C8
Paper #66
Disclaimer—This paper partially fulfills a writing requirement for first year (freshman) engineering students at the
University of Pittsburgh Swanson School of Engineering. This paper is a student, not a professional, paper. This paper is
based on publicly available information and may not provide complete analyses of all relevant data. If this paper is used for
any purpose other than these authors’ partial fulfillment of a writing requirement for first year (freshman) engineering
students at the University of Pittsburgh Swanson School of Engineering, the user does so at his or her own risk.
THE MICROMECHANICAL ROBOBEE
Ryan Rohm, [email protected], Mahboobin 10am, Zach Romac, [email protected], Mahboobin 10am
Abstract— Arguably, one of the most important projects
within mechanical engineering and robotics is the RoboBee.
The RoboBee is a small flying robot that is just half the size
of a paperclip, but is capable of controlled flight, which
scientists can utilize to pollinate plants in the absence of bees.
The team of mechanical and robotic engineers at Harvard
that created the RoboBee were tasked with selfmanufacturing the micro sensors, microcontrollers, and
actuators made of piezoelectric material that allow it to flap
its wings in response to electrical stimuli. These micro
mechanic advancements are what make the RoboBee a
possible solution to the drastic decline in bee population.
Agriculture would suffer greatly with the extinction of bees
and humans would be left to counteract the diminishing crop
yield and decline in agricultural jobs with the RoboBee. The
technological solution would leave the RoboBee to pollinate
crops that are consumed by millions of people across the
world.
To display the RoboBee’s connection to mechanical
engineering, we researched the piezoelectric materials and
optical flow sensing control systems that provide the RoboBee
with the ability to fly. We will also identify ethical dilemmas
that surface by introducing a robot to compete with an
existing species. Through investigation, we plan to display
the growing need for RoboBees when considering the
diminishing bee population on Earth. While doing so we want
to make known that RoboBees can solve problems, while
creating others.
U.S are losing so many bees in a year that the population will
not be able to bounce back to its original size. This net loss of
bees, year after year, with no means of increase means a
steady decay of the bee population which will result in
extinction. The pollination performed by the honeybee affects
millions of people across the world and as hives begin to
dwindle, agriculture stands to take a major toll.
Following the drastic decline in bee population Robert
Wood and his colleagues began a project called the
RoboBee[2]. The RoboBee is a microscopic bee that is only
the size of a nickel and has the capability to fly and pollinate
crops as a normal bee does. Since the RoboBee is the only
robot of its kind, the mechanical and robotic engineers at
Harvard were tasked with self-manufacturing the micro
sensors, power source and actuators that allow the bee to
fly[2]. They also must attempt to match thousands of years of
evolution so the RoboBee can independently act as a living
bee does. This includes the ability to communicate, make
decisions, and act effectively as a cohesive swarm. The
effort to develop this microscopic robot with the ability to
perform prolonged flight and cognitive recognition of its
surroundings is opening new doors for micromechanical
devices. This includes furthering research into manufacturing
of micro structures, micro fuel cells, optical sensing, and
testing micro-robots.
Key Words— Bees, Drones, Colony Collapse Disorder, Micro
robotics, Optical flow sensors, Piezoelectric materials,
Technology in agricultural,
Manufacturing
THE MICROMECHANICS OF THE
ROBOBEE
In the development of the RoboBee, the Harvard team had
the strenuous task of developing a method of manufacturing
the microscopic parts. Since the use of these parts on such a
small scale is not the norm in robotics, the researchers were
forced to manufacture their own parts[2]. One of the main
focuses behind the RoboBee manufacturing process is that it
had to be efficient to allow for mass production. This is
because the bees main value is to work as a collective swarm
just like real bees. Thus, they developed a method of
lamination that lent itself not only to effective strength and
flexibility but also to an assembly line type production [2].
This production process was detailed in Wood’s article
“Flight of RoboBees” which was published by Nature.com.
