Quote
Want to clean up the Gulf of Mexico oil spill in one month? Seaswarm says it can be done with 5000 floating robots.
As the name implies, the project uses swarm robotics. Each unit draws power from the sun, and drags around a conveyor belt of oil absorbent nanofabric that doesn't get wet in water. Once the fabric is saturated with crude it can be removed using heat; not a task the swarm can do by itself. But get this: after separating oil from nanofabric both can be used again. That means you get the environmental benefit of cleaning up the Gulf, not throwing away your collection medium, and the oil is once again a usable commodity. Sounds like a lot of high promises, but take a look at the video after the break and decide for yourself.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlHapZoIXqg[/yt]
Source: http://hackaday.com/2010/08/29/seaswarm-we-can-clean-up-the-gulf-in-a-month/
This is cool.
I hope it actually works and is used.
(https://rmrk.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.popgadget.net%2Fimages%2Fidance-wall-e.jpg&hash=eb73254e2813166de95a07e939b01369813666a7)
I'm more excited about the fabric, these robots seem too small to be of any real use. Easily broken, possibly could have issues with the ocean current, easily stolen, etc...
But the fabric looks magnificent.
Is this still necessary? Last I heard, mother nature was taking care of the oil (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-crude-mother-nature-breaks-slick/story?id=11254252).
Quote from: Irock on August 29, 2010, 06:02:27 PM
Is this still necessary? Last I heard, mother nature was taking care of the oil (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-crude-mother-nature-breaks-slick/story?id=11254252).
Are you really that complacent?
Quote from: NAMKCOR on September 01, 2010, 02:29:43 PM
Quote from: Irock on August 29, 2010, 06:02:27 PM
Is this still necessary? Last I heard, mother nature was taking care of the oil (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-crude-mother-nature-breaks-slick/story?id=11254252).
Are you really that complacent?
I don't see how complacent fits what I said, at all.
3rd Definition is Unconcerned (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/complacent).
The oil going back underwater isn't necessarily a good thing either, considering fish live there, not at the surface.
Quote from: NAMKCOR on September 02, 2010, 11:39:19 PM
3rd Definition is Unconcerned (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/complacent).
The oil going back underwater isn't necessarily a good thing either, considering fish live there, not at the surface.
"The light crude began to deteriorate the moment it escaped at high pressure, and then it was zapped with dispersants to speed the process along. The oil that did make it to the ocean's surface was broken up by 88-degree water, baked by 100-degree sun, eaten by microbes, and whipped apart by wind and waves."
It's not just floating under water. It's breaking up and becoming insignificant. You're going with the shrimp fisherman who thinks all the oil is sinking under the water and not the professor who says the oil is naturally being reabsorbed into the environment. Why would the oil just suddenly sink under the water? Isn't water more dense than oil?
I was under the impression that a good portion of the spill was still under the water, if that's not the case, my mistake.
I'm just all for giving an active effort to cleaning things up faster.