Researchers build world's smallest autonomous robots

Skye Jacobs

Posts: 1,913   +58
Staff
The bleeding edge: Nanomachines were once a distant fantasy of science fiction writers and video games like Deus Ex and Metal Gear Solid. However, recent advances in miniaturization have brought those far-fetched scenarios closer to reality. We may soon see microscopic robots that can heal us from the inside or perform other tasks difficult to accomplish on the macro scale.

In a joint advance from the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Michigan, engineers have designed the smallest fully programmable autonomous robots ever built – machines small enough to operate at the scale of biological cells. Each robot, roughly 200 by 300 by 50 micrometers, is smaller than a grain of salt and costs about a penny to produce. Despite their size, the devices can move, sense, compute, and respond to their surroundings without any tether, magnetic field, or external controller.

Assistant Professor of Electrical and Systems Engineering Marc Miskin told Science Alert that these autonomous robots are 10,000 times smaller than current microbots.

"That opens up an entirely new scale for programmable robots," Miskin said.

The researchers, who recently published their work in Science Robotics and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, envision potential uses ranging from tracking the health of single cells to helping build microscale machines. Because the robots operate in the same size regime as many microorganisms, they could one day navigate tissue environments or microscopic manufacturing lines that are inaccessible to traditional robotics.

Reducing robots to sub-millimeter sizes introduces new physical constraints, where inertia and gravity give way to surface forces like drag and viscosity. Conventional mechanical limbs quickly break or fail to generate movement in such conditions, forcing the team to rethink what propulsion means at the microscopic level.

"If you're small enough, pushing on water is like pushing through tar," Miskin said.

The group developed a novel locomotion system that doesn't rely on moving parts. Instead of using tiny gears or oars, each robot manipulates the ions in its surrounding liquid through induced electric fields. Those ions then push nearby water molecules, effectively propelling the robot through the fluid.

"It's as if the robot is in a moving river," Miskin said, "but the robot is also causing the river to move."

By tuning this generated field, the robots can travel in complex trajectories and coordinate like a school of fish, reaching about one body length per second. Because there are no moving components, the design remains mechanically robust – Miskin noted that researchers can transfer the robots between samples repeatedly without damage. A simple LED light supplies energy, and the machines can operate for months.

Physical motion was only half the challenge. To create robots that could act independently, the Penn team turned to David Blaauw's group at the University of Michigan, known for developing the world's smallest computer. The collaboration began after a DARPA meeting five years ago, where both researchers realized their technologies were complementary. Integrating computation into such small devices required ultra-efficient electronics; each robot's solar panels generate just 75 nanowatts – over 100,000 times less power than a smartwatch.

Blaauw explained that his team built circuits that run on extremely low voltages, cutting the computer's power draw by more than a thousandfold. Even so, the panels dominate most of the robot's surface area, leaving minimal room for the processor and memory. The result is a fully integrated device featuring a processor, memory, sensors, and motor function – all within a structure measuring a few hundred micrometers. The microcomputer enables the robots to sense temperature with a precision of about one-third of a degree Celsius and react accordingly, making it possible, for example, to follow heat gradients that indicate biological activity or to report environmental data in real time.

Human observers communicate with the robots through motion. Blaauw's team encoded data, such as measured temperature, into physical movements.

"We designed a special computer instruction that encodes a value, such as the measured temperature, in the wiggles of a little dance the robot performs," he said. "We then look at this dance through a microscope with a camera and decode from the wiggles what the robots are saying to us. It's very similar to how honey bees communicate with each other."

Researchers can power and program each robot individually with specific pulses of light. This architecture allows them to assign unique instructions to different robots in a swarm, enabling each to perform distinct roles within a coordinated task.

Miskin and Blaauw see the current design as a starting point rather than an endpoint. The platform's hybrid of mechanical simplicity, efficient electronics, and scalable fabrication offers potential across fields that require distributed, microscopic intelligence. Miskin described the work as the first step toward layering on additional intelligence and functionality, demonstrating that a tiny, fully functional robot can survive and operate for months, opening the door to a new future for microscale robotics.

Permalink to story:

 
A penny-sized, autonomous robot that runs for months on light and has no moving parts feels like the exact opposite of every consumer gadget I own, all of which die after two years and one firmware update.
 
