the annual rate
of 0.4% labor growth will begin to shrink from 1994 to 2000. The
prospect for Japan was:-
- A steady decline in the labor force necessitating more reliance
on robots.
- An increasing demand for preventing industrial accidents.
- A move towards shorter labour hours.
Also A/Prof. Aun-Neow Poo (Director, Post-Graduate School of
Engineering, National University of Singapore) explained "In the early
1980s, in order to maximise its human resources (Singapore's only
resource) and to remain competitive, Singapore directed its efforts
towards attracting more high-value-added, capital- and skills-intensive
industries… It was clear (in the early 1980s) that Singapore will have
to increasingly compete on productivity and quality rather than on
low-cost labor. The government (through the Economic Development Board,
EDB, and the Singapore Science Council - now known as the National
Science and Technology Board, NSTB) began to aggressively promote
automation, high-technology and R&D as a major goal of its economic
policy" (Kahaner 1993).
But the discussion at the ISIR special session was more sober
than in previous years. Gone were the speculative debates on the
anticipated dramatic social change. By 1993, it could be seen that the
versatility and social impact of robotics had previously been
over-estimated.
At the 27th ISIR in 1996, the plenary session was devoted to a
review of achievements in robotics and likely future directions. Schraft
and Merklinger (1996), in their contribution to this session,
documented the change in public attitude to robotics. "In this context
the expectations and even apprehensions toward the first industrial
robots were immense. They were expected to solve almost any problem with
ease and excellence". This was contrasted with the situation in 1996
where "public opinion shows little interest in robotics" however the
attitude of unions towards industrial robots has changed. Union leaders
in Germany regard automation and robotics as vital to keep their fields
of industry competitive and therefore to maintaining employment. Schraft
and Merklinger conclude that "the development of industrial robots has
achieved a high degree of maturity" and suggest a number of new areas
that seemed promising including construction, agriculture, environmental
protection and the care-taking sector. Many of these application areas
can be broadly termed service robotics and the opportunities for service
robotics was a theme of the session and was particularly emphasised by
Joseph Engelberger in the keynote speech. The idea of service robotics
has come into prominence in more recent years, being the theme of
conferences such as Field and Service Robotics 97 held at the Australian
National University Canberra in December 1997. The prospect for high
growth in service robotics is considered in the following section.
Service robots - will they be the new revolution?
Many robotics practitioners envisage increasing opportunities for
growth in the area of service robots, operating outside industrial
environments. The strongest proponent of his view is the 'father of
robotics', Joseph Engelberger. Engelberger's 1989 book, Robotics In
Service, was a response to a study sponsored by the Society of
Manufacturing Engineers in 1985 which forecasted areas of robot
application through to 1995. This study suggested that sales outside
proven factory jobs would amount to less than 1% of the market.
Engelberger, however, claimed that applications outside traditional
industrial environments would constitute the largest class of robot
applications by 1995. Although this has not happened, the book has much
to say that is still pertinent. This is partly because of Engelberger's
status and partly because he sets out the philosophical basis that has
underpinned his own efforts and those of many other researchers in
succeeding years. The first part of Engelberger's book contains a
discussion of the current state of robot technology and the second part
is dedicated to service applications. He is very positive about the
opportunities for service robots stating that "before 1995 it may dawn
on the Robotics Industry Association that service robots will surely
outstrip industrial robots. It is quite conceivable that one or more of
the applications described below will generate larger sales volumes than
all industrial applications." (Engelberger 1989:129). Engelberger then
considers a number of potential applications which are described and
compared with later developments in the following sections. Also
included is a review of the Autonomous Land Vehicle project which is
another ambitious service application.
Autonomous land vehicle
project
The Autonomous Land Vehicle Project, sponsored by the US Defence
Advanced Research Projects Agency, was intended to serve as a test bed
for the ongoing research on mobile robots relating to perception and
planning (Burger and Bhanu 1992:2). See Figure 8.
The concept envisaged at the early stages of the Autonomous Land Vehicle
Project as illustrated by Burger and Banhu (Burger and Bhanu 1992).
Figure 8
As described by Burger and Banhu (1992), it is an attempt to use a
vision system to form a model of an environment which is then used to
control an Autonomous Land Vehicle. The environment model is generated
from images captured by a camera moves through the scene with the
vehicle. At the stage reported, all motion was inferred from image
analysis rather than measuring vehicle forward movement by odometry or
other means. The motion flow field is analysed to estimate the robots
motion, reconstruct the 3D scene and evaluate the motion of individual
objects in the scene. Vehicle motion is determined by matching features
in successive images with displacement vectors. A qualitative model of
the environment is constructed and dynamically modified. Where more than
one interpretation is possible, multiple models are constructed and
updated until disproved. Ways of reducing the large number of
alternative models that can develop were considered by Burger and Banhu.
