I am a roboticist in a cheese factory
blogs.scientificamerican.com
blogs.scientificamerican.com
* Improper product from upstream processes (wrong dimensions, doesn't assemble, wrong physical properties, etc).
* Unplanned downtime.
* Being behind on production goals (meaning they won't stop the machine for you to install and test your new widget that might fix everything).
* Management turning down many very useful OEM upgrades on a cost basis.
* Imbalanced production rates. The bottleneck of the factory should be the primary focus for improvements.
And for a fun fact: lubricant used in food production equipment must be safe for humans. For this reason, vegetable oil and similar products are often used.
This is why we work 54hr weeks. All the time.
Unfortunately you can't really tell management "a lack of planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on my part". Contracts often have penalties for late delivery or worse, running a vendor managed inventory level to 0 (full on stopping production costing many thousands of dollars per hour).
I am a bit concerned about scrambling workers and production lines in heavy industry, though. Makes me question the safety of pushing tired workers to work faster/longer hours...
Fuck it, I'll take it. Might as well throw in some pride as well.
YMMV!
Germany or any other civilized country with such things as laborer protection laws. But in a society with at-will employment like the US I wouldn't expect any kind of protection, so...
Having worked for a German company where 7-midnight shifts were a regular thing for month (project team of five): Sure. That's illegal. I know that, knew that then. But maybe you just want to do your job and get over with it. Then there's the fucked up problem between coworkers. Five people. If one says "Enough! I go home now after 12 hours!" then four are "Erm... why do you leave us to finish the tasks?".
Germany (can't comment on other so-called civilized countries) is no help here if the employees feel that they're in a bind.
Yes, but these examples are rare and when you document your working time carefully you can get quite a load of money by going via the court system. In the US, they're widespread and no way for recourse.
Private industry always finds a way. And high-supply labour with no job security can't easily say no.
There are also times where it's not really a choice. I interned in a town of 1200 which hosted the only traffic light in the county and was 30 minutes away from a city of 30,000. Production was 4 10's, but turned into 5 10's when things were booming, and then an extra 4 hours on Saturday. The only way to guarantee a weekend of was to take a vacation day on Friday.
They had a tough time hiring when it's booming. When the economy is good, good welders are in short supply everywhere (not just small towns). They pay sufficiently for living in the rural Midwest, the only way they can really get the work done is by working the hours.
Some factories are located on rivers because the equipment brought in is many times the max allowable on roadways...there's no other way to get the equipment installed.
5x 8 hour work day + 1 hour each way commute = 50h/week.
54h/week + 20 minute each way commute = 57.3h/week.
54h/week + 1 hour each way commute = 64h/week.
That said, 56h is half your time awake a week. It does not leave a lot of wiggle room for other commitments.
At 8 hours a day, plus 1 hour there and 1 hour back, each of your 5 work days would total 10 hours. 5 of those is a 50h work week, not a 60h week:
5d * (8h + 1h + 1h) = 50h/week
I do agree that commute times are important, but they're not quite the heavy hitter that your original example implies.
8 hours work + 2x 1h commute + off clock (30 minutes lunch + 2 x 15 minute breaks) = 55 hour week.
5 minute commute + 54 hour/week including lunch = 55 hour week.
But, that seemed a little contrived. I think you saw a poor edit.
My commute, door to door, is 1500 meters, no quite 1 mile. There is very little traffic to speak of, even at the the busiest part of the day.
Good to know, had always wondered about this.
Chris King (the bicycle parts manufacturer) uses only soy oil for their machining operations because it has a lower environmental footprint and can be safely recycled.
I specifically compared software projects here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15197767
And I outlined more manufacturing challenges here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15195869
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanban#Toyota%27s_Six_Rules
This game shows this quite well: www.positech.co.uk/productionline/
For instance, a blender is not versatile. But a cooking robot can do more things (it blends, but also cooks, mixes, etc.). This is why the cooking robot is more a robot than a blender.
This is similar in industry. You have specialized machines, which can do a single thing. Industrial robots are more versatile because we can program them to achieve different task (e.g. when there is a new model of car). The ultimate robot would be as versatile as a human. This kind of humanoid would have the highest level of ‘roboticity’.
Agreed. I actually think movies downplay "robot" arms too much, making them look like dumb graspers/movers when in fact they're incredibly versatile not only mechanically, but also programmatically (for example, being able to specify maximum forces, a center of mass, "up", and have it work with all of these parameters as efficiently as possible).
For example, the Kuka:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vcl6n4LOJRM
Anyway, I immediately though of this concept you've described: Artificial Intelligence is an abstract imagine, once implemented it's just "branch prediction", or some such.
0 - http://www.electronicdesign.com/microprocessors/ai-helps-amd...
If it always does exactly the same thing, even if triggered, then I would call it a machine.
So you could have a packing machine - each item to pack is always in the same place. Or a packing robot - it looks for the item to pack, and grabs it where it finds it.
There are obviously some machines/robots that fall on the fuzzy line between those. For example if the machine is simply triggered by the arrival of an item to pack, it's kind of borderline.
Basically: Robot = Machine + Sensors
What's a VSD in this case? Variable Speed Drive?
you contradicted your own point. Those are sensors. Without them the P&P wouldn't be able to do its job.
I think I agree with your point at large, though, that the "proprioceptive" sensors of the robot don't have anything to do with the environment the robot is in, or the task at hand.
But now what about an air conditioner with a thermostat? That's got a sensor and an actuator and the sensor in this case really is fundamental to the task at hand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox
People can list any number of things: reactive behaviour, complexity of tasks, programmability, autonomy, anthropomorphic design (in part or whole). But really, whether we call it a robot or a generic machine depends on which probabilistic impulses any given instance trigger on the average person using the language. The criteria differ from person to person, the activation levels differ too, and the probability distribution can change over time also. The word is a cultural artifact and has no real meaning other than its relations with concepts in people's brains. Unlike, say, the word "two": that has very precise meaning independent of cultural concepts.
As a fan of the "How It's Made" show, I'm fascinated by the systems in factories, which could be thought of as large machines themselves, even if some of the cogs are human beings doing repetitive tasks.
Apparently though, people don't care about jobs being "stolen" by fork lift trucks or giant ovens but human shaped robots let your job get taken without even the smallest amount of rijigging and that makes the threat very real for some people.
We also need a word for a human that replaces machine labour. E.g. in the case of downtime, or when there is no funding to buy one.
Perhaps "Mechanical Turk" would be that word. So that would mean that "robot" can be defined as its opposite.
but that might just be a limited pov
Mobility is a classifier that helps distinguish robots from computers. Autonomy differentiates robots from piloted vehicles.
Autonomy does not require inference, reasoning, or behavior choice.
We used pallets and when you would have a small tower built on these things you would have to do the clingfilm wrap to hold it all together. This was not a big process, it would take a couple of minutes to do and a forklift would need to access the pallet to take it away as soon as this was done.
In this factory we made cheese on a truly industrial scale, however, the thought of getting a robot to do the clingfilm wrap would be anything but the first thing on the mind of the boss. So this cheese factory must be gigantic, up there with the gigafactory...
So is this any good, this string cheese in packs from this vast industrial operation? Is there some conclusion to this where America ends up with just one mega-dairy factory somewhere in the Mid-West with nobody else able to compete against the robots? For things like clingfilm wrapping to be too hard for humans to do?
I would like to see a different approach, a highly robotised but small scale cheese factory, on the back of a lorry. Something that can be taken to the farm so that we can have 'single farm' cheeses.
One note: the link to her Instagram page at the bottom of the article is broken (there's an unneeded = at the end). The correct URL is: