←back to thread

209 points Luc | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
mapt ◴[] No.43936640[source]
This seems insane. We're trying to teach Longshoreman's Tetris to machines, instead of using the system of standard containerization that almost completely replaced longshoremen, despite lower packing densities.
replies(2): >>43937079 #>>43937885 #
1. dialup_sounds ◴[] No.43937885[source]
The containerization is at a higher level: the rack of yellow bins is a four-sided tower that is robotically driven in and out of tightly packed uniform rows.
replies(1): >>43938907 #
2. dylan604 ◴[] No.43938907[source]
Right. Containers being a standard size is great so you don't have to care about what's inside the containers. At the AMZN warehouse, they absolutely care about what's in the containers, and what's in the container is no longer anywhere close to be standard size/shape/weight.
replies(1): >>43939754 #
3. mapt ◴[] No.43939754[source]
The container is the standardization. One container per unit of product. Containers ("bins") dimensioned in multiples of some standard unit that evenly divides a grid system on a rack. Stuffing looks like "a pallet of identical goods appears on one side of your workspace and 150 individual 100mm x 200mm x 400mm bins appear on the other side and the job is to put A into B". Storage operations look like they do now using the robot racks. Emptying looks like "Three bins of various sizes shows up on one side and a cardboard box appears on the other side". You divide the tasks up and have a different machine or human for each. The benefit is you always have a reliably identical picking and stuffing task per item, and there is never a bin of remainder items that has to be pushed back into the system. The cost is lowered storage efficiency. You don't even have to break a pallet at a DC, you can design for distribution of bins (at a higher transport cost).