Timeline for How much energy would this robot need?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 1 at 21:56 | comment | added | bukwyrm | Energy consumption per weight is a super weird concept. A Rock just sitting there has no energy in it's 1kg mass, and a 0.5kg drone motor with a .5kg cell will rock your world. 1kg in optics and computers and sensors will zoom the world 10x while stabilizing the image and showing IR/UV/VIS at 200fps , and the 1kg of human brain will make sense of it, but will just putter along at 16fps in VIS, no zoom. Try curls with your 2kg biceps against the force a 2kg mechanism can put out - no contest. The only things keeping androids from existing is lack of energy density in STORAGE, not in expenditure | |
| Jan 24 at 10:31 | comment | added | user3819867 | @Terra Humans can go mere days without replenishment. I would guess a human specifically trained can take at most 30kg of package, which would last 15 days of only drinking water (they would lose ~5-10kg of bodyweight in the process). They could walk up to 30km per day, having a reach of 450km. Even helicopters have more range than that, in this sense humans are really inefficient. In addition machines have wider operating temperatures and generally less need for homeostasis, they are amoral, they have no self-preservation needs, they can be shelf-stored with little to no energy expenditure. | |
| Jan 24 at 10:12 | comment | added | user3819867 | "machinery is often purpose-built for specific tasks where the task is more important than the energy usage" - in fact doing more work by expending more energy is more often than not the desired behaviour. You would rather have the vacuum cleaner's 2kg battery get drained in an hour than having to work 4 hours to do your cleaning. | |
| Jan 23 at 17:58 | comment | added | IMSoP | @Terra Note that organisms are also useless "on months-long campaigns without replenishment" - make a soldier, or a horse, go days at a time without eating, and you'll soon run into problems. If an army marches on its stomach, a robot army would march on its batteries. In both cases, what you need is supply lines allowing the energy to reach the front in the form of food / fuel / replacement battery packs. | |
| Jan 23 at 5:18 | comment | added | Hunting.Targ | @Terra Also, even though orgamisms need continual replenishment, the way that cells and tissues function essentially means that the machine and the power source are two systems sharing the same structure, distributed across its mass synergystically. We don't build machines that way because we don't imagine them that way - we haven't had to before, we've been able to make do with naturally occurring denizens for millenia. | |
| Jan 23 at 5:13 | comment | added | Hunting.Targ | @Terra when you understand how energy-efficient a biological organism is when compared to machines of the same weight and strength, its strategic advantages start to weigh against its tactical shortcomings. | |
| Jan 23 at 4:21 | comment | added | Terra | That sounds like a serious problem for infantry-sized future robots on months-long campaigns without replenishment. Both of your ideas are way too large and heavy and thus there seems to be no way around other than 'more advanced batteries'. Without those advancements, I suppose the takeaway is that organisms seem to be more the way to go. | |
| Jan 23 at 3:47 | history | edited | KEY_ABRADE | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Jan 23 at 3:01 | history | edited | KEY_ABRADE | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 157 characters in body
|
| Jan 23 at 2:32 | history | answered | KEY_ABRADE | CC BY-SA 4.0 |