Submitted by brad on Mon, 2010-11-29 15:28.
Two bits of robocar news from last week. I had been following the progress of the Stanford/VW team that was building a robotic Audi TT to race to the top of Pikes Peak. They accomplished their run in September, but only now made the public announcement of it. You can find photos and videos with the press release or watch a video on youtube.
This project began with the team teaching the vehicle to “drift” — make controlled turns while wheels are skidding, something needed on the windy curves and dirt/gravel/pavement mix on the way up to Pikes Peak. Initial impressions were that they had the goal of being a competitor in the famous Pikes Peak Hill Climb — a time trial race to the top by human drivers, the fastest of whom have climbed in in 10 minutes, 3 seconds in major muscle cars. The best standard cars have done it in about 11.5 minutes, and Audi says a stock TT would take a bit under 17 minutes.
The autonomous Audi’s time of 27 minutes, with a top speed of 45mph, is thus a bit disappointing for those who were hoping for some real man vs. machine competition. The team leader, Burkhard Huhnke, downplayed this, saying that the goal was to come to a better understanding of computer controlled cornering and skidding, in order to make better driver assist systems for production vehicles. Indeed, that is a good goal and it is expected that robocar technologies will first appear as driver assist and safety features in production cars.
The actual run was also marred by tragedy when the helicopter filming it crashed.
Earlier, I spoke with James Gosling — more famous as the creator of the Java language — about his role in the project. Gosling knows languages and compilers very well, and he helped the team develop a compiler so the interpreted scripts they were writing in languages like Matlab. Gosling’s compiler was able to run the resulting code around 100x faster than the interpreter, allowing them to do a lot more with less hardware.
There is strong interest in man vs. machine robocar contests. Such contests, aside from setting a great bar for the robots, will demonstrate their abilities to the public and generate strong public interest. This turned out not to be such a contest, but someday a robot will race to the top of Pikes Peak in better than 10 minutes. It will have a bigger engine, and many more sensors than the Audi in this run, which mostly relied on augmented GPS (extra transmitters were put by the roadside for full accuracy.)
A future car will have a complete map in its head of where all road surfaces are, and their characteristics. It will know the physics of the car and the road better than any human driver. The main thing humans will be able to do is use their eyes to judge changing road conditions, but they don’t change very much, and computer vision or sensor systems to make such judgments don’t seem like an impossible project.
Masdar PRT in operation
In other news, the greatly-shrunk Masdar PRT system, built by 2getthere Inc. of the Netherlands, has entered production operation in Masdar, an experimental city project just outside Abu Dhabi. The project only has 2 stops for passengers (and 3 more for cargo) at this point. It runs at ground level, and pedestrians use an artificial level one floor up.
These pods have many robocar features. They use rubber tires and run on open, unmarked pavement, guiding themselves via odometry and sensing magnets embedded every 5 feet or so in the pavement. They also have laser sensors which see obstructions on the roadway and any pedestrians. They will stop for pedestrians, and even follow you if you walk ahead, maintaining a fixed distance. The system is not designed to mix with pedestrians, however, and the control software shuts down the relevant section of the track if passengers exit their vehicle outside a station.
The tracking is accurate enough that, as you can see, the tires have left black trails on the pavement by constantly running in the same place.
Photos and video can currently be found at the PRT Consulting site and this video shows it pulling out of a station. There is only one other video — I hope more will arrive soon.
The economy has scaled Masdar’s plans back greatly. The original plan called for a whole city done one floor up with a network of these proto-robocar PRT pods running underneath, and no traditional cars in the whole city.
Submitted by brad on Tue, 2010-11-23 18:29.
Nissan is touting that the EPA gave the new Leaf a mileage rating of 99mpg “gasoline equivalent”. What is not said in some stories (though Nissan admits it in the press release) is that this is based on the EPA rating a gallon of gasoline as equivalent to 33.7 kwh, and the EPA judging that the car only goes 73 miles on its 24kwh battery.
