Robotic Bird Drones – Robo-Hummer – The First Bird-Bot

12 December 2013

Robo-Hummer - “Nano Air Vehicle” (“NAV”)

On 17 February 2011, DARPA announced the development of the first fully functional robotic bird.  The “Nano Hummingbird” or, as it is also less imaginatively called, the “Nano Air Vehicle” (“NAV”), was the successful result of a project started in 2006 by AeroVironment, Inc. under the direction of DARPA.  Robots, by definition, must “do work.”  And the Nano-Hummer was the first fully functional bird-drone designed and able to perform surveillance and reconnaissance missions.

This robotic hummingbird can remain aloft for 11 minutes and attain a speed of 11 mph.   With a skeleton of hollow carbon-fiber rods wrapped in fiber mesh, coated in a polyvinyl fluoride film, [1] and carrying “batteries, motors, and communications systems; as well as the video camera payload,” the robo-hummer weighs just .67 ounces.

Designed to be deployed in urban environments or on battlefields, this drone is can “perch on windowsills or power lines” and even “enter buildings to observe its surroundings” while relaying a continuous video back to its “pilot."

 Tiny Spying Nano Humming bird revealed by Pentagon.flv

In terms of appearance, the Nano-Hummer was, and is, quite like an actual hummingbird.  Although larger than the typical hummingbird, Nano-Hummer, is well within the size range of the species and is, actually, smaller than the largest of real hummingbirds.  With a facade both shaped and colored to resemble the real bird, the Nano-Hummer presents the viewer with a remarkable likeness of a hummingbird.

The Nano-Hummer isn’t stealth in the sense of evading radar.  Nor is it “cryptic,” that type of camouflage that blends, or disappears, into the surrounding terrain.  Rather, with the appearance of a hummingbird, the designers used a type of camouflage called “mimesis,” also termed “masquerade,” as concealment.  A camouflaged object is said to be “masqueraded” when the object “can be clearly seen, but looks like something else, which is of no special interest to the observer.”  And such camouflage is important to a mini-drone with the primary purpose of surveillance and reconnaissance.

Designing this drone on the “hummingbird model,” however, was not done only for the purpose of camouflage.  The project’s objective included biomimicry, that is, biologically inspired engineering. [2] With the hummingbird, its amazingly diverse flight maneuvers were the object of imitation.  However, UAV’s head researcher, Matt Keennon, admits that a perfect replica of what “nature has done” was too daunting. [3] For example, the Nano-Hummer only beats its wings 20 times a second, which is slow motion compared to the real hummingbird’s 80 beats per second. [video] [4]

Whatever the technical shortfalls, this bird-bot replicates much of the real hummingbird’s flight performance. [5] Not only can it do rolls and back-flips [video] but, most important of all, it can hover like the real thing. [video] [6] Hovering allows the video camera to select and observe stationary targets.

However, this robot’s ability to hover was not developed just for the purpose of reconnaissance and surveillance.   The “hover” of both hummingbirds and bees attracts so much attention from developers of drone technology because it assures success in the most difficult flight maneuver of all — landing.  In fact, landing is the most complex part of flight, and the maneuver most likely to result in accident or disaster.

When landing, a flying object must attain the slowest speed possible before touching down.  Hovering resolves the problem neatly by assuring that the robot can stop in midair and, therefore, touch the ground or perch as zero speed.  Observe the relatively compact helicopter landing port in contrast to the long landing strip required by an airplane which must maintain forward motion when airborne.

