this door will chew you up and spit you out

Tanaka Seisakusyo's Automatic Door: It's kind of a cute idea, but it clearly doesn't work worth a damn, as the video demonstrates. They wouldn't stand for this kind of thing in Starfleet!
Tags: ,

41 Responses:

  1. felicks says:

    Did you see that goldfish sucking robot? That shit is cool.

  2. encapsulate says:

    I guess innovation is cool.

    Has this been a big problem though? Maybe I'm looking at the wrong scope. This might be nice for warehouses that store carpet and are moved around by fork lifts.

    Traditional doors seem to be doing the job.

  3. boggyb says:

    Looking at the design, it should behave better if you approach the middle of the door. If you're off to one side then it won't detect you.

    I'd also be interested to know if they have a sensor to detect if someone is standing in the middle of the door.

    • smackfu says:

      Yeah, without sensors on the ends of the beams, it would presumably close on you if you didn't pass through the door fast enough.

  4. fantasygoat says:

    Instead of IR I would think the sonic range-finder tech in old Polaroids would be a lot more effective and cover a wider area. It's pretty cool though.

    • usufructer says:

      Range finders like that will interfere with each other. One will work perfectly, but getting more than one to work reliably in close proximity at a useful sampling rate is problematic. They also have a minimum range.

      • quercus says:

        Range finders like that will interfere with each other.

        I solved this years ago - we had about a dozen of them and just st5robed them one at a time.

        The Polaroid (?) SX70 dev kit was fun to play with but it was a bit dumb. We got much beter results by not tweeting the Txrs with a continuous wave, but with bursts. As any dolphin knows, a "chirp" is much more illuminating in a sonar sense.

        • usufructer says:

          Thus the useful sampling rate caveat. Inch and half strips, seven foot door, that's 112 sensors. Five feet per second walking speed, don't open the slots until the object is within six inches, no more than two inches of clearance around the object, which would have an ideal sample rate of about one per sliding inch. So an object two feet wide would require twelve samples in a tenth of a second, or one sample per 0.008333 seconds. For the 112 sensors that's 13340 samples per second.

          And you don't think they'll interfere? At the very least they'll be making a hell of a lot of noise.

          A plane of IR laser light on either side of the door and video analysis software would be more both more complicated and easier to optomise than the individual sensors they use.

        • strspn says:

          No, I don't think the acoustic solution is going to work in this application. I'm not going to go into why it won't work.

          I think the best solution for that kind of a multi-slatted door has got to be a pair of ordinary sterio visual cameras. The sterio machine vision problem is easy for human sized-and-shaped objects, even if they are carrying a large inflatabl toy (as long as nothing blends into the background), and it gives you the measurements you need for each slat, without the problems inherent in IR laser rangefinding, sonar, or microwave radar.

          As long as people don't dress like the carpet, sterio machine vision has got to be the right way here.

          • strspn says:

            GAH! "stereo" being the correct spelling. Sheesh. At least I'm consistent.

          • quercus says:

            The direct vision idea is nice, but where do you mount the camera ? On the tips of the sliding beams seems like the only viable location for measuring an accurate silhouette, just from considering the line-of-sight problems.

            Now door actuators are still expensive and show no sign of getting cheaper. Medium-res cameras though are peanuts (webcam / phonecam). So how about the same sensor configuration as this Japanese door, but with a network of imagng sensors rather than simple IR proximity ?

  5. usufructer says:

    Cool, yes, but could use some debugging. I wonder what they're using for actuators? The response time is decent, but they're overshooting.

    The guy that built the wooden mirror could probably create a better working replica in his spare time.

  6. pavel_lishin says:

    RealVideo? I don't trust any technology that still markets itself via RealMedia.

    • jwz says:

      Well, you're a weenie, and nobody else cares. It makes the pictures go just like everything else. Tell me again how "only Amiga makes it possible."

      • pavel_lishin says:

        You make a valid point.

        • transiit says:

          No he doesn't.