They suggested that object recognition would aid in determining which
features are on the one object and for providing constraints on the
interpretation, depending on the properties of the object but this is
not implemented in the system developed. The vision system developed was
not actually used in real time and feature tracking between images was
done manually. This provides a good example where the magnitude of the
task precludes application of the techniques developed.
The project has continued in a number of guises, the most recent
being the Unmanned Ground Vehicle Demo II program which is described by
Thorpe (1997) after its completion in September 1997. At the final
demonstration, "two vehicles demonstrated cooperative cross country
mobility. They were given a series of 6 locations to visit, and jointly
decide on the optimal assignment of goals to vehicles, given what they
knew about the terrain. As they moved, they discovered obstacles that
were not in their pre-mission map. Navlab 2 used a real time stereo
machine for obstacle detection, and Navlab 4 used a new scanning laser
range finder…The vehicles avoided the local obstacles, entered them into
their maps, replanned the optimal trajectories to the goal, transmitted
the updated maps to their sister vehicle, and re-evaluated the
assignment of goals." The techniques used to control the two vehicles in
the successful demonstration in 1997 were very different from those
described by Burger and Banhu in 1992 and the project team has been
unable to develop an autonomous land vehicle to a point where it is
sufficiently flexible, robust and economical for military use.
The project originally concentrated on cross-country driving and
military missions, but has been subsumed into a project funded by the US
Department of Transportation concentrating on highway vehicles. This
work is undertaken as part of the of the National Automated Highway
Systems Consortium (NAHSC) which commenced development of a prototype
Automated Highway in 1994 (Thorp 1997). A major milestone for the
automated highway project was the requirement, in 1997, to demonstrate
'proof of technical feasibility'. "In the five weeks of preparing the
demo and four days of actual runs, the CMU team logged 12,500 autonomous
miles, and carried 1400 passengers. A small fraction, less than 1% were
run in manual mode due to various system glitches" (Thorp 1997). This
suggests that the technical issues are very nearly solved which would
lead some to think that such systems would be in use in the near future.
Nevertheless, the next steps in the project plan involve refining the
designs, selecting among different functions and technologies, and
building a prototype system by the year 2002 and Thorpe (1997),
expressed doubt that the project plan will be achieved. The issues that
remain to be solved include accommodating adverse weather, road
conditions, managing the transfer between driver and autonomous control,
interacting with other vehicles, reliability, safety and avoiding the
glitches.
Fast food service
In the early 1960s, AMF (a large American ten pin bowling company),
following success with its automatic pin spotters, attempted to create
an automatic fast food restaurant. Millions of dollars went into AMFARE
yet it was a failure. In 1989, Engelberger felt that the time was then
right for AMFARE believing it would not fail thirty years after the
first attempt. In the ten years since then, automation has in fact
increased in fast food outlets but much of this equipment is purpose
built rather than of the general purpose type generally considered to be
robotics.
Farming
Although farm automation has revolutionised the production of food,
"In general the equipment is highly specialised and purpose built but it
is not robotic in nature" (Engelberger 1989:152). Engelberger argued,
there are jobs on the farm suitable for automation with programmable and
sensate robotic equipment. He cites two examples; sheep shearing and
fruit picking. Fruit picking has not been robotised by 1998 and sheep
shearing remains one of the most ambitious robotics applications
developed but not adopted.
Trevelyan provided an interesting study of this project
(Trevelyan 1992). The robot was required to shear sheep of varying
sizes and shapes, which required adaptive control. The project was
conceived in 1972 when Australian Merino Wool Harvesting (AMWH), a
woolgrower based organisation, commenced tentative work. In 1975 the
CSIRO [ ] produced a simple automated machine that could strike shearing
blows along the back of a sheep. Work commenced at the University of
Western Australia in 1976 and the AMWH stepped up their work in late
1980 changing their name to Merino Wool Harvesting (MWH) in 1981. Their
plan was to build a laboratory robot followed by a field trial version
within 18 months (Trevelyan 1992:197). From this time, the University of
Western Australia research effort and that of MWH operated in
competition. MWH failed in August 1990 after spending approximately
A$10.5 million. The University of Western Australia spent nearly A$7
million between 1976 and 1993 and demonstrated fully automatic shearing
taking about 17 minutes for each sheep. The laboratory prototype system
performed over 200 demonstrations between 1989 and 1993.

SM Robot: A part of the UWA shearing system. (Trevelyan 1992)
Figure 9
In 1993 estimates were that between A$20 million and A$35 million was
required to fully commercialise the concept (Trevelyan 1996). The wool
industry in Australia spends at least $400 million (Trevelyan 1992:373)
on shearing annually and in these terms and that of large engineering
projects the investment required is not large. The economic prospects of
the project, however, have not been sufficiently attractive to overcome
the perceived risks associated with radical changes in the industry.
Instead, a small company has begun to adapt the sheep handling equipment
developed in conjunction with the robot for use in manual shearing.
Some farming applications have been developed and are in use.
Some examples are Billingsley's simple but effective mobile robot for
training horses illustrated in Figure 10 and automatic guidance of
agricultural vehicles to relieve the driver of the stressful task of
maintaining accurate steering with respect to the plants (Billingsley
and Schoenfisch 1997).

Plan view and Side view of Robocow mechanism. (Billingsley et al. 1997)
Figure 10
Automotive fuel filling
In 1989, Engelberger argued that the only obstacle to robotic
refuelling of motor vehicles was lack of imagination and not
technological impediment. Numerous efforts have been made to automate
the task of vehicle refuelling that on the surface appears simple. In
1996, three robotic fuel filling systems were reported to be in use
(Busse 1996) but all three are limited to a few vehicle types and
require extensive modification of the vehicle fuelling mechanisms. The
systems are used by large fleet owners and there seems little likelihood
that such systems will be used generally. Schraft et al (1996) have
developed a different system which requires only a special filler cap
costing a few dollars to be fitted to the automobile and the addition of
a transponder to provide vehicle type identification. It can refuel
over 80% of vehicles which have the filler cap on the right hand side of
the vehicle. To accommodate the non-standard nature of automobile fuel
filling they have had to overcome a variety of technical issues
including vehicle identification and localisation, device kinematics,
sensing and docking and safety issues. However, the issues of cost and
convincing the service station operators and ultimately the public to
use the system remains.
Commercial cleaning
This is an application to which many researchers have turned their
attention including a project by Jung et al (1997). Several devices have
been produced. As Engelberger recognised, all the technical issues
required for tasks like floor cleaning are solvable, but the issue of
cost remains. Producing a reliable and efficient device which is cheap
enough to be economically viable is the challenge. As Engelberger
observed, "the environment of the average private home is likely to be
more cluttered and less predictable than that of a factory or
supermarket…One is therefore justified in expecting janitorial robotics
to reach commercial success before we see full-fledged autonomous
household robots in service" (Engelberger 1989:146). As janitorial
robotics is still not widespread, household devices are probably a long
way off.
One problem for robot cleaner developers is that large open areas
are most amenable to robotic solutions but they can be already cleaned
economically with ride on cleaners. Interestingly, the most successful
automatic cleaning device to appear in recent times is the "Creepy
Crawly" swimming pool vacuum cleaner. This very effective device uses
the opposite approach to that advocated by Engelberger. Rather than
using sophisticated sensing and control, it has a simple hydraulic motor
driving the cleaning head forward and an ingenious mechanical design
that varies its direction in a random manner so that, eventually, the
entire pool is vacuumed.
Jobs in hazardous
environments
Space is an application area to which Engelberger devotes
considerable attention. In space, robotics and in particular
telerobotics has had great success in the intervening years. The recent
investigation of Mars by Sojourner (see Figure 11) captured the
attention of the world more than any other activity in space has done
for a considerable time.

The Sojourner. A robotic application that has proved to be very
successful (Goodall 1995)
Figure 11
The economics of robotics in space are much more favourable than
terrestrial applications due to the inordinate cost of transporting
people into space and sustaining them in the hostile environment. This
suggests that the development and use of robots in space is likely to
increase.
Engelberger argues, in 1989, that underwater vehicles provide
another area of opportunity for service robotics. He describes some
existing Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROV's) and states "the next step on
the robotic road is to give the underwater vehicles one or more arms
that can be used by shipboard operators in the teleoperator
mode"(Engelberger 1989:191-196). In 1998, teleoperated robotic arms are a
routine ROV attachment and there are several companies selling and
operating ROV equipment for undersea drill support, general
construction, inspection and maintenance tasks. Two models sold by Perry
Tritech are illustrated in Figure 12. These vehicles are expensive,
ranging from US$500,000 to US$5,000,000 for a vehicle fitted with heavy
duty manipulators and hydraulic tooling.

Medium size ROVs with manipulators from the extensive Pery Tritech Range
(Tritech 1998)
Figure 12
The increasing popularity of ROVs has arisen from the need to replace
or have a backup for the deep sea diver, which is primarily for safety
as operating depths are increased.
Underground mining was seen by Engelberger (1989:191-196) as a
fertile application area. He particularly emphasised the applicability
of the load haul dump (LHD) operation for robotising. Such a vehicle is
illustrated in Figure 13.

A Load Haul Dump Vehicle (LHD) used in underground mining.
Figure 13
The LHD collects material from the newly blasted mine face where the
roof is unsupported and dangerous. A bucket load is carried along a
tunnel, an operation known as tramming, and dumped on a conveyor to
carry the material to the surface. Each cycle generally takes about one
minute.