This drone has a remarkable range of movement in flight much like the real hummingbird.   Nano-Hummer “can climb and descend vertically; fly sideways left and right; forward and backward; rotate clockwise and counter-clockwise; and hover in mid-air.”  Both propulsion and altitude control are entirely provided by the drone’s flapping wings. [video]

This remote controlled mini-drone can be maneuvered by the “pilot” without direct visual observation using the video stream alone.  With its small camera, this drone can relay back video images of its location.  The camera angle is defined by the drone’s pitch.  In forward motion, the camera provides a continuous view of the ground.  Hovering provides the best camera angle for surveying rooms. [video] [7]

To DARPA, it was particularly important that this drone demonstrate the ability to hover in a 5 mph side-wind without drift of more than one meter.  The inability to remain stable in side-winds was the primary issue with the CIA’s “insectothopter,” a robotic dragonfly was developed in the 1970’s. [image] [8] This unmanned aerial vehicle “was the size of a dragonfly, and was hand-painted to look like one.” [9] Powered by a small gasoline engine, the insectothopter proved unusable due to its inability to withstand even moderate wind gusts. [video]

The Nano-Hummingbird was named by Time Magazine as one of the 50 best inventions of 2011 [10] and has paved the way for the development of a whole generation of bird inspired ‘bots, including Prioria’s “Maverick,” [image] [video] and, the even more “bird-like,” Robo-Raven, which is still in development by the Army Research Laboratory. [image 1] [video] [video]  Also, the development of this first small bird-bot brought the U.S. Air Force one step closer to one of the goals on its wish list: “flocks of small drones.” [11]

And . . . a flock of small drones sounds really cool – as long as the flock isn’t after me.

About the Author

Rumors of Robotic Bees and Other Insect Robots

17 October 2013

Scientists at Harvard are continuing to work on the development of the first robotic bee.  The goal is a robot that can pollinate flowers and crops just like a honeybee.  However, the goal is far away. [1]

Harvard’s “Micro Air Vehicles Project” is using titanium and plastic to fashion a robot that duplicates the functions, if not the appearance, of the familiar honeybee.  The robo-bee pops up, complete with wings, from a quarter-sized metal disk.  One day, it is hoped, these “bees” will be engineered to fly in swarms, live in artificial hives, and locate sources of honey. [2]

In the 1950’s, futurists predicted that we would all be operating flying automobiles by 1970.  Similarly, the prediction of working robotic honeybees may be an optimistic fantasy.  But if the goal is never reached, it will be for no lack of effort on the part of the Harvard scientists.  But there are many hurdles, challenges, and obstacles.

To hear some tell it, a robotic bee is perfected and almost poised to replace its natural counterpart in a brave new world full of disconcerting, mechanical replicas of the familiar and comfortable wildlife around us.  However, that future is definitely . . . in the future.

In order to create a robot that does what a honeybee does, the ‘bot must be the same size as a honeybee.  But that same, small size is the source of a number of problems.  Currently, no lightweight, portable power source exists with both the small size and large capacity needed by the robobee.  But even with a suitable power source, the ‘bot must also be equipped with a portable guidance system.  And there is no guidance system small enough, and lightweight enough, to do the job. [3]

After five years of work, researchers are only now figuring out how to guide the robobee in flight.  Until recently, these robots would just take off, fly in any direction, and . . . crash.  However, with the latest guidance breakthrough, the robobee can now be made “to pitch and roll in a predetermined direction.”  Progress has and will be made through a series of small advances over a long period of time.  So, the rumored release of a swarm of robotic bees to replace our honeybees is far, far away.  [4]

With robotic insects, flight itself is the biggest challenge.  While bird-sized flying drones are being perfected with relative success, flying insect ‘bots present a special aerodynamic problem.  It’s the size.  If you shrink a bird-sized drone down to the size of an insect — it won’t fly.  A roboticist at the University of California at Berkeley, Ronald Fearing, told the Washington Post that “the rules of aerodynamics change” with an object as small as an insect. [5] Unlike bird wings, insect-sized wings must move with amazing precision.