The body was constructed out of a mix of hard carbon fiber
THE MECHANICAL SOLUTION TO THE
DIMINISHING BEE POPULATION
Honeybee hives across the world are diminishing rapidly
due to an epidemic called colony collapse disorder. In the
NRDC’s writing ‘Would a World Without Bees Be a World
Without Us?’ Brian Palmer reports that the “magic number”
for population loss is around 19% [1]. Any loss below that
threshold is sustainable, however two thirds of beekeepers
that answered the USDA survey displayed losses above 19%
[1]. This means that two thirds of the bee colonies kept in the
1
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering
Submission Date: 03.03.2017
Ryan Rohm
Zach Romac
sheets and thin softer polymers. These materials are both
lightweight and strong. Since the RoboBee has limited space
for structural materials, they must be small to accompany the
necessary battery and computing power for the bee. These
materials are first precisely cut-out using an ultraviolet laser
[2]. The machined cut-outs help to add flexion points to the
carbon fiber giving it increased mobility. Then the thin
polymer layer is sandwiched in between the hard sheets of
carbon fiber with an adhesive between each layer. The soft
polymer core in between the carbon fiber helps to add more
flexibility which increases the durability of the body. During
the adhesion process the pieces are held together using a flat
2D substructure, and when the lamination is complete the
pieces can be popped out of the substructure similar to how a
children’s pop-up book works [2]. This process can be seen
in figure 2 below.
robots run using electromagnetic motors and gears but at such
small scales they become too inefficient as frictional forces
become more influential [2]. Because of this inefficiency, the
Harvard researchers exploited the converse piezoelectric
effect to produce mechanical energy. Piezoelectrics are
materials, most commonly crystals or ceramics, that produce
an electric current when introduced to stress or strain, and
conversely can deform when introduced to an electric current
[3]. Within a piezoelectric material the dipoles of the structure
normally cancel out, but when subjected to a current, this
charge symmetry is broken. The material then deforms to
restore this state of symmetry. This property allows them to
take electric input from a power source and convert it to the
mechanical output of it deforming. In the application of the
RoboBee, this allows the materials to mechanically operate
the wings of the robot when the battery gives off electrical
impulses. This process mirrors the muscles within a bee’s
body which contract when an impulse is sent from the central
nervous system, but in this case a battery is acting as the
central nervous system and the piezoelectric actuators are the
contracting muscles. In this way, the Robobee pulls
inspiration from the nature of the bee, but how the wing
operates is slightly different.
The contractions occur both in a forward and backward
motions resulting in two strokes. The resulting flapping that
this causes is not like that of a bird’s or bee’s wing, which is
more up and down, but is like the stroke used by your arms
when you tread water [2]. This means that as the actuator
contracts back and forth the wing moves through an inward
and outward semicircular motion. The stroke being forward
and back helps to conserve energy by reducing the drag on the
wing. This motion reduces the surface area that is moving
through the air with each stroke. This is easy to see when the
stroke is compared to that of a person treading water. When
you attempt to tread by flapping up and down, you must move
the whole surface area of your arm up against the water after
each useful down stroke, making it very inefficient. A normal
forward and back water treading stroke gives the impression
of cutting through the water because you are moving only the
thinner edge of your hand and side of your arm through the
water rather than the whole surface area. This direct
proportionality between surface area and drag force can be
seen in the drag force equation below.
FIGURE 1[2]
The pop-up manufacturing process
This figure shows how the layers are laminated and into a
flat sheet with the design of the structure precisely cut-out.
The first reason this method is effective is because it allows
all the precision cuts to be made all at once on one sheet as
opposed to each individual piece being cut out then machined
and attached separately. The second reason is that the pop-up
method allows the structure to just be popped out into its 3D
shape. This eliminates the need to place and attach pieces in
the correct 3D orientation. While the manufacturing process
had to be freshly designed so did the other components of the
RoboBee.
Piezoelectric Materials
The main challenge of flight for the RoboBee is the power
and weight tradeoff and the inefficiency of the standard
mechanical devices when utilized at such a small scale. Most
2
Ryan Rohm
Zach Romac
prolonged flight, and that the RoboBee cannot fly for more
than a few seconds even while connected to a power source
[5]. Research and development teams have searched to find
a power source small enough yet strong enough to sustain
flight. The article “Flight of the RoboBees” in Scientific
American describes this struggle: “Superficially, the task
appears nearly impossible. Bees have been sculpted by
millions of years of evolution into incredible flying
machines. Their tiny bodies can fly for hours, maintain
stability during wind gusts, seek out flowers and avoid
predators. Try that with a nickel-size robot” [2]. As if
attempting to mimic a creature sculpted by evolution is not
hard enough, powering a minute machine that functions to
this caliber seems impossible. Living creatures constantly
interact with each other and their environment to obtain
energy and resources, and it is not always possible to mimic
every interaction. Seemingly, the most strenuous aspect of
this task is powering all the hardware required to operate the
RoboBee. evolution
Currently research is being done toward using a solid
oxide micro fuel cell as a power source to solve this problem
[6]. These fuel cells create electrical energy from chemical
energy. The major difference of this type of power supply
compared to a heat engine is that it is limited by inefficiencies
due to friction and heat loss. This is because the energy
transfer is from chemical energy to electrical energy instead
of chemical energy to mechanical energy as it is in the normal
heat engine. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory managed by
the US department of energy provides a scientific description
of this process which has then been summarized: The
hydrogen ions from the natural gas break down upon
contacting the anode, forming an electron and positively
charged hydrogen ions. The electrons then pass through a
circuit to the cathode. There, due to its high electronegativity
oxygen gas from the air is collected and accepts the electrons.
Then the oxygen is passed back through an electrolyte which
separates the anode and the cathode. Upon reaching the anode
the charged oxygen ion reacts with two hydrogens forming
water [7]. A diagram of the solid oxide fuel cell can be seen
below in figure 3.
FIGURE 2[4]
Drag force equation
This equation illustrates the direct proportionality of A(Ap)
and the drag force(FAF). The rotation of the wing about the
hinge that connects the wing to the body is uncontrolled and
allowed to passively interact with the air [2]. The passive
rotational control system helps to conserve energy by
eliminating the need for a mechanical output to rotate the
wing, and the need to send and process wind pattern
information and then interpret those signals into rotational
output. The rotation functions as a passive motion because the
wing is left to rotate freely based on the wind. The active
motion performed by the RoboBee moves the wing up and
down in a flapping motion, whereas the rotation of the wing
is left up to the wind patterns which oppose it. This change
requires no energy from the robot and is left to be determined
by the wind gust which it faces. These are small adjustments
that make a huge difference on a small scale.
Possible Fuel Source
Since the RoboBee weighs a 100th of the weight of the
current lightest autonomous flying robot, the researchers’
investigation into making the RoboBee was on the cutting
edge of micro robotics. The challenge of creating a RoboBee
that can withstand prolonged flight, as well as have cognitive
recognition of its surroundings lies in the weight of the
computing and power components. Robert Wood spoke on
his team’s microscopic development in the article, “This
Robotic Bee Just Took Flight” by saying, “There were no
motors small enough, no sensors that could fit on board. The
microcontrollers, the microprocessors-everything had to be
developed fresh” [5]. The team is still attempting to develop
new technology that can be housed in a robot the size of a
nickel, however much progress has been made. Although
prototypes have been created, the bees struggle to fly without
a power cable attached. Robert Wood summarized that there
is not a single power source that is capable of powering
3
Ryan Rohm
Zach Romac
technology offers GPS, accelerometers, and multi-axis
gyroscopes, but such sensors are typically too heavy or
consume too much power to be useful. Hence, we are
investigating an electronic vision system that is similar to
what natural bees have-one that analyzes ‘optical flow’ the
apparent motion of objects in the visual field of an image
sensor.” [11]. This optical flow is the motion of objects
relative to the motion of the observer. The bee must be able
to not only discern different objects based on colors and
edges, but also the location and movement of those objects
relative to its own motion. This is evident in the conference
paper by Bermudez and Fearing of Berkeley; “However,
flapping flight in insects increases unsteadiness in the visual
input, which these insects generally account for by moving
their heads to counteract it” [10]. This means that like real
insects, the RoboBee must recognize its motion relative to its
surroundings, and then control its motion to counteract this
movement and produce a steady hover.
The sensor that the RoboBee uses to sense this stimulus is
the Centeye FireflySmall vision chip. “The FireflySmall chip
is a variable acuity image sensor chip designed for embedded
vision and robotic applications. This chip has a 128 x 256
array of logarithmic response pixels” [11]. The chip takes the
color information for each pixel and stores it in part of an
array, but what is unique about the logarithmic response is
that instead of storing the whole range of light, it takes the
logarithm of these color intensity input values narrowing the
range. These color inputs are then transmitted as voltage
output that can be interpreted by a processing unit. This color
information is how the RoboBee can differentiate between
two objects. It notices the edge of an object by noticing the
difference in color values. The narrowing of the range using
the logarithmic function is crucial in the RoboBees
application because it means a smaller voltage output range
when this color information is then transmitted as voltage. A
smaller voltage range means smaller power draw, which
means fewer constraints on battery size.