There is a huge problem with these numbers. If it were possible to convert perfectly, a gallon of gasoline actually has about 36kwh, so possibly the EPA is factoring in the 7% loss of electrical distribution. But in reality it isn’t even remotely possible to convert fuel to electricity perfectly.
I have written and update on comparing gasoline and electricity with more details.
The Department of Energy, for example, offers a number which puts under 13kwh as the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline. That’s how many kwh you get out of the plug if you burn coal, gas or oil with roughly the same energy as that gallon of gas. With the DoE’s number, the Leaf is getting a combined mileage of around 36 mpg-equivalent. That’s not a bad number, but there are many gasoline cars that do better than that. Even a Lexus hybrid does similar to that. This is no minor error, it’s a massive one, and it’s highly unlikely that Nissan or the EPA are unaware of it. This gives the impression of an attempt to make the Leaf seem way, way better than it is to promote electric cars. The problem with that is that when people learn the truth, they are going to be unhappy, and will be soured on electric cars, Nissan and the EPA.
Now I will agree that there is justifiable debate over the right way to do this calculation. The DoE works from its calculation of the average efficiency of power plants in the USA. People in areas with more efficient power will do better using electricity than those close to old coal plants (which are the big drag-down here.) The DoE also counts BTUs in nuclear plants (which provide about 20% of U.S. energy) as BTUs even though no fossil fuel is burned and no greenhouse gas is emitted. People must judge for themselves how “dirty” they think nuclear BTUs are, and how to value an electric car in areas where most of the electricity is nuclear. Even harder to judge are the 10% of US kwh that come from hydro. Hydro doesn’t even have BTUs or pollution, though it does come with environmental destruction. If you live in the Pacific Northwest or parts of Canada where most of the power is from hydro, you may judge the 99mpg number as more realistic, though in this case the concept of a gasoline equivalent is stretched pretty thin.
If you live in California, which burns almost no coal and gets most of its power from natural gas, and then nuclear, the real number isn’t as bad as the national average, but it’s still nowhere close to 99mpg. If you live in a place that is almost all-coal, like Utah or New Mexico, electric cars are not so great an idea — their only environmental advantage is that the fuel source is domestic rather than imported, and the coal is burned elsewhere, not right next to you.
There are other electric cars that are more efficient than the Leaf, but the big reality is that to really beat out the 50mph gasoline hybrids you need to make your car lighter.
“But wait,” some people say. We can run our electric car on solar or renewables and all is wonderful! Don’t get me started on this. There are no solar electrons. Installing renewable generation can be a good idea, but you must tie it to the grid for it to work. Not tying solar or wind or other sources to the grid is highly wasteful, because the power is discarded any time the battery is not empty (or worse, not connected.) Grid tie makes the grid greener, and people who do that can feel good about it if they do it well, but it does’t make driving more than a tiny smidgen of a percent greener than it was.
Shame on Nissan and the EPA. I hope that at least, Nissan will only sell the car in places with electricity that is well above average in quality, and refuse to sell it in places where the power is mostly from coal.
Not that I don’t understand the motivation. Had the EPA rated the car with the DoE methodology number of 36mpg, it might well have killed the car at the starting gate. It’s an interesting moral question if it’s right to lie to kickstart a technology which will become better with time. They could also have lobbied for a more reasonable but generous mpg, perhaps derived from the best natural gas plants, which would have offered a number in the 50s. Not nearly as exciting but not a car-killer, though the comparison to the Prius or Insight would not look so good.
It would have been best if they had just developed a new standard, like watt-hours/mile or miles/kwh, and leave it to the press and local power utilities to publish local conversions between “kwh” and gallons. (Not the dealers, they can’t be trusted of course.) It actually would be quite handy if every power utility were to publish, for each zone the local efficiency of the power grid in terms of BTU/kwh or greenhouse effect/kwh.
Update on Chevy Volt: The numbers for the Volt were released. As a plug-in Hybrid that can go 35 miles on its batteries and then has a gasoline engine, they rated it as 97mpg while on the battery (similar false number to the Leaf) and 37mpg while on gasoline. These numbers are actually roughly the same when using electricity at the grid national average.