There are now many mines where the operator has been removed from
the LHD. In the simplest systems such as those sold by Remote Control
Technologies in Perth, Australia, the operator observes the vehicle from
a safe distance and works the vehicle controls from a hand held device.
A system known as RoboMiner (Figure 15) sold by Automated Mining
Systems Inc. of Canada uses teleoperation from a remote operator station
(Figure 14).

The Operators Station of the teleoperated LHD System sold by Automated
Mining Systems Inc. of Canada (1998)
Figure 14
A Teleoperated LHD at work and built by Automated Mining Systems Inc. of
Canada (1998)
Figure 15
At Mount ISA Mines in Queensland, Australia, a separately developed
teleoperated LHD vehicle system is in operation. During 1998, the system
is being upgraded to reduce the load on the LHD operator by automating
the tramming portion of the cycle in a joint project between the CSIRO
and the Australian Centre for Field Robotics (Dissanayake et al. 1997).
The vehicle will still be teleoperated but a portion of the cycle will
be automated. Interestingly the path being followed in the automation of
this application is incremental. This contrasts with the manual to
autonomous step proposed for the the Sheep Shearing and Autonomous Land
Vehicle projects.
Other service robot
applications
Engelberger regarded the building industry as suitable for robotic
solutions. Since 1989, some systems have been built, others attempted
and some researchers continue to investigate robotics for building, for
example O'Brien (1997) who has proposed a unified theory of construction
activity. However building is a field on which robotics has had little
impact.
Security services provide another application which Engelberger
regarded as suitable for robotisation. Many research systems for this
purpose have been built and some marketed. These systems are a mobile
platform with sensors that report to a human when an alert condition is
detected. Robot security services compete with fixed devices including
video cameras, smoke detectors and intrusion sensors that can be quite
cheap to install and operate. Existing systems use sensors linked to a
central station, sometimes through radio links or high frequency signals
transmitted through the power lines thereby obviating the need to
install cabling. Therefore, it is a challenge to build a mobile sensate
device that can compete with these systems.
Engelberger regarded aiding the handicapped and elderly as
another suitable application including help with locomotion, fetching
and carrying and preparing meals. This remains an area where robotics
has made few inroads.
Household robots
The final chapter of Robotics in Service was devoted to domestic
robots, which Engelberger regarded as "the penultimate robot"
(Engelberger 1989:218). He describes a number of personal robots that
were sold in the early 1980's: "Their appearance was followed by a
flurry of personal bankruptcies…The robot was doomed by a gross
discrepancy between hype and actual capability." They sold in the price
range US$1,500-US$8,000. As a tool they were useless and as a toy too
costly. He considers they should be able to:-
- Vacuum floors
- Scrub floors
- Wash windows
- Set table
- Clear table
- Wash dishes
- Cook convenience foods
- Maintain appliances
- Do laundry
- Clean bathrooms
- Shovel snow
- Cut grass
- Security
- Firefighting
- Store and log food, tools etc.
- Geriatric companion
According to Engelberger the primary reason for the failure of
household robots was that the level of microcomputer power available at
the time limited their intelligence. He concludes that: "by the time
this book is published the technology reported will have already been
enhanced. By the time that development is complete for a robot that is
physically able to cope with a household, the sensory, control and AI
attributes available will make the robotic automaton the servant of
choice" (Engelberger 1989:233-234). While recognising that there were
still difficulties to overcome, Engelberger believed that such a device
could be built economically in the near future. However, it still
requires some imagination to predict that such devices will be in
available soon, even in 1998.
Surgeons assistant
Engelberger (1989:130-133) describes an existing surgical application
where a robot is used to position a probe for neurosurgery and
speculates on the use of robots for orthopaedics: "Could robots be used
in orthopaedics for pinning broken hips?" (Engelberger 1989:132) In fact
robots are now routinely used in hip replacement surgery to manipulate
the cutting tool that creates the socket for the new hip. This
application is primarily free form machining.
Nursing assistant
The robotic nurse's aide would carry out lower level tasks thus
relieving nurses of the routine chores. Engelberger was sufficiently
confident in the utility of this application that after 1989, his
company Transitions Research Corporation, devoted most of its efforts to
developing and marketing a robotic nurse's aide. The company went
public in 1996 as HelpMate Robotics Inc., signalling its shift from
general robotics research to the aggressive development, marketing and
sales of its flagship product, the HelpMate Robot. HelpMate Robotics Inc
is a publicly listed company traded on the United States NASDAQ
Bulletin Board. Helpmate was expected to accept voice commands and a
typical task envisaged, was the fetch and carry task shown in Figure 16.

A typical task proposed for the HelpMate robot by Engelberger prior to
its development in 1989. The device marketed could not perform this task
(Engelberger 1989:137).
