Ran across this this morning. The article talks about increasing staff skills by taking operators out of the cabs? http://www.qmeb.com.au/queensland-trial-driverless-dozers/?sf59953293=1 More doublespeak!
this will be the future in almost any industry that has to deal with repetitive work in a local environment..just look how much automation in factories, and soon fast food and movie theaters, lowes and home depot have self check out lines..anything to cut down on human involvement is the future will go forward at a fast pace to save money..no sick time, no personal injuries, no vacations, no personal conflict with co workers..the list is endless,,there will be a learning curve and some goof ups along the way, but when the kinks are worked out many jobs world wide will be lost...
I was around the years gone by when they tried this in the US as the early GPS controls came on(early 90's). Had a contract customer with machines that worked the rice fields SE MO, they tried driverless back then but failed as miserably as I suspect these will. Humans can spot hazards as to soft spots, crumbling rock and hear the noises that alert a alert operator that the machine is throwing up. Not all faults will code up as we all know, hard mechanical issues left unexamined quickly become finals reduced to grindings or running gear destroyed faster than can re-install. There is a place for a operator, there are places heartless unthinking autonomy fails to meet the mark. Goes back to cannot fix stupid, neither can a blind or fully deaf operator avoid the same problems. RC trains, RC highway trucks I can see but with caveats. For offroad there are a quandary of unassociable pitfalls that cannot be machine addressed.
I recently read a article on cranes, and the idea was to outfit the cranes with camera's, sensors, etc, and the "operator" isn't even on the site, run remotely. The last part of the article then stated that they could even have just one operator, running multiple cranes at multiple sites, all by remote. Of course written by a engineer, where it all looks great on paper.......
The nuke I worked at was written in by engineers to only need 100 people to run it. At last count over 750 worked there with an additional 1-2000 for refuels.
How does a remote operator inspect all those cranes, if he's not even there?
The machine's are perfectly engineered, why would you need to inspect them, you're just being silly now, what could go wrong?
hows does he know when things are not right for the lift? some camera or bad sensor says is it fine and now you have fatality's because it went bad , not on my watch
xxxx
Exactly the main issue, dependency on the written instructions and inability to fully visualize the site would be bad. I do not care for autonomy, too many conditional statements get made they cannot overcome just deal through. Machines need inspected, lubed, warmed up for use, cracks do appear, stresses do take their toll and unless the machine is educated as to how these develop and how to inspect are useless as taking a dweeb off the street and setting them in the cabs.
then just for argument sake, there should be no crane accidents when humans operate them..but there are many accidents from humans and most of the time its human error that causes it..the crane operator takes a risk in wind or weight or is distracted on his cell phone or something else that a computer wont have..where a sensor would shut down the crane if any of those factors were present...automatics has its place and will be the future in more areas...but the companies figure the money saved from paying salaries and possibly avoiding human error are worth the risk for the payback..unfortunately technology is here to stay..
In today's world can a sensor be bad and the machine computer not know about it. How many cranes have tipped over because of a failure in the LMI? How often does an operator inspect the frame of any crane for cracks? How many mines large enough to utilize a D11T will have soft spots where they can get stuck? How can you compare what a piece of heavy equipment does in relation to an autonomous car or truck driving down the road in terms of safety?
All true, but that doesnt matter to the bean counters that run the corporations, when they show the money saved to perceived risk, they will take it..when there is a catastrophic failure they will reevaluate and go from there...perfect example is telsa cars.. they had a failure with death and they are still being sold and will continue to push driver less cars... the argument can go both ways..im not pushing automation, but its coming and its the future, it wont get rid of all operators, but in a controlled environment like a mine that digs the same day after day...it will be the first areas to go driver less...look at all the factories that are automated..years ago everyone said it wouldnt happen..guess what it did..this is just the next phase..it wont happen overnite..
Hobbytime, I'm agreeing with you. Right now there are driverless farm tractors tending fields in Kansas and Nebraska with a nerd on a computer screen overseeing multiple machine operations.
As to those automated assembly lines, a friend works for Fiat Chrysler, he drives and stays at Belvedere Il for weeks on end then comes home as can. They attempted to automate the lines for body weld assembly, was fine until the first glitch, destroyed three days production run of body shells, welds in wrong spots, failure to adequately fuse, these made it thru to paint where they started falling apart in the paint vats. They had five personnel trying to do QA on these as the machines churned them out, failed to catch them then had to shut down for two weeks to determine Which robotic welder had sneezed out of fifty of them. Machine in question had a tight bearing on a rotation joint, would slip and set erratic position indications, then slip back and run as normal. Machine had no idea it was FUBAR. Line is still automated but there are now seventeen techs walking the floor and fifteen QA associates looking over the bodies. Oddly in that there were only 30 personnel on the floor swinging spot welders and four QA prior to automation.
They can probably spit out more units per hour though. That is what automation is all about, being able to produce more with less people or alternately the same people can produce more than ever before. In an ideal world, this means everybody has more of x for cheaper than was possible before. Although getting from where we are now to there can be painful for certain people who are not up to the task of moving from spot welding into a QA position, for instance. Just like always, the individual has to be able to be nimble to move to where the work exists, and not count on somebody else giving him a "job".