The physical testing of the sensors without the fully
functional flight would be impossible. However, to test their
new technology the researchers developed a testing software
that allowed them to virtually replicate an environment in
which the RoboBee would fly so they can monitor the
RoboBee’s responses to hypothetical stimuli. This software is
the Hardware in the Loop system or HWIL [11]. This system
created 3D renderings of a virtual environment of which the
virtual sensors’ readings could be monitored allowing the
researchers to see how the sensors would behave in the real
world [11]. Basically, this system created a realistic
projection of an outdoor scene like a video game. Then the
researchers could test how the sensors would respond to this
type of stimuli and how the actuators would function in
response to what the sensors indicated. This allowed them to
optimize the function of the sensors virtually without having
to wait on technological improvements to allow physical runs.
In this simulation, the sensors are attached to the front of the
virtual RoboBee and can control the actuators to adjust its
FIGURE 3[8]
Solid oxide fuel cell diagram
In this process, the electrons flowing through the circuit
are the useful electrical energy, and water is the byproduct.
These fuel cells are relatively low cost and low emission
because the main waste product is just water vapor. Most
importantly in the case of the RoboBee, these fuel cells are
not size restrictive. This means that they can be scaled down
to meet the size requirements of this micro robot. The
downside to these fuel cells currently is that the solid oxide
electrolyte in between the anode and cathode can only operate
at very high temperatures of between 600 and 1000 degrees
Celsius. The reason for this is that the solid oxide is not
ionically active below this temperature [9]. This means that
the it lacks the kinetic energy to act as an electrolyte and
cannot allow ions to pass to the anode. Research is still being
done to find an electrolyte that can operate at lower
temperatures, which would hopefully allow them to be
utilized in the RoboBee. Although the researchers are still
awaiting a major development in a high-density power
sources, the development of flow sensing and visual data
collection has made great strides toward the fight of the
RoboBee.
Optical Flow Sensors
One of the main draws of power in the bee are the optical
flow sensors. RoboBees must control their motion, interact
with other RoboBees, avoid predators, sense crops; basically,
they must act as though they are normal bees. When
RoboBees are utilized in the wild to act freely and pollinate
flowers, they will require constant recognition of their
surroundings as well as the ability to constantly control their
flight mechanisms. This requires sensors to observe the
environment and the processing power to process
it. Although we have GPS technology and optical sensors that
are utilized in autonomous cars, these are often too heavy and
require too much power to be used in the bee. Scientific
American elaborates on the investigation by saying “Modern
4
Ryan Rohm
Zach Romac
motion. The RoboBee in this simulation was limited to
movements forward, upward, and rotational or otherwise
forces in the X and Z plane with a rotational torque [3].
perform tasks. Programmers are currently developing
methods to program interactions between a colony of
RoboBees not just the individual. Although each robot will
have personal commands and programs, its functions and
tasks will be based on an overarching program that spans the
entire colony, not just a single bee. In the early 1990’s,
programmers developed various codes and programs in the
field of swarm intelligence [2]. These algorithms span social
interactions, division of work, and even search and rescue, but
despite this progress, a swarm of robots cannot be managed
as one.
The primary goal of the algorithm that spans each colony
is to house a program that gets translated from global
instructions to individual behavioral programs [2]. The
development of such programs is still ongoing, however there
are two primary languages to start from, the Karma System
and the OptRad (Optimizing Reaction-Advection-Diffusion)
[2]. The Karma System was described by Robert Wood “In
the Karma language one can specify a flow chart of tasks that
the colony must achieve. The flow chart contains links that
represent conditions that trigger new tasks. The Karma
system uses information that comes back from individuals to
adjust the allocation of resources to tasks in a way that mimics
the role of the hive in real honeybee colonies” [2]. The Karma
system is extremely functional as the bees are programmed to
make real-time adjustments. The Karma system also allows
the RoboBees to coordinate their actions amongst themselves,
which eliminates the reliance on a single leader. Although the
Karma System allows the RoboBees to promptly act
according to a plan, there is minimal ability to adapt during a
task. This lack prompted researchers to develop a second
system, the OptRAD theory.