Figure 16
The device Engelberger planned to develop is shown in Figure 17 and the
device actually marketed is shown in Figure 18. Using sensory technology
and a preprogrammed map of the facility, HelpMate robots can avoid
obstacles, make instantaneous stops, and call elevators via radio link
to travel between floors.

Proposed design of HelpMate while in the concept stage (Engelberger
1989:136).
Figure 17

Several examples of the HelpMate in operation transporting food, medical
records, drugs and other supplies. The product marketed is simpler and
significantly different to the original concept (Engelberger 1998).
Figure 18
However, a comparison of Figure 17 and Figure 18 shows the final
product was considerably less sophisticated than originally envisaged.
The robot speaks but does not accept voice commands. Instead, HelpMate
is dispatched to stations by the push of a button and it has no
manipulator. Moreover, the fetch and carry task of Figure 16 had to be
simplified so that a human loads and unloads the compartments in the
robot. Despite Engelberger's leadership in the robotics field, he found,
like the household robot companies of the 1980s and many other robotics
practitioners, that it was easier to modify the application than it was
to build a sufficiently flexible robot to handle the complete
application.
In 1997, there were 109 Helpmates in service in US and Canadian
hospitals. Despite building simpler robots than originally planned, the
HelpMates are not cheap. Persuading hospitals to purchase or lease the
robots has proved to be difficult and the large number in use was
achieved by renting rather than selling. This imposed severe strain on
the company's working capital especially since the rental fees were
below cost and Helpmate Robotics at the time of its 1997 annual report
had a negative net worth of US$369,000 (HelpMate Robotics Inc 1998b).
Since the 1997 annual report, the share price has continued to decline
from around US$1.00 to under US$0.20 in June 1998.
An independent report (Rossetti and Felder 1998) has indicated
that the robots can be significantly cheaper than human couriers for
both pharmacy and clinical laboratory delivery but the comparison is not
simple. For example, a single robot will be unacceptably slower than a
courier, so that several robots are needed to replace a single courier.
Robot unit costs reduce as more are employed; therefore, the economics
become positive for the robots when they are assigned more tasks in a
large hospital. In one modelled scenario, six robots were employed to
replace three couriers providing both pharmacy and clinical delivery
services. The combined delivery had a 75% decrease in cost and a 38%
decrease in delivery variability while virtually matching the average
delivery time of the courier. They conclude that "through simulation we
were clearly able to demonstrate that mobile robots can cost effectively
meet the delivery requirements of mid-sized hospitals" (Rossetti and
Felder 1998). However most hospitals using HelpMates have only one robot
and the largest number, in seven hospitals, is only three (HelpMate
Robotics Inc 1998a).
Service robots discussion
The predictions of Engelberger have been compared with developments
in robotics in the following ten years. This has contemporary relevance
because many of the ideas put forward by Engelberger are mainstream in
today's robotics research community and all the areas suggested by
Engelberger have attracted the interest of researchers. Robots have been
successfully applied in some service applications including space and
undersea remotely operated vehicles. As well, robots are commonly used
for hip replacement surgery and mines have adopted teleoperated control
of underground mining equipment. However, other applications seem no
closer now than they did when Robotics in Service was first written, in
particular, the household robot.
Many projects have encountered the same problems experienced with
the industrial application of robotics. That is, the problem has
frequently been more difficult to solve cost effectively than was
anticipated. Engelberger's robotic nursing assistant is a typical
example where the initial concept had to be simplified to the point that
much of the utility of the original idea was lost. Moreover, the high
capital cost of a HelpMate nursing assistant meant that to attract
customers the machines had to be rented at below cost rather than sold.
As a result, the company has a high probability of going the way of the
household robot companies of the 1980's. While use of service robots
will continue to increase, it seems unlikely they will replace
industrial applications as the high growth area for robotics. Although
very successful in some areas, robots are still struggling in many
industrial applications even though the environment is more structured,
the tasks more repetitive and high capital costs less of an issue than
for most service applications.
Why have the
ambitions not been met?
It would be incorrect, as is sometimes claimed, to suggest that
robotics has not been a success. The statistics presented in section 2.3
show it to be an industry that has come into being, grown very quickly,
continues to expand at a respectable rate, and is moving steadily into
new application areas. However, many researchers see robotics as an
unfulfilled promise. In Engelberger's view, "At this writing the
industrial robot has become a 'ho hum' product. To some a robot is no
more than a mechanical computer peripheral"(Engelberger 1989:13). This
sums up the view of many researchers in the robotics community who would
like to see a far more visionary approach to robotics and the adoption
of technology that they have devoted considerable effort to developing.
But perhaps this is not a realistic view.