Got a point.
one of the biggest complaints from machine operators I noticed here was getting beat up on a machine over time,,that leads to sick time, or workers comp claims, physical injury and if you cant work disability..now if you could eliminate all that and the expense that goes along with it, add on all the no shows and down time on equipment, coffee breaks, cigarette breaks and so on..a computer will give you 12 solid hours of nonstop work..if it wasnt worth it the companies would not pursue automation... im sure there are plenty of down side items with automation...it sux for the person whose job is replaced by a computer or robot and cant get retrained to another job..but its much easier to control a computer than a human..and lets not forget rough handling of the machinery, you know the old beat the heII out of it because it aint mine...a computer wont do that either.. all this tech is not for the benefit of the worker, its for the benefit of the owner or whoever the bottom line is good for,,and they call this progress....
Sensors fail all the time without throwing a code, as long as it's within normal range limits, it can be anywhere in that range, so you can have up to 100% error and the computer will accept it as gospel. How about an anemometer with a bad bearing that only reads five or six mph when the wind is actually blowing forty? Redundancy can lead to redundant errors. Nothing is foolproof, the universe keeps breeding smarter fools.
So agree so agree.
All true, but then why arent some of the hundreds of thousands of airplanes every day that fly falling out of the sky on a regular basis, the whole aircraft is run by computers and sensors, yes there is a pilot, but when the engines go out or the hydraulics for wing flaps, there isnt much they can do except grab the parachute.when your at 30,000 feet, and you just cant pull over to the side and call AAA for service..LOL..autonomous equipment will have back up systems, you say it cost..but so does a human operator, what does it cost a year for a good equipment operator? after the employer pays all the taxes, retirement, medical, base pay...as you said nothing is guaranteed to work perfect all the time...
not to beat a dead horse, but if you think autonomous machinery was bad enough.....just hold onto your hats for AI- artificial intelligence......sometimes I think we need protection from ourselves on where we go with technology..just because we can doesnt mean we should....
I came across this recently, drone style remote operating from anywhere and semi automonous loaders for mine work. Ideal in remote or dangerous conditions. For bulk earth moving or mining it looks like the future to me. Saves a lot of travel time and expense of accomodation. They say it costs the same as one guy per shift. Not quite sure how much that guy costs, but you get the idea. http://www.hard-line.com/en/ http://www.hard-line.com/teleremote-control/ Graham
Probably because they have multiple redundancy, components cost a multiple of probably 100 times versus construction equipment (which is already outrageous) and there's a huge maintenance crew constantly replacing failed items, along with flight crews checking and testing prior to every flight. Pilots kinda like it when the plane they're riding in doesn't blow up or fall out of the sky, there's not as much motivation for safety in construction, mining, or Ag when the machines have no human operator on board. I'm sure it's happening, but I am also sure it's going to be painful, and job security for people like me.
They may well be perfectly engineered. But they still have cables that wear, sheaves and other parts that need lubrication, and someone has to check them for cracks. Not to mention keeping an eye on the ground under the outriggers, or crawlers, whatever you have.
Yair . . . And these rip Cats are going to work the grain of the rock and set out their slots and what all eh? . . . or is so that in the this brave new world all the stuff we've learnt doesn't matter? Cheers.
I was just kidding around buckethead. I could just hear some engineer responding with that for a answer. I don't see it working
At Black Thunder Mine, Wyoming Powder River Basin, one of the worlds largest, They run autonomous and remote D-11's for mass dozing operations, mainly leveling cast shots to build dragline benches. One operator looks after three D11's at once and several operators are in the control trailer above the cast...They can let the machines work on GPS control and adjust or override any of the three units they are responsible for. They have a complete set of controls and view all operations on multiple high def monitors in front of them...and all the time sitting in a plush armchair in air conditioned comfort, no noise, no rough ride, no discomfort. They get massive production from this set up... many other very large mines have haul trucks, dozers etc set up like this now. Go to the Cat video to see it all in action..... ge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rej34VFoTrotmassive
Nearly all construction and mining operations are intricate enough to require an operator on each machine, but in all honesty, who wants to run a dozer for 12 hours just backing up, dropping the blade and pushing another load down the hill. Monotony will get to all of us whether its push after push, pass after pass across a field, or mile after mile down the highway. I can see the benefit in not having an op that could fall asleep at the end of a push and over the edge he goes. I thought I would love to run a dozer for a living, but after digging a few ponds, repetitive work will dull anyone's senses to the point of becoming accident prone. I watched a video where mine haul trucks are being refueled by a robot. The driver now doesn't have to get out of the cab and results in a quicker refuel with less chance of operator injury. On a spring day, he might enjoy getting out of the cab to refill but what about when its ball freezing cold and the steps are iced over or hot enough to burn. There will still be many jobs a robot or automation will never be able to replace (repair, machine rescue, assembly, etc.) I don't like anything with a computer but I can definitely see their benefits. I have been pushing a customer to install a GPS auto guide on his self propelled hay cutter to maximize each pass instead of overlapping or missing crop.
Its all very simple.... PRODUCTION yds and tons moved per man hour... Thats how it always has been in mining when you think about it. It is the future not matter what. Its cheaper today to move a yard of dirt than it was in the 1800's. Lots of mining folks will tell you... the iron is the cheap part, the people, the regulations, the insurance, that's the expensive part. Farming, same thing.. Bigger machines, automation, etc... yield per hour worked. Its the only way to stay in business now days.