The other approach to programming the swarm’s
interaction is the OptRAD (Optimizing Reaction-AdvectionDiffusion). This concept treats the RoboBees as though they
are a liquid that diffuses through the environment. Each
RoboBee will use an algorithm to determine if it should
perform a task based on the current state of the environment
that it is in. The OptRAD system allows the colony to operate
at a high level of reasoning due to treating the RoboBees as a
liquid. The swarm will be able to reason through new
circumstances and the expected outcomes of different
scenarios [2]. Although the diffusion-like properties of the
swarm allow them to have a high level of reasoning, it also
allows them to properly allocate resources. Changes in
environmental conditions will allow the swarm to disperse
and cover a new area of land and place a priority on a certain
task.
Both systems have a way to allocate resources and a
combination of the two would provide a highly efficient
dispersion method as well as the ability to make real time
decisions. When the RoboBees are in the wild performing
tasks it is crucial that they can properly allocate resources as
well as have a controlled set of tasks to perform. For instance,
when a swarm is implored into a search and rescue scenario it
is crucial that they are focused in an area that has seen the
FIGURE 4[10]
Motion of RoboBee in HWIL System
While this seems to have limited the motion of the
RoboBee to an oversimplification of its real 3D movements,
if it is able to move in just these two directions and rotational
it can actually attain all three directions of motion. For
example, if you initially face the x direction, a rotation of
ninety degrees obtained by the applied torque will have you
facing the y direction and thus a forward force will then move
you in the y direction. This simplification of the motion into
only two directions allowed them to simplify the signals that
needed to be exchanged between the flow sensors and the
actuators. While this system did allow them to effectively
prove the use of the optical flow sensors and the
communication between the sensors and the actuators, the
weight of the processors needed to process these optical flow
signals is still an issue.
The “brain”, or the processors of the RoboBee represent
another area in which the need for increased research into new
technological developments has arisen. The developers of the
RoboBee plan to build the ‘brain’ in layers. There will be
certain sections that react to the physical environment, a layer
that handles basic functions, and then a final programmable
level to make upper-level decisions [2]. Although different
sections will house different programs they must all be looped
together so the bee can recognize a situation, and adapt to the
stimuli. So far the computing and processing that controls the
actions of the RoboBee have been done on an outside
computer during the tests, and the processors required to
handle this information cannot be supported by the RoboBee
structure. This means that adding in the wireless
communication needed for the bees to interact as a swarm is
also too large to be placed on the RoboBee currently. This,
along with the power source shortcomings, mean that the
RoboBee is still unable to take untethered flight.
Applications and effects on Humans
The RoboBee’s primary capability, much like that of the
bee, is in its ability to act as part of a cohesive swarm to
5
Ryan Rohm
Zach Romac
most wreckage. During times of disasters and hazardous
conditions, the RoboBees can be implored to perform search
and rescue tasks. Proper dispersion patterns are crucial, so
there is not an unbalanced rescue. The Karma System would
allow the bees to fly over an area that has been struck and
search for sign of life. By responding to the main program
and documenting results, the swarm can increase or decrease
the number of bees they send to certain locations. The
OptRAD system can then be combined with the Karma
System so the bees have a preconceived plan of tasks to
accomplish. This list would put precedent on searching for
people before all else. By combining the high level of
reasoning in the OptRAD system and the adjustable
dispersion of resources of the Karma system the RoboBee
swarm would house a strong basis for colony wide interaction
and rescue.
The microscopic size of the RoboBee will allow them to
be manufactured relatively cheaply and in large quantities,
making them more disposable than other robots. Their ability
to exist in large amounts, and interact as a swarm, gives them
many foreseen applications in search and rescue and
exploration of places typically unfit for human
exposure. Behind the hundreds of foreshadowed applications
lies the primary use of the RoboBee, and that is its ability to
counter the colony collapse disorder that is currently pushing
bees onto the endangered species list. The RoboBee has
hundreds of functions because of its microscopic size,
however the predominant uses are its work in agriculture,
search and rescue and exploration.
nearly one-third of the food we consume, making it necessary
to provide immediate attention to the effects of pesticides and
disease that cause CDD (Colony Collapse Disorder) [12].