Sad to say, but if you live in a place where the power comes from coal, the math seems to say you should remove most of the batteries and save the weight.
Submitted by brad on Sat, 2010-11-20 13:58.
You’re driving down the road. You see another car on the road with you that has a problem. The lights are off and it’s dusk. There is something loose that may break off. There’s something left on the roof or the trunk is not closed — any number of things. How do you tell the driver that they need to stop and check? I’ve tried sometimes and they mostly think you are some sort of crazy, driving to close to them, waving at them, honking or shouting. Perhaps after a few people do it they figure it out.
We have a few signals. Oncoming cars flash lights on and off to warn you your lights are off. (Sometimes they are also warning of a speed trap.) High beams means, “I want to pass and you’re impeding the lane” and while many think that’s rude it’s better than tailgating.
We need a signal for “There is a problem with your car, you should check it out.” This signal should be taught in driving schools, and even be on the driving test. A publicity campaign should educate existing drivers.
One proposal that might make sense is the SCUBA signal for “I have a problem.” This is holding your hand flat, palm down, and wiggling it side to side (ie. rotating your wrist.) Then you point to the source of the problem, like your regulator or whatever. (There are specific SCUBA signals for well known problems, like being low on air, nitrogen narcosis etc.)
For this signal you would waggle the hand and then point at the place on the other person’s car. To those untrained, the signal often mean’s “dicey” or uncertain. Shaking of the head could also strengthen the signal.
Anybody have a better signal to propose?
Submitted by brad on Fri, 2010-11-19 01:32.
Today, I was challenged with the question of how well robocars would deal with deer crossing the road. There are 1.5 million collisions with deer in the USA every year, resulting in 200 deaths of people and of course many more deer. Many of the human injuries and crashes have come from trying to swerve to avoid the deer, and skidding instead during the panic.
At present there is no general purpose computer vision system that can just arbitrarily identify things — which is to say you can’t show it a camera view of anything and ask, “what is that?” CV is much better at looking for specific things, and a CV system that can determine if something is a deer is probably something we’re close to being able to make. However, I made a list of a number of the techniques that robots might have to do a better job of avoiding collisions with animals, and started investigating thoughts on one more, the “flying bumper” which I will detail below.
Spotting and avoiding the deer
- There are great techniques for spotting animal eyes using infrared light bouncing off the retinas. If you’ve seen a cheap flash photo with the “red eye” effect you know about this. An IR camera with a flash of IR light turns out to be great at spotting eyes and figuring out if they are looking at you, especially in darkness.
- A large number of deer collisions do take place at dusk or at night, both because deer move at these times and humans see badly during them. LIDAR works superbly in darkness, and can see 100m or more. On dry pavement, a car can come to a full stop from 80mph in 100m, if it reacts instantly. The robocar won’t identify a deer on the road instantly but it will do so quickly, and can thus brake to be quite slow by the time it travels 100m.
- Google’s full-map technique means the robocar will already have a complete LIDAR map of the road and terrain — every fencepost, every bush, every tree — and of course, the road. If there’s something big in the LIDAR scan at the side of the road that was not there before, the robocar will know it. If it’s moving and more detailed analysis with a zoom camera is done, the mystery object at the side of the road can be identified quickly. (Radar will also be able to tell if it’s a parked or disabled vehicle.)
- They are expensive today, but in time deep infrared cameras which show temperature will become cheap and appear in robocars. Useful for spotting pedestrians and tailpipes, they will also do a superb job on animals, even animals hiding behind bushes, particularly in the dark and cool times of deer mating season.
- Having spotted the deer, the robocar will never panic, the way humans often do.
- The robocar will know its physics well, and unlike the human, can probably plot a safe course around the deer that has no risk of skidding. If the ground is slick with leaves or rain, it will already have been going more slowly. The robocar can have a perfect understanding of the timings involved with swerving into the oncoming traffic lane if it is clear. The car can calculate the right speed (possibly even speeding up) where there will be room to safely swerve.
