The tipping point. It is a phrase used ad nauseum thanks in large part of the same-named and great book by Malcolm Gladwell. But, before Gladwell there was always the physical tipping point.

Take the see-saw as an example. One side is up. One side is down. Put the biggest kid on the playground on one side. That see-saw is going nowhere. Put a little kindergartner on the other end. Nothing happens. Keep adding on the kindergartners. The see-saw wiggles a bit, give a little. But, when the pile of 5-year-olds reaches a certain point, that next tiny, seemingly insignificant kindergartener changes the entire schoolyard dynamic.  The see-saw squeaks. The big kid is quickly hoisted into the air. The kindergartners stand triumphant.

Understanding the physical tipping point is pretty easy. It is a matter of math – thrust, weight, force, gravity. But how do you quantify something much more difficult to measure? How do you measure the tipping point of an idea?
The scientists in the Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research Center (SCNARC) have made quite the stir with their most recent research on that exact topic.What they have found is that a small number of dedicated individuals can have a huge impact on the society in which they operate. In fact, they found that nearly an entire group’s beliefs can be swayed by just 10 percent of its population. Just like that see-saw, the numbers pile up until suddenly there is a major shift – a tipping point. It is an important discovery that could one day be used to help spread important ideas in societies such as health advice or evacuation notices.

Lead researcher of the study and the director of SCNARC, Boleslaw Szymanski, gave a great interview for a popular Canadian radio science program, “Skeptically Speaking”. Hear Bolek describe the findings in his own words at http://skepticallyspeaking.ca/episodes/124-the-theory-that-would-not-die.

The economy is still struggling. Quality jobs are harder to come by. And the population is aging with limited structure and technology to care for them. What could help relieve the economic, emotional, and physical pain felt throughout the United States?

Robots.

Experts and leaders around the country are hopping on the semi-autonomous bandwagon to support the development of robotics technology that will transform our economy, produce jobs, increase worker safety, and support our aging population. Support for robotics technology as a key economic enabler has been endorsed by high profile scientists around the country, economists, and even President Barack Obama.

Earlier this summer President Obama announced a first-of-its-kind, $70 million National Robotics Initiative to develop “next generation robotics.” This initiative came about thanks in large part to the concerted efforts of the robotic science community.

One important force in helping to set this new, national robotics agenda is our own Professor of Computer Science Jeff Trinkle. Trinkle is an international expert in robotic touch and movement. He worked with several of his colleagues around the country to help push for and set the national agenda for robotics in important ways.

Their combined vision of robotics as an important economic and societal engine was compiled in a comprehensive document called The Robot Report. The report served as the basis for the new Obama administration initiative and set the groundwork for what the future of robotics could look like.

I spoke with Trinkle at length about The Robot Report and the new National Robotics Initiative and he had some exciting insights on how a strong, national focus on robotics technology and funding could change the way we work and interact:

I had a paper in the first IEEE Conference on Robotics and Automation in 1984.  Since then, the advances in robotics fundamentals, products, and applications have advanced tremendously.  On the applications side, the most obvious trends have been:

• Factory automation leading to higher quality and throughput (especially in the automotive industry)
• Medical applications resulting in procedures not previously possible and reduced recovery times (especially in the area of minimally invasive surgery)

Today many advances are just starting to work their way into application, and in the process, are putting many businesses that are open to embracing robotics on the cusp of new products and higher productivity.  Some of the recent successes were underwater repairs at the Deep Water Horizon accident and damage assessment at the Red River flood.

I view all of the above previous advancements as Robotics 1.0 – 1.9.  Robotics has come a long way since 1984, so that we are now at a point where we can start a new phase, Robotics 2.0, with a new emphasis.

Robotics 2.0 will have a strong focus on human collaboration and social issues.  This has been made an obvious next step by the advances in the mechanical components [of robotics] including better sensors (e.g. the Xbox Kinect), perception algorithms, cognitive science, machine learning, physics engines, and control algorithms.