White House officials described the loss of bees by stating
that the loss of the bee species “requires immediate attention
to ensure the sustainability of our food production systems,
avoid additional economic impact on the agricultural sector,
and protect the health of the environment” [12]. Although the
RoboBee is still in development, its foreshadowed ability to
pollinate crops as a real bee does gives a counteraction to the
diminishing bee population.
Sustainability
Strong efforts must be made to regenerate and recover
from the drastic losses of honey bees. Not to be
misunderstood, the RoboBees seek to counteract the
demolition of the bee population, not replace natural
pollinators indefinitely [12]. Once RoboBees are
implemented, bees in the wild and on farms can be gathered
by beekeepers and kept in conservatories to help repopulate
their colonies, while shielding them from CCD in the wild.
Since CCD is caused by the pesticides used in agriculture,
moving these bees into conservatories will keep them away
from pesticides and allow them to increase their population.
RoboBees will continue pollination while these bees can
repopulate in conservatories which will prevent a sacrifice in
crop yield. In the bee farms and conservatories scientists will
be able to properly house bees and keep them outside of the
devastating conditions that are causing their decline. Efforts
are currently being made to conserve bees, however
agriculture cannot simply take a halt while bee colonies
reform. Without providing relief to the current bees, there is
no way to regenerate their populations. This temporary
regrowth period buys agriculture valuable time to adjust and
move away from these damaging pesticides. Once the bee
population grows back to normal levels, and the potential for
CCD is eliminated, the bees in conservatories will be released
into the wild and onto farms.
Although RoboBees appear to be an efficient fix for the
diminishing bee population, their technological needs make
them far from completion. These technological needs are also
accompanied by an extensive funding requirement. The
financial stress of funding more research in fields such as
oxide fuel cells is very large, and no results are guaranteed.
Despite the Robobee’s application as a relief tool to the
suffering bee population, the continued research and
development of the RoboBee make it an extremely costly
alternative. One must also consider who is left to pay for such
robots. Governments, Universities, private practices, and
conservation organizations will all be forced to join and
develop a method to provide millions of dollars’ worth of
funding if the RoboBees are to be used in place of natural
pollinators. One must question whether the funding will be
supplied to this cause when the suffering bee population has
been ignored by the U.S government and population alike.
Search and Rescue
A swarm of RoboBees that can communicate and disperse
over vast distances would bring revolutionary efficiency to
search and rescue teams. Time is crucial during any search
and rescue mission, and few seconds can separate victims
from life and death. By utilizing RoboBee’s, the rescue team
would more rapidly detect the location of victims and can then
allocate resources to specific points of need. Although drones
can currently function similarly in search and rescue, the
RoboBee has the potential to be more economically efficient.
The increased functionality of the RoboBee allows it to be
more versatile across many disaster sites. For example, if the
RoboBee was inserted into the aftermath of a natural disaster
such as an earthquake or hurricane, it could be equipped with
sensors that allow it to detect carbon dioxide emission. When
utilizing this sensor, a swarm of RoboBees would be able to
cover vast amounts of wreckage in search of the exhalation of
trapped humans.
Agriculture
Governments across the world have implemented
programs and initiatives to attempt to preserve the bee
population that has faced a drastic decline due to habitat loss
and disease. Honeybees are responsible for the pollination of
6
Ryan Rohm
Zach Romac
[1] B Palmer. “Would a World Without Bees Be a World
Without
Us?”
5/18/15.
Accessed
1.10.2017.
https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/would-world-without-bees-beworld-without-us
[2] R. Wood. “Flight of Robobees.” Scientific American.
2.19.2013.
Accessed
1.10.2017.
http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v308/n3/f
ull/scientificamerican0313-60.html
[3] N. Jafferis. “Multilayer laminated piezoelectric bending
actuators: design and manufacturing for optimum power
density and efficiency”. Smart Materials and Structures.
4.13.2016.
Accessed
1.9.2017.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/09641726/25/5/055033/meta
[4] C. Patiῆo, L. Romero, J. Quiroga. “Study of the Design
Variables for a Wet-Chamber Gas Meter Prototype
(MGCH)”.