The larger, more ambitious projects such as the Autonomous Land
Vehicle project and the sheep shearing research project have shown just
how difficult it is to apply robotic technology to entirely new tasks.
In the sheep shearing project the technical problems were solved and
hundreds of successful trials and demonstrations took place. This is,
however, only a small part of building a commercially viable product. To
gain the benefits of the automated shearing process there needs to be
automated sheep handling to get the sheep to and from the robot,
automatic fleece handling and automatic fleece inspection. The robot
must operate quickly to shear large numbers of sheep over a short
period. To be economically viable the entire system has to be reliable
and maintainable by operators in remote areas with limited training.
Because of the high capital cost of the equipment, it must be mobile
rather than a permanent fixture at each farm. The solutions require
straight engineering but the engineering effort is substantial and
estimated to require a far greater investment than the development of
the sheep shearing robot itself.
The sheep shearing project was an example of developing the robot
but not having the resources to develop the supporting infrastructure.
The Autonomous Land Vehicle project, however, is a good example of the
other major difficulty facing robotic applications, that being the large
gap between almost solving a problem and a working system. The two
overland vehicles demonstrated successfully in 1997 were not developed
to the point where they could be deployed in a working environment and
it is planned that the highway vehicles which were able to traverse
12,500 miles with less than 1% in manual mode in 1997 will not be
developed to prototype stage before 2002.
Another problem encountered with the deployment of robotic
solutions is the complications of working with existing systems and the
length of time it takes to change attitudes. An example of this is
automatic fuel refilling for road vehicles discussed in section 2.4.4.
The three systems in use by 1996 were only available for specially
modified fleets. Schraft et al (1996) then developed a system which can
refuel over 80% of vehicles with their filler cap on the right hand side
of the vehicle. Having largely solved the problems associated with a
large variety of vehicle designs there remains the issue of cost and
convincing the public to use the system.
The obstacle most often thwarting the ambitions of roboticists
and underlying most of the problems discussed above is complexity.
Robots can be constructed to satisfy any given input-output
specifications, ie. we could construct robots that would behave in any
way we desire under any environmental circumstances. However, the number
of combinations of inputs quickly becomes immense. For example in a
system with n sensors with each having a binary state running for K time
steps, there are 2nK possible states for which an appropriate output is
required. To reduce the combinations to a manageable number, a large
proportion of these states can be grouped, as they require the same
response and many relationships can be developed between others. As with
the earliest robots this is still the way that robotic systems are
constructed. However in the natural environment, the number of
input-output specifications is frequently too large for any engineering
solution. The response of engineers has been to control the environment
in which the robot operates and limit the tasks it performs in order to
limit the number of possible input-output combinations to a number and
level of complexity amenable to engineering solutions. They must then
provide sensors able to detect the relevant input conditions and finally
develop the logic to handle all possible input-output combinations.
One solution proposed, to avoid engineers having to develop
control logic, is controlling robots with neural networks. The neural
network is trained by defining an appropriate response to each
combination of inputs. The neural network will then learn by creating
the logic to reproduce the response whenever the input is repeated. The
limitation of this technique is that, when time is included as a
variable, the combination of circumstances encountered usually becomes
too large for the neural network to be adequately trained. A robot
controlled this way would be forever encountering new situations
negligibly different from those encountered previously but for which it
has no appropriate response. Culbertson (1963) recognised neural
networks were inadequate for dealing with the real world and
subsequently developed a theory of consciousness which he thought could
be applied to robotics. Great effort has since been devoted to
artificial intelligence research, but in 1998 artificial intelligence
still only exists in highly restricted forms unsuitable for the control
of robots. What is needed to achieve the ambitions of roboticists are
robots that are able to learn, build up an understanding of their
environment, self correct and accept high level commands in a similar
manner to humans. The technology to do this with machines remains
unavailable.
Is Replacing humans the right objective?
In the early literature on robotics, the major objective was to
replace human labour with robots. Current robot installations and
research pursue other objectives such as precision control, consistent
product quality and increased human safety. Nevertheless, frequently the
motivation for robotic applications remains the desire to lower costs
by replacing human labour with cheaper machines. The motive is based on
the premise that human labour is expensive. In fact this is not always
true. The cost of human labour varies enormously. The variation is
partly due to skill levels, partly to the social standing of particular
occupations, and partly to the industry in which a person is employed.
Another determinant of labour cost is geographic location, for example,
those employed in remote locations are usually compensated for the harsh
environment. However, a major determinant of the cost of human labour
is political boundaries. People in some countries earn much less for the
same work as people in others which can be shown by comparing annual
earnings for people engaged in manufacturing in different countries.