Robots that can collaborate productively with people will expand the kinds of jobs that people and robots can do.  2.0 robots will have to be predictable, reliable, and safe, and be able to learn from people, their own experiences, and information sources on the Web.

The National Robotics Initiative I has been set up to support needed fundamental research AND tech transfer to industry and government agencies.  In the short term, expect to see robotics technologies embraced by small and large companies to help them compete and create jobs – robots will not eliminate jobs.  Over the next 20 years, expect to see a new class of robots capable of standing in for home nursing assistants, co-workers on factory floors, and more.

The industrialized nations are all facing seriously reducing fractions of citizens in the working years of their lives.  Without increased productivity and numbers of high-value-added jobs and robots to help maintain our aging population, the US will witness a continual decline in living standard.

Picture this:

In one room, you have 20 exceptionally smart people from all different backgrounds. In the mix you have a structural engineer, a mechanical engineer, and a geologist. Also amongst the crowd are a biologist, a computer scientist, along with a psychologist and an architect.

Let’s say the group is planning something big. Maybe they’re in the final stages of designing a bridge or roadway. Or perhaps they’re planning a huge event like the Olympic Games. In a worst-case scenario, they’re in an emergency command center reacting in real time to a disaster like Hurricane Katrina or the Tohoku Tsunami.

Regardless, you have these 20 people all working from shared information. They’re all using the same data set, but interpreting and processing it from the unique perspectives of their different backgrounds. This can be accomplished a few different ways. Each person could use his or her computer to sift through and explore the data. Or it could be a board room setting, in which the participants take turns controlling the computer that is projected onto the wall. Another option is multiple screens displaying different computers at the same time.

Barb Cutler, a computer science professor here at RPI, is convinced there are better options.One of her research programs is dreaming up and creating new ways for humans to interact with data. This stuff is really fascinating.

In the above Reuters news story about Cutler’s research, you can see a few examples of this: multiple users in a room interacting with the same set of data, at the same time. In the video, look for clips of people using a laser pointer. They’re actually using a standard, off-the-shelf laser pointer to manipulate images on a huge screen.

Cutler asks 12 people armed with laser pointers to assemble a jumbled puzzle.  They do this by focusing the laser pointer on a “piece” of the puzzle, and then dragging it around the screen. It’s not unlike using a mouse to drag an icon around your PC desktop—except there are 12 people doing this at the same time on a huge screen. These demos were conducted in EMPAC, and the system uses off-the-shelf cameras and highly advanced tracking software developed by Cutler and her students.

A puzzle is a simple way to demonstrate the point. Picture more advanced possibilities: like engineers working on the design of an aircraft; or (as mentioned in the video) multiple architects designing a room; or a disaster response team seeking to save lives in an emergency situation. It’s a whole new paradigm for groups of people to interact with digital data.

Look back to The Approach soon for more posts on Cutler’s research. In the meantime, check out this post for more examples of research leveraging the unique capabilities of EMPAC.

I recently introduced you to Nathaniel Quillin, the Rensselaer sophomore who worked on NASA’s humanoid robot that was launched into space last week. Along with Nathaniel and us here at The Approach, another certain someone is anxious to see the robot, named Robonaut 2, in action.

From the AP:

In a phone call to the two crews, President Barack Obama congratulated [the crew] for their joint mission and made note of shuttle Discovery’s final flight.

Then he went straight to the robot matter.

“I understand that you guys have a new crew member, this R2 robot,” Obama said from the Oval Office. “Are you guys making him do chores up there? Washing the dishes or something? Or does he have more exciting jobs?”

Discovery’s commander, Steven Lindsey, explained that the astronauts had pulled the robot out of the newly installed storage unit but had yet to remove the packing foam around the humanoid.

“He’s still in packing foam?” Obama asked with a laugh. “That’s a shame, man. Come on guys, unpack the guy. He flew all that way and you guys aren’t unpacking him?”

