Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
IN WHAT MAY BE be the birth of cheap, easy-to-make robots, researchers have created complex machines that transform themselves from little more than a sheet of paper and plastic into walking automatons.
Borrowing from the ancient Japanese art of origami, children’s toys and even a touch of the Transformers, scientists and engineers at Harvard and MIT created self-assembling, paper robots. They are made out of hobby shop materials that cost about $100.
After the installation of tiny batteries and motors, a paper robot rises on four stumpy legs and starts scooting in a herky-jerky manner. It transforms from flat paper to a jitterbugging four-legged robot in just four minutes.
This small lightweight type of robot could explore outer space and other dangerous environments, and get into cramped places for search-and-rescue missions, researchers said. But that’s just the start of what may be a long-envisioned robotic revolution.
This eventually could be as technology-changing as the three-dimensional printer, said experts unconnected with the study and Harvard robotics researcher Sam Felton, who is lead author of the paper published Thursday in the journal Science.
Felton and study co-author Daniela Rus of MIT say they see a time when someone who wants a dog-walking robot would go to a store that has specialized equipment to make the device — “some sort of robo-Kinkos,” Felton said.
And eventually the technology could produce more complex machines.
“In principle it will be possible to say, ‘I want a robot to play chess with me,’ and generate a machine that has the computational abilities to play chess with you,” Rus said.
Today it costs a lot of money to build a robot, but this method is fast, cheap and specialized, Rus said.
“This is a simple, flexible and rapid design process and a step toward the dream of realizing the vision of 24-hour robot manufacturing,” Rus said.
These robots aren’t quite Transformers of movie and cartoon fame. Once they assemble themselves automatically with heat-activated hinges that allow the folding, there are no more changes, Rus and Felton said.
The robots themselves start out a bit smaller than a normal 8.5-by-11-inch sheet of paper. Off-the-shelf batteries and motors are embedded at a cost of about $80. Altogether, the early machines researchers made, along with the equipment to build them, cost less than $1,000 apiece, Felton said.
The robots, which the researchers did not name, are about 6 inches long, 6 inches wide, and about 2 inches tall. They weigh less than 3 ounces. They move about 2 inches per second. But they can be made bigger or smaller, with some limitations, Felton said.
He said the way heating activates the hinges was inspired by the children’s toy line Shrinky Dinks, which shrivel and fold when put in the oven.
Robotics pioneer Rodney Brooks, an MIT emeritus professor who wasn’t part of the research, said this could be close to other momentous changes in technology, such as the first 3-D printers or even 1947′s ENIAC early computer.
“Lots more people will join in working on these techniques, each making incremental progress and decades from now we’ll wonder why it took so long to get where we’ll then be with it,” Brooks said in an email.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Slightly off point but this behaviour starts with allowing a child to have a mobile phone and full internet access from early age. Ive seen kids as young as 3 years old with this. Are their parents insane???? Why not give them a loaded gun as well while theyre at it! No child needs a mobile phone while in primary school. There is no argument for it. Absolutely none.
@theupsidedown: I could not agree more..
@theupsidedown: 3 years of age ? Would you ever get a grip.
@theupsidedown: well if they don’t have one they will use their friends. It’s much better to educate them about the Internet rather than hoping they are abstaining.
@Deborah Behan: I would strongly disagree with your comment Deborah. We don’t allow 10 year olds to drink alcohol, or smoke tobacco, or drive in vehicles without seat belts, or get tattoos. it is our responsibility to keep our children safe. Giving young children smart phones, with full internet access is the absolute antithesis of good, responsible parenting. I think it should be a crime. I have seen with my own eyes what happens when young kids are left to their own devices on snap chat. Parents who do this are failing their kids and are unfit to raise them.
@Nucky: you get a grip. I know a family with four kids all under 8, all with smart phones with full internet access. The youngest is three. Fact. So pull your head out of your arse.
@Deborah Behan: that’ll sort the problem alright. Let’s give parents less responsibility by letting the internet babysit their kids. After they educate them of course.
@Susannah: well said. Unfortunately too many ostriches have become parents.