Table 4 shows the annual earnings in US dollars for workers engaged in
manufacturing for a group of countries chosen to show the range. The
list is ranked from the country with the lowest incomes to that with the
highest incomes. Error is introduced by the requirement to convert the
source data to annual earnings and United States dollars to enable a
comparison between countries. However, the variation in annual earnings
is so substantial that inexactitude does not detract from the evidence
that there is a wide variation in annual incomes associated with
political boundaries. For example, Table 4 shows the average German
manufacturing worker enjoys 50 times the annual earnings of the average
Chinese manufacturing worker.
Many of those living in poor areas seek to improve their
situation by moving to a location where the circumstances are more
favourable, but immigration restrictions frequently limit people's
ability to move. Another method by which those in poorer nations seek
to take advantage of the discrepancy in labour costs is by selling their
labour in the form of manufactured products in locations where labour
costs are higher. However, such trade is often limited by natural
barriers, for example the distance to markets and artificial barriers,
for example tariffs. In addition, manufacturing and trade requires
entrepreneurs, capital, political stability and infrastructure in the
form of ports, roads, power etc which are often unavailable to those in
poorer areas. Apart from manufacturing, there are many other fields of
endeavour in wealthier nations including mining agriculture and service
industries which people in poorer nations would like to contribute to if
they were given the opportunity.
Those in poorer areas or seeking to avoid harsh environments
would be better off if they were able to sell their skills in locations
where labour costs were higher without having to be physically present.
The intelligence required to carry out a task could be separated from
the infrastructure required to physically perform a task. That is,
people can provide the intelligence from a convenient location for
teleoperated reduced instruction set robots, that are located where the
work is required. Communicating intelligence requires only minimal local
infrastructure if satellite communications are used. This is an
alternative to developing machines that can learn, understand, self
correct and accept high level commands in the same way as a human.
Country
|
Year
|
Annual Earnings US$
|
Period for Which Source Data Available
|
Variation from maximum exchange rate over the year
|
Malawi
|
1995
|
$467
|
Month
|
71%
|
China
|
1996
|
$679
|
Month
|
0%
|
Egypt
|
1994
|
$1,134
|
Week
|
1%
|
Mauritius
|
1996
|
$1,918
|
Day
|
12%
|
Thailand
|
1995
|
$2,406
|
Month
|
4%
|
Zimbabwe
|
1996
|
$2,665
|
Month
|
14%
|
Botswana
|
1995
|
$2,799
|
Month
|
6%
|
Mexico
|
1996
|
$3,100
|
Month
|
9%
|
Costa Rica
|
1996
|
$3,680
|
Month
|
13%
|
Peru
|
1995
|
$3,719
|
Month
|
4%
|
Hong Kong
|
1996
|
$9,586
|
Day
|
0%
|
Singapore
|
1996
|
$19,737
|
Month
|
2%
|
Australia
|
1995
|
$24,198
|
Hour
|
8%
|
USA
|
1996
|
$25,560
|
Hour
|
0%
|
UK
|
1996
|
$25,671
|
Hour
|
12%
|
Austria
|
1995
|
$30,860
|
Month
|
13%
|
Japan
|
1996
|
$31,320
|
Month
|
11%
|
Germany*
|
1996
|
$35,070
|
Hour
|
8%
|
Switzerland
|
1994
|
$53,064
|
Month
|
15%
|
Average wages for all manufacturing workers in a selection of countries.
Data sourced from (International Labour Office 1997:Table 5B pp
829-910) and adjusted [ ]. *Data for former West Germany.
Table 4A way forward for robotics
A fully autonomous robot would need no instruction or control but
this is not what most people have in mind when they seek to build
autonomous devices. They envisage limited autonomy and want to be able
to issue high level commands such as instructing a robot to clean the
house. This is perceived as necessary for a robot to be useful. I have
suggested that, as long as machines cannot be made to think like humans,
the principle limitation of robotic solutions is the development of
appropriate responses for all the possible combinations of circumstances
which the robot will encounter. This formidable hurdle continues to
constrain robotic applications as it has done since robots were first
developed.
An alternative is to provide solutions for subsets of situations
the robot will encounter and leave the remainder to be solved by a human
as they occur. This could be termed, a reduced instruction set approach
to robotics. It lessens the subset of circumstances for which an
engineer must develop solutions to a manageable number. Solutions need
not be comprehensive. The instruction set can even be reduced to the
point that nothing useful is achieved by invoking any particular
instruction then relying on a human to generate a series of these
instructions to complete a task.
To compare a reduced instruction set solution with a traditional
solution consider the example of instructing a wheeled robot of the type
in Figure 19 with odometry on the driven wheels to proceed to a new
location.
Mobile robot with independently driven axles.
Figure 19
An algorithm to implement the instruction is:-
- Drive the axles simultaneously in opposite directions at the
same speed until the odometers have measured sufficient rotation for the
robot to be facing the appropriate direction.
- Drive both axles forward at the same speed until the odometer
has measured sufficient rotations for the robot to travel the requested
distance.