A penny-sized, autonomous robot that runs for months on light and has no moving parts feels like the exact opposite of every consumer gadget I own, all of which die after two years and one firmware update.
Planned obsolescence is real, no doubt. My father’s old toolbox is full of items that have lasted decades, far outliving anything I’ve bought recently. His Stanley tape measure, over 50 years old, is still better than the brand new one I bought, which barely made it through a week of actual use.

Today’s gadgets are designed to fail—whether through shoddy materials, limited battery life, or software updates that make them obsolete while older tools were built to last. It’s clear that today’s products just aren’t made with the same durability in mind.

There’s definitely a market for well-made, durable goods. The problem is that there isn’t enough proper economic incentive to force it. We need better regulation—like the push for self-repair rights—with proper teeth that makes it a more financially viable approach so companies actually build products that are meant to last, rather than just break.

I think part of the problem is globalization. When foreign markets flood our domestic ones with cheap crap, the only way companies can compete is by price because most people are shopping on a budget and will take the gamble that it’s “good enough.” That makes everything a race to the bottom.
 
Planned obsolescence is real, no doubt. My father’s old toolbox is full of items that have lasted decades, far outliving anything I’ve bought recently. His Stanley tape measure, over 50 years old, is still better than the brand new one I bought, which barely made it through a week of actual use.

Today’s gadgets are designed to fail—whether through shoddy materials, limited battery life, or software updates that make them obsolete while older tools were built to last. It’s clear that today’s products just aren’t made with the same durability in mind.

There’s definitely a market for well-made, durable goods. The problem is that there isn’t enough proper economic incentive to force it. We need better regulation—like the push for self-repair rights—with proper teeth that makes it a more financially viable approach so companies actually build products that are meant to last, rather than just break.

I think part of the problem is globalization. When foreign markets flood our domestic ones with cheap crap, the only way companies can compete is by price because most people are shopping on a budget and will take the gamble that it’s “good enough.” That makes everything a race to the bottom.
You said there is a market for well made goods, then the next sentence say there isnt enough economic incentive to force it. Which way do you want it? If there was a market for these goods, you wouldnt need to "force" anything. If you have to force a market with regulations, then the market doesnt exist, you are creating a forced market via regulation.
 
"We may soon see microscopic robots that can heal us from the inside or perform other tasks difficult to accomplish on the macro scale." - is there a danger of loosing control of such a robot, which could cause an unexpected damage inside the body?
 
Planned obsolescence is real, no doubt. My father’s old toolbox is full of items that have lasted decades, far outliving anything I’ve bought recently. His Stanley tape measure, over 50 years old, is still better than the brand new one I bought, which barely made it through a week of actual use.

Today’s gadgets are designed to fail—whether through shoddy materials, limited battery life, or software updates that make them obsolete while older tools were built to last. It’s clear that today’s products just aren’t made with the same durability in mind.

There’s definitely a market for well-made, durable goods. The problem is that there isn’t enough proper economic incentive to force it. We need better regulation—like the push for self-repair rights—with proper teeth that makes it a more financially viable approach so companies actually build products that are meant to last, rather than just break.

I think part of the problem is globalization. When foreign markets flood our domestic ones with cheap crap, the only way companies can compete is by price because most people are shopping on a budget and will take the gamble that it’s “good enough.” That makes everything a race to the bottom.

I'm an electronics guy, my parents in 1977, bought me a bunch of Xcelite tools (I worked in a tv shop)
and almost 50 years later, I still use them almost daily.
Sadly, they don't make things to last anymore.
 
You said there is a market for well made goods, then the next sentence say there isnt enough economic incentive to force it. Which way do you want it? If there was a market for these goods, you wouldnt need to "force" anything. If you have to force a market with regulations, then the market doesnt exist, you are creating a forced market via regulation.
You imply that the market isn't already manipulated by other actors, and in fact, when you get right down to it, the currency itself is a very manipulated, made-up part of the equation. Regulation is necessary to guide the market; otherwise, the market ends up in its natural state, which you can witness throughout history, where the assets all pool in one spot, which is horrible for innovation as well as consumers. If you have an idea on how to change this "natural flow" without regulation, I'd like to hear your thoughts on how to change the first and second laws of thermodynamics. (I am not kidding, I really would like someone to explain to me how we could do this better.)
 
Back