          I, and many like me, find RealMedia to be a load of crap as well.

          Just because the almighty JWZ is willing to get suckered into the endless cycle of installing plug-ins for yet another proprietary format doesn't make it right.

          If he puts up a fight, ask him how well supporting the morass of incompatible bits is working out for him.


          • pavel_lishin says:

            I think I've yet to see a *nix post where someone isn't desperately trying to figure out some solution to some problem that I've never encountered on Windows. Say what you will, windows is built for Uncle Bob and Aunt Sarah, and they can't be bothered to fix problems. :P

          • jwz says:

            I have never once had any problem getting realvideo to play, even on Linux. Whereas, every other video player has been a twisty maze of downloading illegal codecs from some teenager in Finland first, even on MacOS.

            So go ahead and take whatever stand it is you're trying to take against Real -- I really couldn't give two shits what you run on your computer, thanks for asking -- but you're just insane. It may not be the highest quality, but it always works.

            It's also worth noting that if you want to do cross-platform streaming video that can be legally watched on all three platforms, Real is still the only game in town. (Anyone who mentions Theora can fuck right off.)

            • transiit says:

              A ringing endorsement for the "sucks less" choice, if I've ever heard one.


              • Way to tear it all down without suggesting any positive arguments about any other options.

                I bet you go down great at the anarchist meetings.

                • transiit says:

                  Actually, I was trying to get in the last word without further dragging this even more off-topic (from wacky automated doors) thread further along some pointless tangent.

                  But hey, as long as I'm constrained to "You can't download some third-party codec, and I can't mention Theora", I don't think there's much constructive suggestions I'm left with.

                  So we're left at the impasse. Real sucks, but it puts up less of a fight than other things. I think the only disagreement left here is whether or not its lousiness is worth accepting. Apparently, I'm "just insane" for thinking it's easier to go without than accept the steaming pile.

                  But I'm sure you've earned your cheese points for knocking me off my pedestal. Go feel smug now.


          • pxy says:

            it's not the format, it's the 100 billion junk things real installs and fucks up

    • fantasygoat says:

      It's funny you mention that, because when I clicked on it, it started up RealPlayer, which I haven't used on this computer before, and I had to spend 5 minutes unchecking boxes in the setup wizard to avoid getting hundreds of spams from Real. Sigh.

      • pavel_lishin says:

        Heh, I don't even install it anymore. I hate the player, I hate the format, and I hate just about everything about it... and the last time I even saw a RealMedia video was when I downloaded some NewsRadio episodes, and I decided they weren't funny enough to watch in a 100x120 pixel window.

        I dunno, maybe I am a weenie. But I stand by my point of not understanding why anyone would still use Real and distrusting them immediately.

  7. popekosh says:

    Hm... about 80 strips of door with motors and sensors on each one that all have to work correctly. Nope, that wouldn't be the least bit prone to failure.

  8. lroberson says:

    Reminds me of first-season SFX from Stargate SG-1.

    Not that I watch that terrible show or anything.

  9. macguyver says:

    Like a $10 wooden door, but slower.

  10. feren says:

    I bet the fire marshall would have plenty of cute things to say about these, especially in light of your good friends Great White.

  11. jonxp says:

    They wouldn't stand for this kind of thing in Starfleet!

    I dunno, this seems to be right up their alley. It goes along with placing the bridge at the most vulnerable spot on the ship and using explosive 'force-feedback' devices in their consoles.

    Oh, and having what is quite possibly the least reliable sensors available. EVERYTHING jams those suckers. That must be what this door is using.

  12. zompist says:

    This being a Japanese invention, manhandling passing women with tentacle-like rods might have been viewed as a feature.

  13. valacosa says:

    You may find it amusing that you outscooped slashdot on this one. I guess you're nine days ahead of them, pointless tech-news wise. What's your secret?

    • jwz says:

      Who gives a shit who posted what first? Please stop caring about that, it will make you a better person.