Lindsey said the robot, officially known as Robonaut 2, has been encased in foam for months.

“Every once in a while, we hear kind of some scratching sounds from inside and maybe a ‘let me out, let me out.’”

“All right,” the president said, “well, let him stretch his legs pretty soon.”

Actually, R2 doesn’t have legs yet. The robot exists only from the waist up.

To read more about Nathaniel and his work at NASA, click here to read my story. Also be sure to reach the stellar stories by the Times Union and Troy Record. Lastly, click on the picture at the top of this post to watch the excellent story on Nathaniel and Robonaut 2 by local ABC affiliate WTEN.

Space shuttle Discovery lifted off a few minutes ago, commencing NASA’s 133rd shuttle flight. Commander Steven W. Lindsey and his crew have a very special guest on board, with an interesting link to Rensselaer. This guest just happens to be a robot.

Now I know what you’re thinking and, no, it’s not Watson of Jeopardy! fame. Rather, it’s the robot posing above with Rensselaer Sophomore Nathaniel Quillin. The robot’s name is Robonaut 2, but it also answers to R2.

R2 is a dexterous robot with human-like hands and arms, designed to manipulate and use many of the same tools used by astronauts. Robonaut will take up permanent residence in the International Space Station, where he’ll be tested and improved upon for several years.

The thought is that Robonaut could one day serve as an assistant or stand-in for astronauts during spacewalks, or perform overly dangerous or complex tasks. That’s the goal, but the current incarnation of R2 can’t withstand the rigors of a spacewalk. He’s strictly an indoor robot.

I mentioned a Rensselaer connection to R2, and it’s a pretty significant link. Nathaniel, seen in the photo above, spent two semesters and two summers at Johnson Space Center near Houston working directly on the R2 project. This is a really prestigious, impressive level for any researcher to be functioning at – and he’s still an undergraduate student.

During his time at NASA, Nathaniel wrote the computer code used to help debug R2’s hardware. Additionally, he helped write code for the graphical user interface that NASA researchers use to control R2. This control software creates 3-D visualizations that allows researcher to see how R2 will carry out their commands, prior to sending the actual commands for the robot to execute. All in all, he estimates he contributed hundreds of thousands of lines of code.

Here’s a bit from today’s Times Union Story on Nathaniel:

Quillin is looking forward to seeing the first video images of R2 operating in space. He said he is impressed with how quickly NASA was able to get a humanoid mechanical robot in space, and hopes to someday work for the agency to see other projects come to fruition. He plans to return to Johnson in the summer of 2012, where he’ll get to see the operation of R2 firsthand. He hopes to sit at the controls at some point.

“Code that I wrote is going to be used in space,” he said. “That’s awesome.”

A very nice aside, during his time at NASA, Nathaniel helped a brave young lad’s Make A Wish Foundation wish come true. Nathaniel orchestrated a day of fun for his fellow space enthusiast by giving the boy a tour of NASA and Robonaut.

Just for fun, below are two pictures of Nathaniel at NASA mission control:

And another of him giving a talk about R2:

Lastly, Rensselaer is quite prolific at sending fascinating research into space. Below are a few great examples:

In August 2009, an experimental heat transfer system designed by Rensselaer professors Joel Plawsky and Peter Wayner was installed in the International Space Station (ISS), where it will remain for several years. Read about it here, and read Plawsky’s guest post on The Approach here.

In November 2009, wear-resistant, low-friction nanomaterials created by Professor Linda Schadler were blasted into orbit aboard Space Shuttle Atlantis, attached to the outer hull of the ISS, and exposed to rigors of space. More info can be found here.

In May 2010, Assistant Professor Cynthia Collins sent an army of microorganisms into space, to investigate new ways of preventing the formation and spread of biofilms, or clusters of bacteria, that could pose a threat to the health of astronauts. Check out the story here and a blog post here.