- If the oncoming traffic lane is not clear, but the oncoming car is also a robocar, it might some day in the far future talk to that car both to warn it and to make sure both cars have safe room to swerve into the oncoming lane.
- Areas with major deer problems put up laser sensors along the sides of the road, which detect if an animal crosses the beam and flash lights. A robocar could get data from such sensors to get more advanced warning of animal risks areas.
Getting the deer to move
There might be some options to get the deer to get out of the way. Deer sometimes freeze; a “deer in the headlights.” A robocar, however, does not need to have visible headlights! It may have them on for the comfort of the passengers who want to see where they are going and would find it spooky driving in the dark guided by invisible laser light, but those comfort lights can be turned off or dimmed during the deer encounter, something a human driver can’t do. This might help the deer to move. read more »
Submitted by brad on Mon, 2010-11-15 15:20.
Many people wonder whether robocars will just suffer the curse of regular cars, namely traffic congestion. They are concerned that while robocars might solve many problems of the automobile, in many cities there just isn’t room for more roads. Can robocars address the problems of congestion and capacity? What about combined with ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems) efforts to make roads smarter for human driven cars?
I think the answer is quite positive, for a number of different reasons. I have added a new Robocar essay:
Traffic Congestion and Capacity with Robocars
In short, a wide variety of factors (promotion of small, single passenger cars, ability to reverse streets during rush-hour, elimination of accidents and irrational congestion-fostering behaviour, shorter headways, metering of road usage and load balancing of roads and several others) could amount to a severalfold increase in the capacity of our roads, with minimal congestion. If you add the ability to do convoys, the increase can be 5 to 10 fold. (About 20-fold in theory.) The use of on-demand pooling into buses over congested sections allows a theoretical (though unlikely) 100-fold increase in highway capacity.
While these theoretical limits are unlikely, the important lesson is that once most of the cars on the roads are robotic, we have more than enough road capacity to handle our current needs and needs well into the future. In general, overcapacity causes building, so in time we’ll start to use it up — and have much larger cities, if we wish them — but unlike today’s roads which add capacity until they collapse from congestion, advanced metering can assure that no road accepts more vehicles than it can handle without major risk of congestion collapse.
Even before most cars are robotic, various smart-road efforts will work to improve capacity and traffic flow. The appearance of robotic safety systems in human driven cars will also reduce accidents and congestion along the way. Free market economist Robin Hanson believes the ability of cities to grow much larger will be one of the biggest consequences of robocar capacity improvements.
Submitted by brad on Sun, 2010-11-14 16:47.
For many years I have had a popular article on what lenses to buy for a Canon DSLR. I shoot with Canon, but much of the advice is universal, so I am translating the article into Nikon.
If you shoot Nikon and are familiar with a variety of lenses for them, I would appreciate your comments. At the start of the article I indicate the main questions I would like people’s opinions on, such as moderately priced wide angle lenses, as well as regular zooms.
If you “got a Nikon camera and love to take photographs” please read the article on what lens to buy for your Nikon DSLR and leave comments here or send them by email to email@example.com. I’m also interested in lists of “what’s in your kit” today.
Submitted by brad on Mon, 2010-11-08 16:43.
I’ve written before about solutions to “range anxiety” — the barrier to adoption of electric cars which derives from fear that the car will not have enough range and, once out of power, might take a very long time to recharge. It’s hard to compete with gasoline’s 3 minute fill-up and 300 mile ranges. Earlier I proposed an ability to quickly switch to a rental gasoline car if running out of range.
A company called EMAV has proposed a self-propelled battery trailer to solve this problem. While I am not sure how real the company is, the idea has value, particularly when it comes to robotics. As I have written, robocars can solve the “range anxiety” problem in several ways; mainly that robots don’t care about how convenient charging is, and people don’t worry about the range of a taxi beyond the current trip. But batteries are still an issue, even there.
The trailer proposal has the car hitch on the small trailer (which has room for cargo as well) and it provides the extra batteries you need when dong a long trip. The trailer is also motorized so it puts no load on the possibly small car that is “towing” it. EMAV imagines you might buy this, keep it charged, and only put it on when you need to do a long trip.
