Talk:Remotely operated underwater vehicle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is in need of a good rewrite. ROV is a tethered underwater vehicle, it comes with a camera, propellors and manipulators. The Predator is not an ROV, it is an Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV). The image of the three boats certainly does not depict three ROVs, those are Autonomous Surface Vehicles (ASV). As several other readers commented, ROV is a widely accepted industry term in both the US Navy and the offshore Oil & Gas industry. Please comment. -
[edit] Results of ROV research
The following was part of the ROV page. While science accomplished with ROVs is interesting, it's a bit far afield for this article. At the very least, this needs to be formatted as a sidebar, but even then it's a bit long to be a sidebar in my opinion. -- Ventura 20:46, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
- Image taken by a ROV under the ice of Antarctica. In the spring krill can scrape off the green lawn of ice algae from the underside of the pack ice in Antarctica. In this image most krill swim in an upside down position directly under the ice. Only one animal (in the middle) is hovering in the open water.
[edit] Robot Wars/BattleBots
I would like to include at least a link to the Robot Wars article. To my mind, combat robots are clearly remote operated vehicles. Most examples do not have a two-way communication link, relying instead on being in sight of the operator at all times, so I would also like to change this definition. Does anyone object?
[edit] ROV is an industrial definition
The term ROV is an industrial defintion and widely used in the oil/gas and communications industry that rely on submersible ROV's. The merging of the RCV section into this ROV entry will cause confusion about the term ROV IMHO. It is true that in the early days of ROV's they were sometimes referred to as RCV's but this term is no longer in favour in the offshore industries. For the same reason I disagree that the Robot Wars article be linked. ROV's are not really robots. --PeterMarkSmith 03:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- I do not understand the difference between ROVs and RCVs, but about the Robot Wars. Although it's called Robot Wars, it's actually mostly ROVs. (or RCVs, I'm still not understanding the difference) Although automated robots are allowed, still, it's very rare. --PokeOnic 01:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ROV is an industrial definition...continued
I´m inclined to agree with PeterMarkSmith. I work in the offshore Industry with ROV's and can confirm that ROV is the term generally used for Submersible Remoted Operated Vehicles as used in the Offshore Industry. I´m also not too convinced that RCV's should be lumped in with ROV's and in fact will go as far as to suggest that RCV's would better residing in their own category. JamesMc. 17:23 13 December 2005.
[edit] ROV is an industrial definition...continued
I am currently offshore on an ROV support vessel in the Gulf of Mexico.
My exposure to ROV technology goes back to the early 1980s and no one I can recall ever referred to them as anything but ROVs.
It is not an accurate name since the word vehicle implies that a person could ride in it. But the name stuck and I believe the inclusion of RCV should be no more than a “See Also” link.
John S Poteet
"Underwater robots" were first called RCVs (Remote Controlled Vehicles). However back in the 70's a company called Hydro Products manufactured and produced an RCV225, one of the first "underwater robots". They copywrited the name RCV. Hence others started calling them ROVs which is where the name came from and has stuck ever since.
Ray Shields —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.38.115 (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Subsea 7, Oceaneering, and Bluefin
These are valuable external links, please do not delete them. I suspect that none of these companies will make any sales by being listed in Wikipedia. As much as I love the Wikipedia project, it is not the place you go when you want to buy a few million dollars of high-tech underwater gear. On the other hand, if you are trying to learn about high-tech underwater gear; these external links offer valuable information on their company websites. To include all companies is very democratic but completely ignores the fact that not all companies are equal. I have no interest shares or affiliations with Oceaneering nor do I benefit from their success. I do know them however and they are a bunch of good engineers who build a large percentage of the world's ROVs. To not mention them, would be akin to writing an article about microprocessor without mentioniong Intel.
On a different note, I did add two ROV pictures today. It took a while to get them, I think they are extremely cool. It is amazing that we can do these things in the deep ocean. Do you agree?
- Aside from our shared amazement, I disagree - especially in regards of the analogy of the CPU and Intel. While they are a large, known company, they are most certainly not the Intel of the ROV world. I feel they would be more akin to Wal-Mart in that aspect, but that isn't the point we're trying to discuss. I just find no relevant information pertaining to further education of ROVs on Subsea 7 or Oceaneering's website other than a few specs on the ROVs that they have available. If the websites are updated to show informative ROV content, then I have no problems with them listed. In regards to Bluefin, I retract my previous request for removal. Further browsing on the website uncovered some ROV videos that goes great with this article. Excellent pictures, by the way Maotx 21:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Advertising
There is a deliberate attempt by a small unknown company to introduce their name in this article. I will keep deleting this vandalism until it stops. Please stop trying to build market recognition this way. First if all it does not work and secondly ,and more importantly, it misinforms the honest reader. Lastly if you disagree please discuss it and sign your comments rather than vandalize a good article anonymously
I don't see any advertising in this article. Just because there are mentions of companies doesn't mean that is advertising. People who are interested in ROVs need to know about the history and ROVs from the past and present. They also need to know about the broad range of ROVs that exist. Also Frank it seems you are an AUV guy more so than an ROV guy. Maybe you would be better suited on the AUV page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUV
- Bluefin is an AUV manufacturing company. Being in the industy, I see many misconceptions as far as what people think ROVs and AUVs are. I don't think there is any need to link to Bluefin other than them promoting themselves. They already have their link on the Wiki AUV page.