This is a simple algorithm, easily implemented, and once completed
there is an expectation that the robot will be in the desired location.
However there will always be some error due to inaccuracies in the
odometry and there are circumstances where this algorithm will fail
entirely. These include an obstruction, an uneven surface that produces
wheel slip or a broken axle. Thus, the algorithm is simple but not
comprehensive. However, the algorithm will be comprehensive if the
environment is controlled. The axle can be made strong enough not to
break, the floor can be made flat, with a surface that will not allow
wheel slip, and all obstructions can be removed. Alternatively, sensors
can be added to locate the robot by triangulation and to sense
obstructions. Then the algorithm can be improved to plan a path around
the obstruction. Traditionally an engineer uses a combination of
techniques to build a system that will complete the task with a high
degree of reliability. A reduced instruction set approach would consist
only of the simple algorithm, accept that it will frequently fail and
rely on the human giving the instruction to determine the appropriate
response.
The concept is also applicable at higher levels. For instance,
assume in the case of the above example that an algorithm has been
implemented so that the robot will arrive at a specified location with a
high degree of reliability. The requirement might now be to fetch an
object. The complexity of the problem has increased enormously. The
object must be found, recognised, grasped, transported and placed. A
reduced instruction set approach will rely on a human to recognise the
object, tell the robot where it is, determine how it should be grasped,
where it should be transported and how it should be placed. This is
accomplished with a string of simpler instructions to the robot with the
human deciding what should be next and monitoring the progress from
time to time.
A reduced instruction set approach to robotics simplifies the
task for the system builders but the robot constructed needs frequent
human attention. A human can get a robot to achieve useful functions by
providing the missing "intelligence" and issuing new or modified low
level instructions to the robot as circumstances require. Teleoperation
provides a method for supplying human intelligence from a location which
is remote from the robot. The big advantage is that we are able to
avoid the problem of building intelligent machines, which I assert is
the principle constraint on the use of robotic solutions. Paul et al
have also proposed telerobotics as a method of providing the "missing
component of intelligence of the robotics pantheon (Paul et al.
1996:13)" and have coined the term "operabotics" to describe the
concept. They have applied the concept to two applications, undersea
robotics and control of an experimental multiple agent supervisory
control system both of which required purpose built operator interfaces.
Telerobotics has been used extensively in hazardous environments but
providing purpose built operator stations and communications has made it
prohibitively expensive for all but cost insensitive applications such
as the Sojourner Mars Rover. However, the World Wide Web provides an
opportunity to eliminate the expense associated with operator stations.
An appropriately configured reduced instruction set robot can be
controlled with human intelligence by anyone with access to a web
browser. There are millions of operator stations and the opportunity for
people to apply their intelligence at any location regardless of their
own. It also changes the direction of telerobotics fundamentally,
opening whole new application areas. For example, Sheridan points out
that: "There has been surprisingly little interest in human supervisory
control for industrial robots and the availability of a nearby human
operator ... has been taken for granted (Sheridan 1992:107)". But, as
discussed in section 2.6, cheap operator workstations offer the
opportunity for those in poor countries to sell their labour where wages
are higher. There are also advantages in making expensive industrial
machinery available to people who can not afford to own it,
opportunities to provide entertainment and opportunities for service
applications, such as the control of underground mining equipment.
Consider for example the HelpMate robots discussed in section 2.4.10
which provide courier services in hospitals. They are instructed to
proceed to preset locations by the push of a button, they then they
proceed autonomously announcing themselves upon arrival. It is a service
likely to be used by many different people all of which have to
understand the controls. As well, the HelpMates have a limited number of
preset places to go, the item carried might be intended for someone who
is not there and the HelpMates might not be in the right place at the
right time. Imagine how much the service would be enhanced by providing
the HelpMates with human intelligence so that they could accept voice
commands as originally intended. The humans in command could then direct
the HelpMates to anywhere in their range, search for people or
reinterpret commands as required and anticipate demand. As the
HelpMates can perform most courier tasks autonomously, modifying the
HelpMates for web teleoperation would allow one person from anywhere in
the world to supervise several cheaply. This would enable the HelpMates
to provide an intelligent courier service.
With web teleoperation there are a host of new questions raised
associated with a large number of frequently inexperienced users rather
than a small coterie of highly trained operators, for instance do people
find controlling a telerobot entertaining? There are new opportunities
for analysing the actions of large numbers of users to learn how they
interact with the system rather than designing experiments to be
conducted on small but well controlled sample groups. There is also an
extensive range of peripheral issues such as how to promote a web-based
teleoperable service and how those using the service can be persuaded to
contribute to its development. The remainder of this thesis deals with
control schemes for web teleoperation, building three web telerobots
and investigating the new issues that web telerobotics raises.
|