That could work, but presents a few problems. First of all, cars are much less nimble when they have a trailer on them. Backing up is much harder, and in fact novices will get completely stymied by it. You take an extra-long parking space if you can fit at all. There’s also extra drag.
We might solve the maneuvering problem a bit with a mildly robotic trailer that has a link to the car controls, making backups and turns more natural. This can be done either with steerable wheels on the trailer or just independent motor wheels which can be turned at different speeds. Such a trailer might be able to couple much more closely with the car, possibly going right on the tail so that it acts like an extension of the vehicle. This might also solve the parking problem.
Things could also be aided by making the couple and decouple very simple and easy. That’s a tall order because of safety issues, and the need for a high-current wire. The ideal would be an automatic decouple, so you could temporarily drop the trailer off somewhere if you needed to handle roads and parking where a trailer isn’t workable. Even better but harder would be an automatic recouple, obviously requiring some more sophisticated robotics in the trailer, and a fully safe coupling system.
With standardization, trailers like this could be left on lots all over a city. Anybody with a compatible electric car could, if they needed it, stop off at a convenient lot to grab a trailer. (The trailer would also be in a charging station, making automatic coupling even harder.) With the trailer grabbed there would be no range anxiety. The trailer could simply provide power, or it could go further and charge the car at high speed, allowing the trailer to be dropped off at another charging station an hour or so later. (While this sounds nice, battery chemistries may doom this plan, since you now are putting two batteries through heavy use cycles to get one unit of charge into the car, doubling the battery lifetime cost of the energy.)
While eventually trailers would need to get back to their base after one-way trips, there are lots of ways to encourage various drivers to do that. As long as the dropped
trailer is not entirely empty, you can offer drivers who take it back a ride without using their own battery, for example.
This approach might be better than the battery-swap stations planned by “A Better Place.” The Better Place battery swap is cool, but requires all cars that use it be designed around its one particular battery configuration, and that people not own their own batteries. The swap stations are expensive and land intensive, while trailer depots would require nothing but a little land and a charging station for the trailer. A special trailer hitch is a much smaller modification of a car, too.
(One variation of the “PRU” trailer has the trailer contain a diesel generator rather than a battery pack. This of course has the range of liquid fuel, and doesn’t even need a charging station where you drop it of. It’s not being particularly green when used in this fashion of course, a bit worse than a serial hybrid car. If the trailer is heavy enough it could physically push the car and not need an electrical connection to it, though people might get highly confused by steering in such situations.)
As a cheaper and more flexible version of battery swap, this approach could be good for robocars too. Robots, unlike people, will not feel too burdened by the issues of driving a vehicle with a trailer, especially if they can control the trailer’s motors or steering. Parking’s easier too, especially if they can do robotic docking and undocking. While I have written how important it is that people don’t care about the range of a taxi, the owner of a taxi cares about the duty cycle. If they robotic taxi has to spend too much of its time recharging, the return on investment is not nearly as quick. The trailer approach, like the battery swap approach, means downtime only for the batteries, not the vehicle. If the trailers are themselves simple robocars, they can move at low and safe speeds to come meet robocars that need them for a range boost. Even if not, they need not take up much space and they’re easy to scatter everywhere for quick access. Indeed, the car itself might always use a trailer and thus have only enough battery power within it to get from one trailer to the next.
Submitted by brad on Tue, 2010-11-02 12:23.
There’s a problem I have seen at a number of free events, particularly “unconference” events which have a limited capacity. There will be a sign-up list, and once it fills up, people are turned away or get on a waiting list. (Some online ticket services now support the idea of free tickets for this purpose.)
Then you get to the event and 1/3 of the seats are empty. Because it did not cost anything to sign up, people were quite willing to no-show, and many other people signed up “just in case.” Unfortunately many who would have come decided not to go because the event was full.