SCIELO. 10.21.2004. Accessed 3.28.2017.
http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=
S0122-53832004000100008
[5] A. Schwartz. “This Robotic Bee Just Took Flight, To
Pollinate Crops and (Maybe) Spy On You” 5.30.13. Accessed
1.10.2017.
https://www.fastcoexist.com/1682095/thisrobotic-bee-just-took-flight-to-pollinate-crops-and-maybespy-on-you
[6] D. Basulto. “New RoboBees show that the future of robots
is very, very small” 9.7.2014. Accessed 1.10.2017.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/201
4/08/07/new-robobees-show-that-the-future-of-robotics-isvery-very-small/?utm_term=.f1d6b8361adf
[7] “Fuel Cells: Clean Power Source for Homes and Cars?”.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Accessed 2.11.2017
http://web.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/v33_2_00/fuel.htm
[8] S. Writers. “SOFC Micro CHP Plants to be Climate
Friendly Power Stations in Homes” Energy Daily. 12.1.2010.
Accessed
3.27.2017.
http://www.energydaily.com/reports/SOFC_Micro_CHP_Plants_To_Be_Clima
te_Friendly_Power_Stations_In_Homes_999.html
[9] N. Minh, M. Mogensen. “Reversible Solid Oxide Fuel
Cell Technology for Green Fuel and Power Production”. The
Electrochemical Society. 12.1.2013 Accessed 3.28.2017.
https://www.electrochem.org/dl/interface/wtr/wtr13/wtr13_p
055_062.pdf
[10] F. Bermudez and R. Fearing. “Optical flow on a flapping
wing robot,” in Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2009. IROS
2009. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, 2009, pp.
5027–5032
[11] P. Duhamel, J. Porter, B. Finio, et.al. “Hardware in the
Loop for Optical Flow Sensing in a Robotic Bee”. 9/30/2011.
Accessed
1.10.2017.
https://micro.seas.harvard.edu/papers/Duhamel_IROS11.pdf
[12] A. Erickson. “Robotic Bees are now being built to
pollinate crops instead of real bees” 10.5.2016. Accessed
1.10.2017.
http://www.collectiveevolution.com/2016/10/05/robotic-bees-are-now-being-builtto-pollinate-crops-instead-of-real-bees/
The cost of these RoboBees does not end in the
developmental stage. The RoboBees “brain” will be
preprogrammed and the robot will utilize algorithms and
coding sequences to make decisions and allocate resources in
real time. Although research and observations will be
conducted so the programmers will be able to set priorities
and precedence, the decision making that has been
evolutionarily sculpted in a living bee will not exist in a
RoboBee. It will require a team to constantly manage the
operation of these RoboBees to ensure that they are
functioning correctly. This cost of operation on top of the
hefty funding of research can make the RoboBee non-cost
effective.
SIGNIFICANCE TODAY
As CCD continues to degrade bee populations with no
signs of stopping we must make a valiant effort to save our
planets’ pollinators. The RoboBee is still in test phases and
cannot be a certain solution, however with technological
advancements in energy dense power sources and processing,
the RoboBee has the potential to counter CCD before its’
effects are too drastic.
The work done by engineers and robotic scientists is all in
attempt to mimic the naturally developed actions of a honey
bee colony. Their system to reverse engineer the bee’s daily
processes proposes multiple challenges, especially the
implementation of daily actions into a miniscule
robot. Although researchers have confronted multiple
obstacles, they have developed new manufacturing
techniques, micro- actuators, optical flow sensors, and virtual
hardware testing software that maintains the possibility of
autonomous flight by the RoboBee. The new manufacturing
techniques will pave the way for future micro robotic research
groups while the micro actuators and optical flow sensors will
allow them to build on Wood’s teams’ research instead of
putting time into manufacturing micro-parts from scratch.
Beyond the RoboBees individual functions are its
communication capabilities through a swarm. The Karma
System and the OptRAD algorithms allow the RoboBees to
interact and function as a cohesive swarm, which is vital to
their function in agriculture and search and rescue. By having
thousands of disposable robots to send into disaster scenes,
rescue teams can increase their efficiency during crisis
situations. Researchers and scientists can also utilize the
RoboBee to conduct research and visit places that are
regularly impossible for a human to venture. This application
would allow researchers to send a RoboBee thousands of
places, from a dense rainforest to an underground oil
pipeline. It’s bright applications in search and rescue, and its
dire need in agricultural solidify the RoboBee as an important
technological advancement of today.
SOURCES
7
Ryan Rohm
Zach Romac
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to acknowledge our friends Marlo and Chris
for giving us the idea to research the RoboBee. Without
their help our research would not be possible.
8