@theupsidedown: wow a 3 year old who can surf the net incredible . Probably can’t count or spell but has a smart phone. But if these 4 kids do actually exist how do you know they actually have internet? So stop being a toolbag its called Education why don’t you get one ! Just like alcohol in France etc they are educated and allowed to taste at a young age and how not to abuse it.
@Deborah Behan: exactly Deborah it’s about education which clearly is missing with most of the people who comment here
@Nucky: 1. I never said anything about them surfing the net. Children learn to count/spell from a young age. I’d imagine you’ve struggled with this thus far as you clearly have difficulty with reading. I know they have internet because I’ve witnesssd it. I’d imagine you don’t know these people so you are in no position to say they do not have internet access or that they don’t exist. I never said they abuse the internet. You don’t have to abuse the internet to be abused on the internet. I don’t know you (thankfully) but you should consider anger management & reading classes plus a healthy dose of medication. I actually feel sorry for you. Do a bit of research and educate yourself. This should enable you to reach the bank at the shallow end of the gene pool before you drown, little man.
@Nucky: Just so everyone knows – You’re 3 years on twitter and you only managed to muster one follower in all that time. I’ll bet you’re following yourself. God love you.
Just my opinion but i always feel these articles are directed at girls not to send naked pictures but how about teaching boys to treat girls with more respect and not ask/pressurise girls in to sending them.
In my experience it has been boys / men requesting these type of pictures and instead of having porn as their idea of what sex is like, start teaching both boys and girls what a real sexual relationship is and the respect and responsibility that goes with it.
@Louise Tracey: how about teaching parents to be proper parents ..
@Louise Tracey: I agree. But unfortunately by and large unfettered access to the internet given to them by their parents from a young age as a substitute baby sitter has been destructive. Idiot parents who think their children are cool and tech savvy. Do they really know what goes on when their child is on the internet with no supervision?
@Terry O’Callaghan: well said.
@Terry O’Callaghan: I’m a parent and I hope when the time comes I’ll be able to have a proper conversion with my kids about sex and relationships but if society doesn’t do the same then it’s not going to change.
You can’t blame everything on bad parenting , we have to look at sex culture- celebrities, tv, etc
@Terry O’Callaghan: Perfect example of what I’m talking about – look at the article on the journal sit down Sunday- headline is a sex story. We need stories about healthy sexual relationships not selling your sex life online
@Louise Tracey: you HOPE you’ll be able? That more than likely means you won’t. If you have a daughter bring her up strong independent and unwilling to be pressured. And society starts in the family. Don’t blame society for poor parenting.
@H0tt3rBank3r: yes of course blame women, we need to be strong enough to fight the men off – how about teaching boys be respectful and not be always pushing for what they can get from girls
You seem to have a healthy hatred of men in general there, Louise.
@Cranium: I don’t think that’s a a fair comment. My point is that we need to teach boys to have a different view of women and it isn’t really just to teach girls to not send those pictures
The problem with this is that people have the false notion that just because you are sitting privately in your house/car/the school bus…where ever, posting and texting privately, that anything you post on the Internet is also private, IT ISN’T. It can be viewed, shared and even go viral. Whilst technology may have given us a window to view the world, the world can also now view us, warts and all.
@Brian McDonnell: well said.
What teenagers get up to these days is shocking .what is wrong with them.. have they no cop on at all.. have they no parent that will stand up and say..no you cannot have it ..or no you are not wearing it.. they want everything ..and want to do everything and to hell with the consequences… I see how some are dressed and it’s nothing short of vulgar..some will say that’s fashion..i say it’s very bad parenting..putting images on line.. to show your boyfriend/ girlfriend. And the world. Consequences will be paid for such a stupid pointless act..
@Terry O’Callaghan: I agree with you 100% Terry. But I don’t blame the children. They are simply an unfortunate byproduct of their home environment. The parents should be the ones on trial here, literally. For failing their children so miserably.
Recently I was asked to send an undraped picture of myself to someone I had met online. Out of (basic) decency I covered my (although I say it myself, generous,) manhood with a (biggish) fig-leaf. Somehow it went viral and I find myself being summonsed for creating a disturbance of the “piece.” Be careful of what you put out there.
P.s. I am 87 in September.
have your say