To counter this, many events have started putting on a small charge “just for the sake of having a charge.” This charge is in the range of $10 to $30. It discourages signing up just in case, and makes people feel a little more strongly that they should come, but it’s not a burden for most people and raises a small amount of money for the event. (Usually such events are really paid for by sponsors or donors.)
Here’s another idea: Set a price for the event and take and authorize a credit card, but only charge the credit cards of the no-shows. This requires some sort of on-site desk where people can register to not get charged (or get a refund if they used another mechanism like paypal, cheuque or cash.)
The big question is, what should the price be? Many factors change as you change the price:
- If the price is very high, you start scaring people away from registering, but you will get very few no-shows.
- If the price is very low, you may still get plenty of no-shows, but now there is at least revenue for it … and empty seats.
- For some price ranges, a large fraction of the crowd may elect not to refund even though they are at the event, either because it’s a hassle, or they feel like donating. They may feel themselves as cheap by going to ask for their $30 back from a non-profit ad-hoc event. This can help pay for the event.
While it will vary based on the type of event and wealth of the crowd, there is probably an optimal price, which can only be found by experimentation, that both comes as close as possible to filling the room and generating the most revenue from no-shows. It is not out of the question that there could be a price which (combined with a subtle pressure on people to donate rather than refund) pays for the conference.
People who plan to no-show could cancel before the event, possibly just a day before if there is a waiting list. People on the waiting list would not have to pay, but could be told on the morning of the event if they are in. A well managed, real-time waiting list with good predictions on whether people will make it can help assure the room is full.
People who are spending other money to get the conference (ie. booking a flight or hotel) might not have to pay, as they have other penalties for not showing. It’s mostly locals who do the “just in case” sign-up.
If anybody tries this, I would be interested in getting reports about the price and how people reacted to it and how many refunded. Slightly harder is figuring out how many people are scared away by the price, even with the refund promise. Events that are free tend to be free for a reason, and this system might not meet those goals.
It would also be nice if ticket services supported this model. It makes sense, as they would get a small cut of any ticket not refunded. Refunds to paypal tend to cost you nothing, though I could see those services getting upset at merchants who are refunding almost all purchases and just using them as a vehicle for free. With cheques, one can also simply not deposit the cheque and even hand it back to the attendee at the conference. But since credit cards and paypal make it so easy, it is tempting to insist on those, and just allow a small fraction of the people to plead that they have no accounts, warning them the exceptions are personally reviewed.
You want to be able to process refunds without a large cost of volunteer or staff time. Of course if there is a registration desk you know who showed up and who didn’t, but most free events don’t want to have such a desk. If everybody uses a credit card, a number of options exist for a self-service desk. For example, they could just swipe the credit card they used at a self-swipe station, as counter-intuitive as “swipe to not be charged” might be. A station which photographs a person’s card or ID could also be self-serve, but requires post-processing.
The web page could also offer a QR code to print, and that printout could be brought and scanned to assure the refund. This could be done by a volunteer’s smartphone, or a self service station with PC and webcam. They need not actually print the code, as cameras can read a QR code from the attendee’s phone screen. Printouts though can also do a pre-printed attendee badge, allowing the person to just cut that out and pick up a badge-holder for it.
This does allow a small amount of cheating, where a no-show asks a friend to print out and show their refund page, but if the fee is low, I doubt there will be much of this. If there is already a staff desk, as most events have, placing the self-serve refund scanner there will discourage people from using it twice just to save a friend some money.
Note that having a refund desk where people have to come in person to ask for their refund will mean that more people decide to donate, so depending on the goals of the event, it may make sense to deliberately not make it trivial to get the refund. Some sponsored events may truly not wish the money, some may be secretly happy for it.
You do want to be sure you are accurate, so that people don’t complain they never got a refund after the fact. Again, I think cheating will be low in this area so it may not be a big concern.
Then, at the end of the conference, send an email to all on their refund status. This allows protests from those who thought they refunded. If the scanner is on-line, it could have emailed about the scan right then and there, and many can see that email right away. For a small amount of money you can also send a text message confirmation; just about anybody can get that.