== I agree . it sounds like to me that the poster frank was one in favor of advertising other companies along with his and now since other disagree with that all mentions of names should be delted. i like all the info in the current article and think oceaneering and subsea 7 are good links at the bottom.
- I really don't care either way, I just want what benefits the reader. Subsea has some decent ROV information. What does Oceaneering provide for the reader? Maotx 21:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a difference between an oak tree and an acorn, so for the same reason that not every high school student should get a page in Wikipedia, not every company deserves a mention. I do not have any shares in Oceaneering nor have I ever accepted money from them. They are however one of the major ROV manufacturers and do a large share of the worlds ROV work. The wing design is not accepted in the industry, it is an unproven concept that has some serious flaws and therefore it should not be in this article. Presenting it as a unique solution is misinformation and thus the worst form of advertising. I agree with Maotx that we need to create something that benefits the reader. As for the person who does not see any advertising, please sign your comments it would add some credibility.
[edit] Scorpio Link
- The Scorpio ROV is a class or type of ROV that doesn't expand on the ROV article in general. It seems to be just for promoting all the links in the article and wouldn't help the ROV reader looking to gain information. May be best to leave it off so it doesn't start a trend of other see also links for classes, vehicles or companies.
Please sign your comments __________________________________________
Thanks for your interest. I wish some of my other articles would get this much attention. When I found this page in May, it did not have a single good picture and it was mostly talking about remotely controlled drones. Since then I believe it is moving in the right direction. At least it now has information on real ROVs. I am also proud of the images that I uploaded. Although I never worked at an ROV company, I have visited several ROV manufacturers and know many of the engineers that work on this technology both in the science and commercial markets. I sincerely believe that the Scorpio ROV article is interesting and written from a neutral point of view. I have no commercial allegiance to the Scorpio folks. They are however a good example of a real ROV. The last person who was trying to get their company name on this page was someone selling a glorified tow fish. I believe that vandalism has now successfully been repelled. This is not the case with the Scorpio link.
- Because the Scorpio is a well known class of ROV used by professionals throughout the world and is a model that current generations look at, I agree that it's relevance on this page is appropriate. Maotx 15:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Scorpios are well over 30 years old now. I understand they should be on the ROV page, however so should their modern day equivalents such as Perrys Triton series (XL, XLS, XLX) as well as Oceaneerings Magnum. There are more of them in existence than there ever were of Scorpios.
Ray Shields —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.38.115 (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Merge from remote control vehicle?
I don't see any reason not to merge remote control vehicle into this article. —Michael Z. 2006-08-10 21:17 Z
- There is no reason to megre remote control vehicle into this article. The name Remotely Operated Vehicle may seem like a broad name that would include remote control vehicle, but it is not. It is the standard accepted name in this industry. I think the intro of the ROV article explains this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.41.236.199 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Citation
There is no need for the Phx reference. I think we should keep this article clean of external links and references. This is a place for people to learn about ROVs, not for companies to promote. - In the vehicles classification, you can just state an ROV has been developed to go 7000 m. There is no need to elaborate and put a reference to try and promote phx. I am sure if people want more information specifically on that they can go to google and search for 7000 m rov and it will come up as the first result. - Lets keep this a clean article with just forward facts and info and no get caught up in the advertising and external links like tons of other articles are.
- I did not consider it advertising and saw it relative to the statement made about the Titanic. You are right, Google does bring it up and that is how I found the reference for citation. On the other hand, you have removed the reference to 7000m in conjunction with Titanic all together, therefore removing the need for the citation. I can live with that too. Maotx 04:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] First Image
Most ROVs (certainly in terms of $ value) are at work in the subsea oil industry. It is therefore appropriate that the first picture in this article shows an ROV doing this type of work. It took some effort to obtain this picture and to get the permission from Oceaneering to publish it in Wikipedia. Picture of anything in the deep ocean are difficult to obtain. Please do not delete this.
- This is an article about ROVs, not just work class ROVs. The general public who wants to learn can see the various types of ROVs out there.
[edit] Wings
I removed the wing comment because it talks about a system that is not an ROV but rather a towfish. - The way I see it, this is important information because this is a new type of ROV. You can view the manufactures website of the winged ROV and search the internet. It is not a towfish but an ROV. It operates by thrusters, with the option to tow. - Again this is an article about ROVs - all the ROVs out there today, not just huge workclass ROVs. Smaller ROVs are very useful in todays world.
Frank, maybe you are better sticking with AUVs since that is the industry you are tied into. Take care.
[edit] ROVs
There are other ROVs in the world, other than large work class ROVs. There are ROVs that weigh 3kg that have an impact on homeland security, the oil & gas industry and search & rescue teams. - This is not an article for larger companies and individuals who previously or currently work for those ROV companies to promote their businesses or products. - The are various ROVs all over the world - all shapes and sizes that the general public would like to learn about. I would even go as far to say there should be a section on home built ROVs and the affect they have had on individuals and small communities.
[edit] RPV?
I've never heard ROV called an RPV. Every RPV I've ever heard of was an aircraft. Shouldn't the redirect be to UAV? Trekphiler 15:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
