- demos done in a lab controlled environment without the crazy things that happen in a real world.
- no humans nearby so none of the safety features that would be needed should this thing work alongside/near humans.
- no regards for economics, expensive vision models, expensive hardware, no consideration for maintenance and repair costs
This is the #1 killer every time.
You will always find the most efficient farm machinery to be the least human-like in its design principles. The more it looks like something out of Mad Max the better.
Unless we come up with a machine like the combine harvester for blackberries, no one is going to be interested.
Good news! https://airharvesters.com/
Clarkson's farm taught me that this is already a thing.
Some berries get damaged, yes. Some leaves and twigs get through. They're separated out by a very fast vision-based sorting machine before packing.[1] That's been standard technology for a decade or so.
Apple picking is still in the R&D stage.[2] Cost needs to come down to $0.02 per pick.
It's great to see startups in this area, but the thing has to work. There are too many failed ag robotics startups.[3] Ask "could you pressure-wash this thing"? If there are wires, electronics, and bearings exposed, it's still experimental.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ica3FLAvPas
[2] https://goodfruit.com/lots-of-bots-video
[3] https://www.futurefarming.com/tech-in-focus/field-robots/cha...
Is that a necessary requirement? I mean, that would probably damage current harvesters, who are human people.
I mean, there are lots of parts of cars where pressure washing would probably force fluid into the bearings.
Might that not apply to hydraulic, pneumatic or electronic systems too?
(I do get what you're saying though)
Unless you need delicate sensors which need direct contact to samples to work.
Maybe it's not a complete necessity, but generally it's gonna be mixed in with big farm equipment that is power washed. The more you have to "coddle" the equipment the less cost effective it'll be for farmers.
Farm workers generally know how to wash themselves. Still I'd wage good money farm hands have used power washers on each other. Probably work well to clean off work coveralls!
Also, our wash down hoses were basically power washers, but like 10x the volume.
Probably, but this is unsafe - you don't want to deal with high pressure jets of water or flying debris near eyes.
Strictly it needn't be if it offers an even better solution, but, realistically, what startup trying to introduce a new technology (that isn't cleaning technology) has time to also develop a novel way to clean things? It is such an unlikely scenario that it isn't worth considering.
Oh? I find my human-based process for separating grain to be of the very same principles as the combine. The specific mechanics aren't exactly the same. For example a combine has a fan, while I have lungs. But the principle — using airflow to aid in separation — is the same.
The sprayer is the only piece of equipment on my farm I can think of that employs a different principle to do the job as compared to how I would do the job by hand.
Have you ever dealt with blackberry brambles? Because "plant" and "manage" aren't the words that come to mind. "Dominate" and "contain"... maybe?
If you want the essence of this technique look at any university press release about fusion technology.
There's no incentive for the capital class to massively invest in fruit picking robotics when there are tens of millions of exploitable humans on the planet that you can use do the same job for dirt cheap.
The economic balance needs to change for change to happen.
That's why the capital class is overinvesting in AI, because that can potentially replace the higher paid jobs where the labor has leverage and turn them into similarly exploitable workers.
Although when it comes to precedents, "robots" have (luckily) taken many jobs in agriculture already.