Replicating these precise wing movements is a formidable engineering challenge.  In fact, scientists only recently came to understand how insects fly at all.  Compounding the problems, these precision wing movements require yet larger supplies of portable power. [6]

So, the rumors that robobee will be shoving honeybees out of the way any day now — are only rumors.  Sort of like the persistent rumors suggesting that the U.S. Government secretly developed and used insect drones decades ago.  Given the substantial problems with the current development of controllable, insect-sized flying robots, it’s fair to assume that a robotic insect would have been impossible as far back as the 1970’s.  However, our assumption would be wrong.  These rumors are true.

The CIA’s simple dragonfly snooper was operational in the 1970’s.  The relatively unsophisticated “insectothopter” was the product of the CIA’s Office of Research and Development and rolled off the assembly line almost 40 years ago.  Its tiny gasoline engine was used to make its four wings flap.  However, the insectothopter was scraped because of its inability to fly in a crosswind.  So, with the shelving of the insectothopter, the development of robotic insects ended — only reappearing with the modern resurgence of robotic research.  Or did the U.S. Government secretly continue to develop insect drones?  Again, there are rumors. [7]

Is it possible that some agency has developed a secret, advanced version of the insectothopter?  Sources at the CIA have declined to comment.  When questioned about the possibility of the secret development of flying drone insects, an “expert in unmanned aerial vehicles,” retired Colonel Tom Ehrhard, simply said, “America can be pretty sneaky.”  [8]

On that less than comforting note, we can reconsider another rumor — the rumor of the dragonfly robots.  At recent political events in Washington D.C. and New York, several persons have reported sighting something that they described as a cross between a slightly oversized dragonfly and a miniature helicopter.

Perhaps, these witnesses have mistaken real insects for robots . . . or perhaps not. [9]

There are also rumors about a robotic fly.   But, first, why would anyone want to develop a robotic fly?  Bees are more than useful.  They are also one of the more “popular” insects.  No one can completely dislike a bug that produces honey.  But the fly?  It’s one of the most hated insects of all time.  But the robofly mystery may be more a question of nomenclature.  In other words, a robot’s name may depend, not on how it’s built or what it looks like, as much as what it does.

The only thing mysterious about robofly is the confusion caused by giving the same robotic insect two different names.  Robofly is the same machine as robobee.  [10]

So, what’s with the two names?  Although scientists were attempting to create a flying insect sized ‘bot that would do what a bee does, they actually used the fly as the basis for the design of the wings and flight movement. [11] But, again, what’s with the two names?  When is it called a bee, and when is it called a fly?

Again, the choice of name may depend on what the ‘bot does.  Look at it this way. Robobee is being developed to pollinate crops – a wholesome and useful activity.  The same robot, under the name robofly is being developed as a spy drone — to secretly watch and, perhaps, eavesdrop on some unsuspecting victims.  Surveillance is useful but, today, has developed an ugly reputation.  In other words, when a flying drone spies on “the enemy,” it’s  good.  When it spies on your neighbor, it’s a subject for public debate.  When it spies on you . . . it’s outright evil.

So, this robot is a cheerful “bee” when it’s pollinating.  But, when the same robot starts looking over your shoulder, it’s an unpleasant “fly.”  Just imagine what they would have called this same ‘bot if it had been adapted, not just to listen, but to attack?

They called it Robo-Mosquito.  Well, at least, that was the rumor.

Rumors spread that a new insect drone had been developed called the robo-mosquito.  The proof?  There were pictures.  Pictures of a ‘bot that looked a lot like robobee/fly except it had a sharp syringe-like protuberance, apparently, intended to suck something out of, or inject something into, a victim.  Then, another photo surfaced.  But the robo-mosquito in the new photo looked a bit more like a metallic version of an actual mosquito.  [12]

In fact, the first photo turned out to be robobee.  The photo was slightly retouched to add a syringe-like protuberance.  The second photo was of an actual mosquito retouched, with more than a little artistry, to create the effect of a metallic, mechanical-looking mosquito.  [13]

So, robo-mosquito was only a rumor that turned out to be a hoax.  But, again, the name seemed to follow the function.  At least one photo showed a ‘bot that looked little different than robobee.  So why the new name — mosquito — one of the most hated insects in history?  Perhaps because of what the drone was supposed to do: inject unsuspecting victims with deadly poison.  So, if the robotic insect is designed to do anything bad —  from the unfriendly, like eavesdropping, to the evil and deadly, like injecting poison, it’ll be named after an unfriendly, evil or deadly insect.  Ironically, robo-mosquito’s evil function, injecting unsuspecting victims with poison, has little to do with what a mosquito actually does, but a lot to do with what the “friendly” honeybee does when it stings.

All of these insect-inspired robots are being developed to perform a variety of practical functions.  However, as development continues, our insect robots seem to be gaining the names, if not the functions, of more and more unpopular and unwelcome insect pests.  Why can’t we do something aesthetically pleasing with robots instead of modeling them after ugly insects?  Well, all insects aren’t ugly, and neither are all insect-inspired robots.

A robot is a machine that “does work.”  By that definition, ChouChou the robotic butterfly is not really a robot but, rather, an animatronic device.  That is, a machine that is designed to look and move like a animal.  ChouChou behaves, and even flies, like a butterfly.  The manufacturers, aware of the too- short lifespan of these beautiful insects, promotes ChouChou as the butterfly that lives forever.  But don’t think that no one else is working on robotic butter-bots. [14]

At Johns Hopkins Department of Mechanical Engineering, the research of a student, Tiras Lin, is aimed at mimicking the movements of the Painted Lady Butterfly. [15] And Japanese researchers have developed the “ornithopter” — a flying ‘bot that mimics the flight pattern of a swallowtail butterfly. [16] The swallowtail is unique among butterflies because it remains airborne and propels itself forward only by flapping its wings.  So, is that unusual?

Well, in flight, the movement of the typical insect’s wings is extremely complex and difficult to duplicate.  In contrast, the swallowtail flapping is just that.  There’s nothing subtle or complex about it.  Not only could imitating this movement in a robot prove a much simpler engineering task, but the swallow tail may open the door (or rather the sky) to aircraft with moving wings — a thing most clearly imagined by Leonardo da Vinci’s in his drawings and experiments of five centuries ago.  [17]

About the Author

Festo’s Giant Robot Ant!

02 April 2015

 Festo's Bionic Ant

            A German engineering company, Festo, has created a new robot.  These robots are giant android ants.  You can, apparently, print these giant insects with the 3D printer. 

            Of course, I know from browsing the web, that everyone has a 3D printer.  I don’t, but I always thought everyone else did.  I didn’t buy one because I thought I couldn’t afford it.  But, now, I know a second reason to avoid getting a 3D printer.  I don’t want it printing giant ant robots that will wander through my home when I’m not around messing with my stuff. 

            But, like it or not, giant robotic android ants are here and are probably here to stay.  People who go on giant picnics are no longer safe.  

           These amazing robots are about the size of a human hand.  They have impressive capabilities including stereo camera “eyes” that would allow them to visually estimate distance along with wireless networking to communicate with each other.  This networking would allow them to work together as a group, spontaneously, “in the field,” without the need for specific instructions from a central network.  So, like “Skynet” of the Terminator series, they could devise and execute a plan to take over the world without our even knowing it.
  

           In spite of their bad picnic reputation, ants were chosen as a model because, working together, they can do so many impressive things.  Festo will be presenting these “bionic” ants as their latest development later this month, April 13-17, at the biggest industrial trade show in the world, Hannover Messe.  

           The robot ants follow Festo’s earlier presentations, a robotic kangaroo and robotic penguin.  I'm not sure I even want to see what those two robotic creatures look like.  What am I saying?  Yes, I do!

This is Festo’s Kangaroo Robot:

 

This is Festo’s “Air” Penguin.  I wasn’t expecting the “air” part.

 

 

 

About the Author